Let me cook dinner and movie and mountain bike ride at Granny women Bistun im in small town and new here. Maybe I'll end up running into you. Mmm looking here around town and Grann one of you ladies want s hard stiff BBC. If you want to write or hang out.
|Relationship Status:||Never Married|
|Seeking:||I Am Ready Sexual Encounters|
|Relation Type:||Sexy Single Women Search Woman Seeking For Man|
I would like know who I am seeing so I can inform them, u can message me or hell wonen what I did many times, Granny women Bistun so it would not lead to conflict, Put letter in the mail. 1 girl needed I am a 34 yr old black male, I am seeking for 1 girl to Housewives seeking nsa Hygiene out for, please be open minded, and reply withI will only need you a few hours a week That special guy I am a 58 year old divorced womrn living in the North Shore area.
You were at JD around 1PM today. And please put tub girl in the subject line to thwart spam. You looked to be with two boys and a girl. Looking for mature Females Let's face it. If i have to, i can.
Skip to main content. Log In Sign Up. Although it may appear that certain persons, organizations, agencies, Sects, Governments, Nations, Belief Systems, Schools of Thought, etc. The author's central thesis is that the human condition is ontologically dysphoric such that a beatitude in ignorance obtains, which, impotent to reason, must vituperatively rage against all it holds intrinsically venerable and worthy in a manner that can not, de re, give offense but must, de dicto, evoke a type of contempt which shades indistinguishably into pity, if not the heartfelt prayer that the Lord, of His Mercy, grant some small measure of Illumination to even such a bare, forked and benighted a creature as, in the pages of this book, the writer of these words discovers himself to be.
As for you, Momus- here is a window into a cruddy, middle aged excuse for a heart, now exclusively fed on the Sentimental equivalent of fast food, and consequently so completely clogged up with putrid trans endental fats' as to now incline the author to set up as a Zoilus amongst critics. Due to Keralite women are all terribly prejudiced against Tamil Iyers, she was not even writing back. Kindly acquaint yourself with pertinent facts of the case before jumping to conclusions and passing judgement on poor unfortunates who have suffered terribly Pritchett of Columbia University for enabling me to get an inkling of the depth and range of scholarly work on the Urdu poetry of Ghalib and Mir.
Her websites- 'A desertful of Roses' and 'A garden of Kashmir' represent a tremendous resource for ordinary people like myself and enables us to get a glimpse of the extraordinary mind and critical acumen of Prof.
Having no pretensions to scholarship- or indeed much claim to literacy- I have drawn extensively on her web-site for quotations, translations and commentaries. In saying this, I am aware that I am in the position of a Caliban who has wandered by error into an exquisite garden and my hope is that my own clownish antics in this field will yield amusement merely rather than provoke the wrath of true aficionados of Urdu poetry. The Gandhi on-line archive and the work of the descendants of the Mahatma is characterized by the highest integrity and an extraordinary dedication to Truth.
Richard Dawkins has suggested that Gandhi had a gene for 'super-niceness'. My own feeling is that it is from a personal commitment and inward struggle that the keepers of the Gandhian flame have risen above the claims of filial piety and continue to insist on freedom of expression with respect to this most venerable of figures. Among other on-line resources, apart from Wikipedia, I have found the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy to be a model of clarity. I have also made extensive use of various web-sites and free publications made available by various Religious Trusts, Sufi organizations and independent Scholars.
I call it 'About Translating'. The pederasts, lurking in the vicinity of these statues, naturally got round to devising methods to objectively compare dick sizes, thus inventing not just Geometry and Pythagoras but, because everybody's true erection turns out to occupy infinite space in an unseen dimension, Parmenides, Plato and so on.
Hermeneutics, however, was about war and colonization and acquiring slaves. The great service of theoria to hermeneutics is that it first infantilizes a conquered people before licensing local pedants to like stop hanging round the playground already and go fuck them guys in the ass.
Patti Obaweyo Golem 'In the political theatre of Satyagraha, as in the plays of Chekhov- there are no small parts.
By the Gita translated 4. Gandhi was killed in Delhi, Ghalib suffered torments in Delhi, and Delhi owes its foundation and first elevation to the status of Imperial Capital to Arjuna's salutary reception of the sublime Gita but for which he wouldn't have got busy killing off his cousins and his Great Uncle and his Guru and ultimately even his eldest brother, that last exultingly and while in the grip of manyu dark fury.
I don't live in Delhi anymore. You perhaps never did. Dilli door ast- Delhi is far away. Sahir Ludhianvi said we who claim to be the worshippers of Ghalib and Gandhi are, verily, their assassins.
And Gandhi said his translation of the Gita was better than anybody else's- because though he didn't actually know the language in which it was written, he alone had lived it for well nigh forty years. Thus, in a sense, if we really have managed to kill Ghalib and Gandhi, as Sahir assures us we have, perhaps we've also inflicted a wound, more or less mortal, on the Gita, since Gandhi told us he alone was living it and Gandhi, we know, was an honest man.
Ask what it was and it was all we could ask- it seemed Open your eyes and look - Delhi we had but dreamed. Of course, you may say, Sahir- whose oneiric hegira to a Delhi as yet a blue-print, with hilarious irony, precipitated him in to filmi Bomay's pulchritudinous lap- was just employing a metaphor. We haven't really killed anybody and should cancel that appointment for tear drop tattoos.
But- if you'll kindly hold off on making that phone call for half a mo'- here's a thought- Sahir said he was a worshipper of Ghalib and Prof. Faruqi tells us that Ghalib's ma'ni afrini meaning creation was based on taking metaphors for facts and deriving other metaphors from them, often by purely verbal conceits, such that ultimately 'the Metaphor outweighs the Reality for which it stands'.
Such 'meta-metaphoricity' is also the hallmark of Gandhi's thinking. True manliness is non-violence. But non-violence in the face of a stronger foe- or one weaker but able to inflict some measure of pain- might in fact be cowardice and thus not true manliness at all.
Thus, to agree to Lord Reading's granting full provincial autonomy before Reading himself had renounced the threat of force was to risk having been surreptitiously emasculated and thus rendered something less than a true man. Hence Reading's overture must be rejected by all true men because maybe Lord Reading has stolen one or both of our testicles and replaced it with a pigeon's egg or something equally non vegan.
Under what circumstances would meta-metaphoricity be a permissible basis for decision making? By accepting, I, in fact, experience a Net Worth appreciation almost infinite in percentage terms.
Being my own master, however, I am entitled to say 'My books are the uttermost public nuisance it is within my power to cause and thus my one true and abiding wealth. I would feel myself immeasurably impoverished and, verily, as one of the wretched of the earth if I did not indulge my vanity and malice to the hilt by sending this foul screed off to the printers. They were Principals, not Agents. In contrast, the Gita is wholly concerned with not Masters but Servants, not Principals but their Agents.
God himself has bound himself to the duty of a charioteer. Arjuna's 'svadharma', his authentic nature, is that of an affectionate younger brother eager to carry out the will of the man he thinks his eldest sibling. Krishna, his closest friend, knows this and points it out. But, there is another interesting feature of the Gita- it is itself an Agent not a Principal. The entire book, constrained to thematic unity, is subordinated to the broader purpose of the Mahabharata, part of which is to teach Game Theory to the Just King.
But to properly teach something is also to show its limitations, aporias and likely misprisions as availability cascades. The purely poetic, as opposed to dramatic, greatness of the Gita arises from its being constrained to this task and fulfilling it with tragic scrupulousness. Thus the meta-metaphoricity of the Gita, far from eclipsing the Reality to which it points, displays instead, with infinite virtuosity, nothing but its own tragic virtuality.
That is why the Gita is great poetry. But great poetry has to be read holistically, with reference to its own decision tree, rather than according to a principle of compositionality.
There is an inferior type of didactic doggerel which yields Kantian maxims to guide behaviour and govern the passions. This brings me to the most important feature that Gandhi, Ghalib and the Geeta share in common. Intelligent people become really really stupid when faced with them. There was once a King who gained the boon that whoever faced him in battle lost half his strength to him. In other words, this warrior was always guaranteed to be more powerful than the one who faced him.
I suppose the same is true of the jiu jitsu master who becomes more lethal in proportion to how much heavier, more powerful and aggressive his adversary is. Valmiki tells of such a King- Vali of the Vanars. Rama does not confront him head on, but slays him from behind a tree. This is a grave violation of the warrior's code. Rama has a perfectly good defense, but doesn't make it- 'You are an elder brother who has mistreated his younger brother.
I too am an elder brother and what rankles most in my mind is that my own co- Mother was swayed by the canard that elder brothers believe themselves entitled to bully and oppress their younger siblings. Furthermore, you have taken another man's wife and thus acted like the ogre who took my wife. I have slain you the only way you could be slain. To be frank, a duel is no duel if only one party wears armor. It is an elementary principle of our Warrior training, that in a combat with heterogeneous weapons, each party is obliged to apply forethought and exercise vigilance against the adversaries 'counter measures'.
Moreover, you say you have neither a valuable pelt nor is your flesh savory. It is quite true that hunters see no profit in killing animals of this description, just as Judges entertain no law suits against beasts for things like alimony, child support, or behaving like Tiger Woods.
This is because the base and envious consider the fact that a man received an arrow in his back to be proof that he had turned tail and fled the battle-field. Amongst the Tamil people, there is a story of an aged woman who received news that her son had been slain in this manner. She went to the battlefield and searched amongst the piled corpses for her son.
When she saw that his injury had been received in the chest, not the back, she set up such a cry, not of lament but rejoicing, that milk spurted from her wrinkled dugs and the Gods in Heaven showered down rose petals. Though I shot from the side, the arrow has entered your chest as if shot by one whom you confronted head on. Considered in this way, we see also Valmiki is not attacking from in front but using our own tamas and nescience to get power for our personal Illumination.
Indeed, if at any time I appear to be engaging in sectarian polemics, do please let me know or, in any case, immediately attribute this oversight of mine merely to my own diligent cultivation of stupidity and irremediable offensiveness rather than some defect inherent in a Teaching of which I am utterly, albeit fondly, ignorant and unaware. The Ramayana, a Vaishnavite text, is of course, everybody's favorite whipping boy because Bhagwan Valmiki is considered 'lowly' according to some modern caste system which, myself a stupid, Saivite, Hindu, I don't personally understand.
Kaaba is behind me, the Church is in front. Thus Ghalib, like many Urdu writers, is opposed to feudal civilization and commends modernism. In the case of Gandhi, who is considered a 'barristocrat', the books Professors write about him make the opposite mistake and ascribe to him a philosophical prowess which, to do him justice, he neither claimed nor coveted.
This is because they ignore the essential meta-metaphoricity of his thinking and its supervenience on, not states of the world, but moments subtracted from states of the world- i.
Under conditions of Concurrency deadlock or live-lock or where Symmetry breaking is required to avoid state space explosion under Bellman's equation- it may be that such an approach has some merit which, however, I can't personally see.
In any case, by itself, this feature of Gandhi's thinking explains why he was a natural- or Schelling focal point- leader. Firstly, he was unpredictable- so having him as a leader guarantees that there is going to be a stochastic element in your strategy- i. Secondly, he has the capacity to make decisions- quite radical ones- quickly. Third, his bizarre thought processes looked like a solution to the Kavka's toxin problem of negotiation with the British.
An eccentric billionaire places before you a vial of toxin that, if you drink it, will make you painfully ill for a day, but will not threaten your life or have any lasting effects. The billionaire will pay you one million dollars tomorrow morning if, at midnight tonight, you intend to drink the toxin tomorrow afternoon. He emphasizes that you need not drink the toxin to receive the money; in fact, the money will already be in your bank account hours before the time for drinking it arrives, if you succeed.
All you have to do is intend, at midnight tonight, to drink the stuff tomorrow afternoon. You are perfectly free to change your mind after receiving the money and not drink the toxin. If intentions are governed solely by one's selfish interest, this cashes out as both sides being sure the other gains more than it loses by sticking to the contract. Thus, the British could negotiate with the Indians, if the Indians showed that they all really wanted something which the Brits could give them.
In this case, the Brits can make a good faith agreement and have confidence the Indians will stick to it- like their deal with Jan Smuts- because it is in their interest. However, the Indians did not agree on what they wanted but agreed to pretend to want things they didn't really want at all- why would Shias or Hindus or even Barelvi Sunni Muslims, at a later stage, want to support 'Khilafat'- the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate of a different theological stripe?
Since the Indians knew this full well, Gandhi could appear to them to be saying 'Yo, Mr./p>
I like to fantasize, role play and dress up. Single hard working male seeking wonderful sexy younger white lady to be my queen. Single and Horny in my hotel room.