text:
|Exegesis Volume 5 Issue #65
Exegesis Digest Thu, 12 Oct 2000
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 01:26:39 GMT
From: Bill Sheeran
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V5 #61
Hi Bill
> In these discussions, I appear to have blundered by making some tacit
> assumptions: 1) That the appearance that astrology cannot adequately
> explain itself to the general public is a significant part of the = problem
> astrology has in gaining public acceptance. 2) That astrology would = benefit
> from addressing the issue of public acceptance. 3) That astrology would
> also benefit from discovering what in fact it was itself addressing,
> whatever that might be. The third point is a pre-requisite before the other two can be effectively addressed. One of the reasons we are having so much difficulty with this is because not only is astrology marginalised from the mainstream scientific view, but also the mainstream scientific view's bedrock (which it shares in common with astrology) is shaking. Thus there are debates to be carried out on at least two fronts, one of which is within astrology.=20
My own feeling is that the larger issue of the relationship between
astrology and contemporary concepts of order has to be addressed
urgently. There is no point in cobbling together a theory or model of
astrology which fits a retrogressive paradigm. I reckon that a
fundamental change has occurred in our relationship with order and
cosmos in the last century, one which brings into question root
assumptions and desires evident from the earliest urban civilisations,
which gave birth to an astrology based upon those assumptions. This
means challenging the cultural conditioning of modern astrologers
before we even start to model the damn thing. What's more, the
integration of these new perspectives is by no means finished within
the mainstream. I have found myself arguing with sceptics on these two
fronts simultaneously - one concerning the nature of astrology, and
the other defending new insights into complex system behaviour, and
their implications for modelling processes (a post-reductionist
perspective). It's no easy ride.=20
> It turns out that none of these three assumptions are generally regarded= has
> having any validity. Overstating the point somewhat!
> For many astrologers, it would appear entirely adequate
> to define astrology as what astrologers do, and in the absence of any
> questions of the sort that concern me, that seems fully appropriate. I think you are misreading the rationale of those (like myself) who draw attention to astrological practice as a starting point for theory modelling. It is clearly not entirely adequate to define astrology solely in terms of what astrologers do. =20
> It is interesting that you mention the I Ching as being pragmatic and
> therefore essentially based on a cause-effect dynamic ('The basis of
> pragmatism is that of cause and effect'). This differs from the
> Jungian perspective, which tends to use the I Ching of an example of a
> tool used to generate acausal connections, based on a principle that
> 'things happen together'. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you are
> saying here. =3D20
> The assumption is that simultaneity and causality are mutually = exclusive. Are you alluding to JS Bell and Alain Aspect's work, etc. here? That on a quantum level everything is interconnected in an inconceivably intimate way, and cause and effect can seem to emerge simultaneously at this level? If so, I'm not sure how relevant this is, as I would guess there are some scale dependent limits involved here when it comes to extrapolating to the macroscopic level of worldly events.=20
> Causality can take more that one form. We are generally most cognizant = of
> the direct form, where the cause and the effect are subject to = contiguous
> viewing. It can also take an indirect form, where the linkage is not = serial
> but complex, and the mechanisms involved are much harder to discern. In would seem to me that complex systems are so inscrutable from a cause and effect point of view that the polarity becomes meaningless. In any complex system with feedback loops and various forms of coupling connecting different elements, energy events are both causes and effects.Not only that, some effects collaborate to produce a cause, which combines with other causes (which themselves may be effects, and which could include some of those effects which produce the original cause referred to, etc.) to promote changes which depend on what's happening in another part of the web. And so on into an infinite dark as regards mapping causal mechanism. Even if in theory there is always an actual web of interconnections at any given instant, the technical impossibilities means the concept has no explanatory power.=20
=46rom an astrological point of view, the polarity can be usefully supplanted with challenge and response, which subsumes the cause-effect web complex, and doesn't require explaining any causal mechanism. It shifts up to the behaviour level, mapping the macroscopic properties rather than delineating the microscopic interactions. In the heel of the hunt, the whole is usually more than the sum of the parts anyway.=20
> My own feeling is that groups such as this allow both passive and
> active communication at a stage when astrology is under pressure to
> evolve from its current unsatisfactory state - a pressure created by
> intelligent astrologers.
> As I said, it appears that the idea that astrology is in an = unsatisfactory
> state is itself an assumption that is less well accepted than we might = wish.
> So, such pressure as we might apply is summarily rejected as = intrinsically
> inappropriate, having no purpose. The pressure I mentioned isn't generated in the form of argument to be applied externally to all and sundry, but by the thought processes of some of us who have a practical experience of astrology, and which has triggered inner conflict within our rational aesthetics. There's no point spending too much time talking to people who think there is no problem. What is more important is that there are well sign posted meeting points for those who do.=20
> I do believe that all the discussion groups
> chats that go on are making a difference in an almost invisible
> fashion.=3D20
> The question here might be: In what direction and to what effect? It is having effect. I'm here talking to you.=20
> I am conscious of those who I have come across over the years, and
> whose perspectives seem to overlap to a substantial degree with my
> own. While leaving the question of the value of this perspective
> aside, I can tell you that five years ago I felt that I was alone in
> harbouring the thoughts on the topic which I do.
> How much is expanded connectivity responsible for this feeling? Everything to do with it.
> There are at least three quite distinct points
> of view out there in astrology-land:
> 1) Astrology is 'broke' and needs to be fixed. Two subsets of this are = that
> a) astrology doesn't really exist and we are doing something under that = name
> we find convenient to continue to call astrology, and b) if a successful
> reading can be done using an invalid chart, there is clearly something = wrong
> with what we're doing.=20 I would say that there is something wrong with our understanding of what we are doing. Astrology exists as a human activity, and while that is the case, it ain't broke.=20
> 2) Astrology isn't 'broke' but is in dire need of rehabilitation to = bring it
> into relevance to the modern times. All the effort to try to understand
> what astrology is from an inspection of what we inherited is = meaningless; This latter sentence is the Enlightenment perspective, though it is somewhat unenlightened to ignore what has gone before us.
> why it works is irrelevant because it does work, and the attention and
> energy should be focused on what astrology can, or will, become in the
> immediate future. I would argue that 'why it works' (causal mechanism) is of secondary significance to 'how it works' (geometric mechanism - see below).=20
> 3) Astrology is neither 'broke' nor in need of rehabilitation. = Astrology
> works just fine, thank you very much, and we are not well advised to go
> mucking around with what obviously needs more use than tinkering. All = the
> furor over the state of astrology makes it more difficult to actually = use or
> practice it, and we should drop all this and get busy doing the work at
> hand. This I would imagine is the most common perspective, mirroring the situation which holds in science.
> In short, perhaps it is
> important to determine if someone is actually from the same point of
> departure. To this extent, then, some form of agreement is probably = quite
> useful, and the lack thereof a burden that might not be necessary. Lack of agreement should not be a burden, especially if it comes from those who hold the third of your perspectives. The other two can be bridged, in my opinion, and also accomodate disagreement (a necessity in fact).=20
> Order emerges out of chaos, and at present
> what we have is a Brownian motion of individual perspectives, which,
> if left long enough and energised with enough discussion, will start
> to coagulate into varieties of consolidated bias.=3D20
> I don't think so, unless there is an overriding force of alignment. Creative dialogue (when it happens) is an alignment force. If there's no discussion, then the random walk scenario is maintained ad infinitum. Brainstorming has a lot to be said for it. I believe that there is an aesthetic dimension to reasoning, and that if there is sufficient discussion, consensus emerges due to this aesthetic aspect as much as any rationalising power of particular arguments (important though that is). Unless one is a contrary bugger, individuals quite like to agree on things, if only to feel part of a group.
> Exactly. So we have to define the situation. For example, are we
> talking about physical planetary positions or co-ordinates and
> symbols? I agree with Juan that we have to look at what astrologers do
> to answer that question.
> Fair enough. We do need to work out what those different views assume = and
> imply, because the assumptions and implications are necessary connective
> baggage that would otherwise remain untested unless they were = explicitely
> part of the equation. For instance, here, physical planetary positions
> might imply the existence of a physical mechanism of = celestial/terrestrial
> connection, and co-ordinates and symbols might imply an interpretive
> artifice essentially unconnected to objective reality. The attendent
> assumptions might be the simple opposition of the acceptance or = rejection of
> the existence of a physical phenomenon. OK - so here we have a potential bifurcation in perspectives right at the root of the issue. It makes sense to pause here and tease this out further, as any future hypotheses will sprout from the ground which gets cultivated through creative dialogue on this fundamental issue. How about inviting list members to send in a 1000 word max essay containing their thoughts in this regard? =20
In the past, this bifurcation has seemingly been characterised by distinguishing between natural and judicial astrology. Are we to attempt to find a model which can accomodate both? If not, then we are differentiating astrology into two forms (as has been traditional it seems), and need not necessarily bother with the conundrum of divination, for example, when modelling astro-meteorology, etc. We have to have a clear idea of what it is we are theorising about.=20
The early stages of biological science were concerned with classification and phylogeny (evolutionary pedigree) - plants are not the same as fishes, so we can forget photosynthesis as an issue for fishes, etc.. It was only later that biochemistry and molecular biology evolved. Perhaps our project should engage in some of this kind of work before jumping off the highest diving board. This has to be pretty basic. For example, do we believe there is such a thing as the horoscope for an idea? If so, do we expect to model its astrology the same way we would for the horoscopes of earthquakes, political revolutions, or nervous breakdowns? This kind of question is important, as it brings into consideration the Cartesian distinction between the material and immaterial aspects of reality. Astrology seems to imply that this separation is artificial. And if this is the case, then astrologers should state this loudly right at the start.=20
In the end up we are trying to elucidate phenomenal aspects (e.g. patterns) of our experience of change, and ideas have a life, change and evolve, etc. just like material processes.=20
Given the myriad contexts to which astrology can be applied, Ed's suggestion that we identify mathematical-like forms will probably result in establishing a common ground of sorts, because it will presumably focus on process and change, which is what these contexts have in common. There will then arise a relationship between the 'mathematical models' and another level of consideration which is analogous to science (which makes use of maths but is not maths). In this regard, I am reminded of a book called 'Dynamics - the Geometry of Behaviour' (by Abrahams and Shaw), which contains graphical elaborations of elements associated with system dynamics (with a lot to say about modelling non-linear processes). The concept of causal mechanism is irrelevant in this book, as it is concerned with what is essentially another form of mechanism, a geometric one. For example, a system's future behaviour potential is mapped out in a phase space diagram, where each co-ordinate point in the multi-dimensional phase space represents a particular state which the system can be in at a specific moment in time. The 'shape' of the phase space, a geometric construct, 'determines' behavioural possibilities. The focus is not on unravelling mechanisms in a traditional sense, but on understanding how a system will behave. The material nature of the system is of secondary importance - the geometry is relevant for turbulence, stock market fluctuations and the patterns associated with measles epidemics. Astrology too has a similar relationship with contexts.
> [snip]
> much for the establishment of a basis from which to launch a = reasonable
> investigation.
> I agree. I think many of the points Juan makes are very important, and
> fundamentally significant to the process of attempting to understand
> (and perhaps model) the nature of astrology. This is the kind of thing
> I am referring to above - the slow coagulation of individual
> perspectives. The potential beginnings of a small group consensus, and
> probably one which will necessarily engender its opposite for the
> purposes of creative dialogue.=3D20
> It sounds to me like this process is more valuable to the view that
> astrology is only in need of rehabilitation, and that astrologers need = to
> get their act together so a unified front can be presented to the world = at
> large. I wouldn't invest too much energy in creating a unified front. Astrology will be rehabilitated when it is perceived to be of value again. I can't imagine arguments making any difference to the non-astrology world. I am more interested in rehabilitating it within the community of astrologers. In other words, contributing to a viewpoint within the world of astrology which is a reflection of contemporary consciousness (which can't be separated from its ancestry, but which has evolved beyond it) - frankly and somewhat selfishly, coming up with a viewpoint which makes sense to me. I assume that if it makes sense to me, it will make sense to some others too. Without wishing to be immodest I would imagine that this, if it happens, will turn out to be a pioneering group out on the margins who have paid some attention to issues which most consider irrelevant. Hopefully, the consequences of such efforts will be a more realistic and effective attitude in relation to practice. If so, this will add to astrology's perceived value, and it will slowly find itself moving towards the centre as generations come and go.=20
> Maybe it would be worthwhile to discuss the three positions I enumerated
> here. The idea is that we might discover some hidden consensus, or = hidden
> misapprehensions, etc. There can't be too much discussion about these things. Maybe the list should become more proactive and invite contributions on specific issues to be submitted within a certain time frame, as well as having the usual chat here. They could be given web space, etc. and comments could be then made on the list. Maybe one 'essay' per list member on any given topic, should he or she choose to contribute. Some of the stuff that's discussed here should be tied down in some coherent form or other, rather than just being left to the archive jungle.=20
It may seem at times as if these discussions are going no where, but I believe things are moving. We are not blessed with university salaries, libraries, bars and common rooms, where things can be accelerated far more effectively. We don't even get real time dialogue in each other's company. A feature of this new form of dialogue is that there is a lot of waste, and a lot of noise. But that's the nature of the beast, and in my opinion, it is better than nothing at all (which is what I was used to until 1995).
All the best
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 17:12:47 -0400
From: Ed Falis
To: exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V5 #64 - Dennis and Juan
We don't disagree much so far as what you said. And I certainly don't see my personal insights into the nature of astrology as particularly original. I'm not surprised that the same or similar ideas have been expressed on this forum before. Actually, I'm rather pleased to find that it's close to a consensus. The only place I'll differ from you is that perhaps I'm not quite so cynical about astrologers in general, so far.
A bit of a longer reply, as you bring up some very fine shades of distinction here, as usual.
First, I think we have a bit of a terminology problem, which I'll take responsibility for. That's the use of the word "mathematics" in my previous posts. My meaning has been that there are deep formal and order qualities within astrology, based on the way the human mind (and perhaps everything else) works, that I liken to mathematics. I tend to see embedded in "real" astrology a mathematics of analogical consciousness, much as classical mathematics is primarily one of deductive, rational consciousness (though it too embeds the analogical). I believe the symbolic language of astrology to be capable of serving the same role with respect to analogical thinking as mathematics does in other areas. I also believe it has similar "laws of form" rooted in the nature of consciousness, and that this is the most essential aspect of astrology. I did not mean mathematics literally as what I'm chasing or using as a measure of astrological effort, but as a metaphor that seems to have a good deal of bearing on what we're talking about. I hope some of this became clearer in the response I made to Bill Sheeran.
On to bits of your post:
> < Astrology, from the practical point of view, is a set of tools or > techniques through which it is possible to establish and analyze the
> structure of practically everything that happens in time. Any calendar
> structures time based on a compartmentalization of astronomical cycles,
> which then become slices of space over which temporal distances are
> measured. Astrology, through a process of semantic intensification,
> presents us a qualitative structure of time that can be analyzed
> impartially and objectively by means of a specialized language. When
> applied to the life of a human being, astrology means the possibility of
> modelling or representing the underlying sense and structure of a biography
> in development... In other words, the astrological structures, applied to a
> human life, establish a calendar for the development of this life through
> the use of measurements and the mathematical mapping of the subjective and
> qualitative dimensions of experience.
> Are we are on the same track here?
We are.
> So, fundamentally, we're employing a mathematics of qualitative
> description, based on an assumption, an axiom, which may or may not be
> true, as in all mathematics - something we draw from some intuition within
> ourselves about the way things are, or perhaps that is grounded in the way
> our minds work. Given that this particular intuition has raged through
> history and cultures around the world, it's at least an axiom that has
> some collective blessing. So, let's say we use it as our starting point.
> Are you referring here to the "as above so below"?
Yes, expressed slightly differently. Our axiom for modelling.
> We use one thing that can be measured directly and with precision (the
> celestial apparatus), in order to furnish a model of something which cannot
> be measured directly (subjective experience, symbolical entities and
> "events"...). This is the fundamental assumption, and it seems to have some
> "mystery". But in reality, to me, it has not more mystery than a calendar.
> The "mystery", perhaps, is in understanding that astrology is not "about"
> celestial objects, but about "time". I feel that if we are able to
> understand the very intimate relationship between time --or rather the
> flow, the becoming-- and "consciousness", we will be able to grasp the
> reason why celestial mechanics can "measure" subjective reality.
I think we merely need to treat it as axiomatic, and go on from there, because it's not really open to any kind of proof. Its truth value lies deeper than that, in a subjective experience that's been widely shared. Now, if we can provide means for reproducing that experience .... ;-)
> But this is astrology only in part, related probably to its beginnings or
> its foundations, because we cannot assume that astrology, i.e.,
> astrological practice, works through a sky-to-earth "real time"
> correspondence. It does not. "The above" used in astrology is a construct
> made of dense symbolical layers and manipulations that belong more to
> culture than to nature. The laws of nature and of physics are therefore not
> the basis of astrology, but the nature of human consciousness and how
> consciousness organizes the world through the use of metaphor and analogy,
> and how consciousness uses the celestial apparatus to build the analogies
> because both (consciousness and the experience of astronomical cycles) are
> intimately related through the fundamental reality of the flow of time.
No argument. The layers are elaborations, much as calculus is within mathematics, and of similar potency. The difference is that we seem to have lost touch with out arithmetic to some extent, or haven't yet developed our abstract algebra that explains the formal structure of the most primitive aspects of our symbolic language, as abstract algebra does for integer arithmetic. Remember I'm speaking analogically. In bringing these primitive bones of the system to light, I think we'll learn even more about the nature of consciousness than we do, because we'll be trying to work primarily out of the corpus callosum rather than the left hemisphere (or the right for that matter).
> I see astrology not only as form but also as content, i.e., meaning and
> interpretation, and this is completely cultural. If I were not a practicing
> astrologer, I would be inclined to think of astrology merely in formal or
> structural terms, which *may* be universal, but in real life Astrology is
> USED, as is the case of any model or modelling tool, it does not exist by
> itself. The relationships it models have to be communicated and a meaning
> has to be given to them.
Form and content shape each other, so there's no argument there. There is a cultural context for manifestation. There is also a system based in deeper structures of consciousness.
> We have a structure such as, for example the solar system. We take it as
> model of something else. But how do we give meaning to the different parts?
> Specifically, the best illustration is probably the process through which a
> newly discovered planet (Neptune, Pluto, an asteroid...) acquires meaning
> as a result o a very complex mental/collective process. This process is
> strongly mediated by a particular culture, economics, and history.
Sure, and by rules of consciousness, regardless of what metaphysics we happen to attribute them to. How do we see that complex process of assigning meaning? Through what filters? We get back to assumptions of how things are in any such attempt. So we move back to the pragmatic, and stand in awe.
> There is meaning in form by itself. But it has to be communicated socially
> and made useful. In this Astrology is very much like Medicine. Medicine
> cannot be thought of without its application and practice, even from the
> merely theoretical standpoint.
But mathematics can. For instance, the development of quarternions was accomplished and lay unused for 75 years, at which time it became a fundamental piece of the formulation of quantum physics. It's certainly not the only case like this in the history of mathematics. Formal development and its application interact in very complex and often independent ways. My opinion is that astrology as conceived and practiced today is too weighted toward the craft end of things. And my argument is that characterizing astrology as analogous to medicine or psychology is wrong - it's a much more fundamental enterprise than its applications, which is why I continue to compare it to its closest cousin in the hierarchy of human endeavors. Really, I think this misclassification of where astrology sits is responsible for much of the difficulty in rehabilitating it into our culture. And I think my stance reflects its placement within in the classical quadrivium, though I'm no classics scholar.
> My point is that there is internal coherence at a number of levels that
> transcends the current paradigm / state of the practice. And I believe
> that that's what sound astrological "theory" ought to be going after. What
> most astrologers "do" is applied astrological mathematics at the level of
> craft. In my heart, I believe we can do more.
> It certainly transcends it. My point is simply that this doesn't mean that
> current practice is *not* astrology or is "pseudo" astrology.
There is good and bad mathematics - I think the same applies to astrology. How do we uncover the criteria? My orientation toward that issue is formal. There are others that are valid, but what will give us the most mileage? What conception of what astrology is about is most accurate or most useful?
> You said once
> that astrology can invent its own rules, make them anew. For example, one
> of the paradigms of natal astrology is the "dogma" of the birth chart.
> However, I can develop my practice not with natal charts but with death or
> any other significant charts, freeing myself from the constraints of
> "birth-chart astrology" when dealing with individual lives and with
> psychology. I would still be working with the same astrological principles,
> but applying them in a different way. The same goes for the use of the
> ecliptic, of hypothetical planets, and of asteroids. They are parts of the
> same "astrological" principles, very pure and fundamental astrology and
> mathematics, because astrology is not about celestial objects but about the
> logical and analogical structure of the human mind *plus* the "time
> measurement (or movement) paradigm".
Fair enough - and this is why a better developed sense of the formal structure of astrological principles is important, independent of what works for particular individuals. By the way, I don't see hypotheticals has having that particular quality of conforming to astrological principles, regardless of their usefulness in astrological divination. And I did say that we can invent, but need to invent coherently, or at least integrate the invention into an overall set of concepts and principles.
> It is here that a historical and fundamental distinction must be made
> between "Astrology" in general as an idea, with its multi-cultural forms
> (Aztec, Chinese, Babylonian, Megalithic, etc), and *the* Astrology that we
> know and practice, fundamentally distinctive and unique. One belongs to the
> origins of Astrology, the other to the historical beginnings of horoscopy.
> There are many fundamental differences between both, mainly, that horoscopy
> does not work ins situ and in real time, but works exclusively through
> cinematic and geometric models very densely manipulated in a symbolical way
> that is not related to physics but to mathematical analogies.
Agree, with my usual comments ;-)
> Of course, I do not believe that such and such practice "defines"
> Astrology. The properties of the astrological "modelling tool" can be
> studies by themselves in abstraction from the different practices. But it
> is the practice, the "act" of putting the multiple possible astrological
> models to use, what gives us the "evidence" we need for the theoretical
> study.
That's only part of it, and perhaps not the most fundamental part, which is why we argue. I recite my example of quarternions above.
> So, from these considerations (like the fact that there can be multiple
> astrological models for the same thing --the different schools and
> techniques), and your assertion elsewhere that Astrology "invents" its own
> rules, perhaps rather than "a model", it would be more appropriate to call
> Astrology a "modelling machine" or a "modelling tool".
Absolutely. This is what I've been saying all along, apparently not too effectively. And actually a set of modelling tools - like mathematics ;-)
> Right now, I think it's the mathematics-like aspects of astrology that are
> most in need of attention, because they provide consistency checks against
> various "techniques" and so-called theories. There are a lot of practices
> out there that simply lack a consistent basis. "Well, it works for me" is
> fine, I suppose, at the level of craft, but it doesn't move the
> astrological enterprise forward.
> I agree, although some examples of what "theories" or techniques are so
> inconsistent to you would help a lot. Aapparent mathematical inconsistency
> may not be used as criterion of validity, because that would be simply a
> prejudice, and in many cases it would be wrong. Often, what seems
> inconsistent or even "random" proves to be following very logical and
> consistent rules, only that they remain hidden or unconscious.
Lets say "principle-inconsistent" to get away from my overloaded use of the term mathematics. Why solar arcs (there's probably a historical reason)? Why primary directions without factoring ecliptic motion in (convenience as like as not)? Why progression of the angles the way they are done typically (probably just a dumb idea, lacking a deep understanding of the basis of symbolic times)? Why, when the whole interpretive infrastructure of horoscopic hemispheres is based on above and below the horizon, do we place pluto in the first when it's in the twelfth (confusion of astrological frames of reference)? Why the confusion with respect to signs in the southern hemisphere (attribution of sign meaning to the seasonal mnemonic used to pass astrological knowledge along in the northern hemisphere).
I haven't even started to get into the wierder stuff that sells astrology these days. Not to mention all the pointless arguments and reinvention of the wheel that's grounded in the absence of clearly formulated and consistent principles. Use of the analogical faculties _can_ be rigorous, and astrology has the best potential around as a vehicle. But not so long as we stay at the craft level of development.
> This is a very simple principle. The object of any inquiry should be to
> discover that apparently hidden order, not pre-judge and dismiss based on
> prejudices or in a priori mathematical concepts. That's why I think that
> the path to follow to understand Astrology is not mathematics but cognitive
> science, knowledge about the structure of the human mind, of how the mind
> works, how it classifies the world and deals with the experience of time,
> how it establishes order and meaning.
I agree completely. It's not mathematics, but it's _like_ mathematics.
> Over and over again you will see that (apparently) very inconsistent
> practices produce very consistent and meaningful results.
At the level of craft and mastery of an informally absorbed symbol system - I believe we need to move up a level from that.
> That is part of
> the nature of astrology, and there is nothing "inconsistent" in the fact
> that the mathematical coherence is frail or defective. That is not needed,
> even though it is desirable. "Dreams" can look very incoherent, but they
> are not, and I believe that many "satanized" astrological practices or
> incongruent techniques are very coherent when you take a look at them
> without the "mathematics" bias.
Again, my failing in communicating my meaning leads to this comment, I think. We're not in fundamental disagreement here.
> I agree that we cannot stay there, because Astrology would never progress
> that way. But this doesn't mean that the "there" is wrong or "pseudo" or
> non-astrological.
All depends on one's vision of what astrology is, don't you think?
- Ed
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:32:47 -0700
From: "William D. Tallman"
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V5 #(last several)
Ed Falis said:
> I have to think a bit more about Bill Tallman's comments, though I suspect he
> overestimates me. In speaking to the list, I only saw myself as starting to
> participate.
It was a thought, Ed. I doubt that you lack the professional experience, but the astrological community is not an professional company; it clearly has nothing even resembling a common purpose. It would work only if the people I mentioned were really interested in making it work, yourself included. Maybe next millennium....
[snip rest of very substantive post]
I thoroughly enjoy this kind of discussion, and the exercising of the tools of analysis used. One thing keeps recurring to me, and that is the question of exactly what we're doing here. It seems pretty clear to me that a lot of energy and very sophisticated effort is being spent in the endeavor to understand (make sense of?) what we know, or think we know, about astrology. In view of the common experience of having things make sense only after all the data is available, I wonder if we're not still at the blind men and elephant stage, such that anything we do now serves only to sort what we already know for (hopefully) more effective future use.
Are we well served by assuming that we've got enough of a handle on the subject such that what we already have is sufficient for our purposes? I think not, but that's because there are questions that I can ask (have asked) that are generally suggested to have no answer: for instance, is the physics of this whole business relevant to an understanding of astrology? The reply is that a question of the physics of astrology is not relevant, and therefore has no meaningful answer.
The danger here, I think, is that we come to regard our current tools and knowledge as completely adequate for the job, and that we will wind up as the professor of physics who told a student that physics was about to become a barren field, for everything of real importance had already been discovered, such that only the details were lacking.
Just a thought.
Dennis said:
> 1) Astrology is 'broke' and needs to be fixed. Two subsets of this are
> that a) astrology doesn't really exist and we are doing something under
> that name we find convenient to continue to call astrology, and b) if a
> successful reading can be done using an invalid chart, there is clearly
> something wrong with what we're doing. Here, incidentally, astrology
> is defined as what astrologers do.
> Not broke; malfunctioning and unreliable. 1a: never encountered this
> belief 1b: logical fallacy (not "we"; "them"). Success due to concord
> between astrologer & client. Reward for fantasy entertainment. Some
> astrologers spin a good yarn based on wrong data or invalid methodology.
> Placebo effect.
Malfunctioning and unreliable is equivalent to 'broke'. I've encountered both views, and regard them to a useful extent as a pessimism/optimism dual.
> 2) Astrology isn't 'broke' but is in dire need of rehabilitation to bring
> it into relevance to the modern times. All the effort to try to understand
> what astrology is from an inspection of what we inherited is meaningless;
> why it works is irrelevant because it does work, and the attention and
> energy should be focused on what astrology can, or will, become in the
> immediate future.
> Hopeless mix of different stances. Agree with 1st, not 2nd, nor 3rd, partly
> with 4th.
I must presume Dennis did not understand the meaning of the point, so let me try again. Essentially, what it is, is not important or even relevant: the only useful concern is what can be done with it in the future.
> 3) Astrology is neither 'broke' nor in need of rehabilitation. Astrology
> works just fine, thank you very much, and we are not well advised to go
> mucking around with what obviously needs more use than tinkering. All the
> furor over the state of astrology makes it more difficult to actually use
> or practice it, and we should drop all this and get busy doing the work at
> hand.
> Cloud cuckoo land, where the astrosheep mill ...
I agree. I think all three of these stances are the result of a failure to put forth even a modicum of effort to comprehend the dilemma of astrology in modern times. Unfortunately, that's pretty much all I read, except for the few who post here.
> Who is Ruperti? Is he an astrologer? What competency supports the idea
> that his opinions have real substance? What work has he done that
> qualifies his judgment here? Are those questions too burdensome to ask?
> Rest assured that I do not find them so, as quite possibly others here
> concur.
> In "The Royal Art of Astrology", published London 1946, author Robert Eisler
> PhD DSc DLitt, you will find facing page 17 a photo of "Alexander Ruperti
> explaining the horoscope of Jesus Christ", according to the caption. He [snip]
Thanks to Dennis for this material. Knew I'd heard the name, but had forgotten the particulars. Nevertheless, the questions about his contributions are relevant; that he was able to present Rudhyar's views more accessably doesn't inherently qualify him as a substantial thinker/philosopher of astrology.
> Lots of astrologers found Rudhyar too hard to read. [He was certainly prone
> to philosophical waffle and metaphysical digressions, which I tended to skim
> to get to the more substantial material.] They ended up learning from
> Stephen Arroyo instead, who was good at making Rudhyar's approach to
> astrology user-friendly. Ruperti's book fulfilled a similar function.
> Humanistic astrology was in those days the healthy alternative to
> traditional astrology, and these 3 authors provided exemplary explanations
> of how to do it. Use of the birth-chart as a road-map of one's future, from
> which guidance for developing one's potential could be ascertained, was the
> metaphysical stance.
I find this quite startling, I must say. I suppose I'm not in a position to judge these matters, as Rudhyar was one of my teachers. It seemed all pretty straightforward to me, although far from comprehensive. The point of applying astrology to the human life as a useful tool rather than as a judgment was pretty clearly substantial, even obvious, but then....
A general observation about the use of such concepts as subjective and objective might be that they are far too extensively applied in too many different directions to have the ability to provide the kind of precision I think we need in the terminology we use here. Such terms acquire technical meaning within the context of any given usage, and the danger is that these meanings may be radically different from another such usage. The point here is that we demonstrate the clarity of our understanding in the choice of terminology we use, and, in general, the ability to use concepts in their fundamental form is proportional to the clarity of the view supporting that ability.
It might be said that such observations are quibbles, but it's interesting to observe how much failure to gain understanding turns on such apparently minor issues. Otherwise, kudos to Ed, Bill, Dennis and Juan for some really substantive thinking!
On another issue, I did indeed misspeak, if not blunder, in declaring that cross posting was acceptable. It is, of course, generally regarded as a breach of network protocol, and for good reason. My intent was to suggest that posting the same material to different lists is quite acceptable as long as it is applicable and timely to the discussions at hand. Perhaps, when we all get websites, we can simply post a reference to the appropriate material on our sites, and interested parties can look at their leisure.
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 18:32:55 +1300
From: JG or DF
To: Exegesis
Subject: archetypes (part 1)
Chambers 20th Century gives this dictionary definition: archetype: original pattern or model Greek roots: arche (beginning, government), typos (a model)
However I think it was in the Shorter Oxford dictionary that I found the Greek root arche defined as `first principle', which seems even more to the point. An archetype is an originating principle that has a formative influence. "An archetype is a pattern-forming principle which is continually reproduced in nature. Each has a constant essential nature which manifests frequently in life, becoming a key factor in the collective development of humanity." (1)
This identification of archetypes in the structure and reproduced similarity of natural forms may seem to be at variance with a common understanding derived from Jungian psychology, that the archetypes are to be found in the collective unconscious. This is due to an over-simplification by Jung's followers, as Jung's own writings verify that he identified some archetypes as manifesting in nature. I find it more helpful to recognise that archetypes fall into 3 categories: those that emerge from the collective unconscious and can be identified in individual behaviour and human types, those that shape natural forms, and those that emerge in nature but also emerge in the human psyche. The planetary archetypes, for instance, belong to the latter category.
You will observe that the original Greek meaning had a executive, ruling connotation (government) as well as the originating and modelling connotations. Archetypes not make things happen, they produce tangible results; the pattern or template reproduces the form. "Archetypes are abstract principles which seem to be informational, to lie in the realm of potential, but often manifest as qualitative components of the manifested forms of nature, and the most evident of these are the number archetypes." (2)
It is in the number archetypes that we find the interface between mathematics and metaphysics. Each one of these has a unique quality, yet it is an integral part of the intellectual system of mathematics. Mathematicians train themselves to ignore the qualitative dimension of a number, and merely use it for counting. Numerologists project qualities onto a number that are mere personal fantasies, because they think that finding out how numbers actually operate as archetypes is too hard. That's why the descriptions of any number vary according to which numerologist is describing them. It is in the structure of time cycles and in the structure of our orientation to the environment that the number archetypes are most relevant to contemporary astrological theory.
Johannes Kepler was employed as astrologer by the Holy Roman Emperor Rudolf II and discovered the laws of planetary motion. Previously everyone had always thought the planets moved in circles, but he proved their orbits were ellipses. Plato described the archetypes as `Ideas in the mind of God' (it his worth recalling that his god was neither Christian nor Jewish) and Kepler agreed. Wolfgang Pauli and Werner Heisenberg both won Nobel prizes in physics for their role in the development of quantum theory. Heisenberg wrote "archetypes are consequences or evidences of a general order of the cosmos, embracing matter and sprit alike." (3) He also published a commentary on what Pauli wrote on the subject, with respect to both Pauli's collaboration with Jung and Pauli's investigation of Kepler's references to the archetypes.
"The bridge leading from the initially unordered data of experience to the Ideas is seen by Pauli in certain primeval images pre-existing in the soul, the archetypes discussed by Kepler and also by modem psychology. These primeval images - here Pauli is largely in agreement with the views of Jung - should not be located in consciousness or related to specific rationally formulable ideas. It is a question, rather, of forms belonging to the unconscious region of the human soul... This view of natural knowledge is notoriously derived in its essentials from Plato, and it penetrated into Christian thought by way of neo-Platonism (Plotinus, Proclus). Pauli seeks to clarify it by pointing out that even Kepler's conversion to the Copernican theory, which marks the beginning of modern natural science, was decisively affected by certain primeval images or archetypes. He cites this passage from Kepler's Mysterium Cosmographicum: "The image of the triune God is in the sphere, namely of the Father in the center, of the Son in the outer surface and of the Holy Ghost in the uniformity of connection between point and intervening space or surroundings."" (4)
Heisenberg continues: "The motion directed from the center to the outer surface is, for Kepler, the emblem of creation. This symbol, most intimately associated with the Holy Trinity and described by Jung as a mandala, finds an imperfect realization, for Kepler, in the physical world: the sun in the center of the system of planets... Pauli believes that to Kepler the persuasiveness of the Copernican system is due primarily to its correspondence with the symbol described and only secondarily to the data of experience." (4)
Kepler was following in a relatively universal ancient tradition, as the following quotation demonstrates. "From Greece to Mesopotamia, and perhaps among the Vedic Hindus as well, an idea of circularity governed early conjectures about the universe. It agreed with what was seen, and extended itself to what was not. The starry heavens could be watched circling, the ring of the horizon met the eye on all sides. At an early period the earth came to be pictured as a disc." The ocean, sometimes personified as a giant serpent, surrounded "the circular land-mass on which humanity lives".' It was called the rebel in Hebrew, oecumene in Greek, orbis terrarum (circle of land) in Latin. Proverbs 8:27-31 describes how God 'drew a circle on the face of the deep', and a surviving Sth century Babylonian map shows the world as circular; a disc of land surrounded by the ring of the earthly ocean, and surrounding that the ring of heaven with its zodiacal gods. (5)
The sphere is traditionally represented by a circle, when symbolized in a diagram, just as the circular horizon is the earthly analogue of the heavenly sphere of the cosmos. The circle archetype clearly has had a profound influence on human consciousness. Even today the horizon is experienced as a circle, with the observer at its centre. Science cannot prove this, but it is nonetheless universally accepted as fact, and illustrates the point that some of the most fundamental aspects of nature that we experience are not accessible to scientific description.
The astrologer is concerned with the archetypal basis of nature because many of the archetypes appear to have a formative influence on consciousness. Some seem to manifest in particular structural components of the human psyche. They certainly account for most of the common qualitative variations in nature. To understand these essential primary informational components of nature, one must bypass the tattered clichs of the traditional scientific description. For instance, scientists generally claim astrology is invalid because it uses a geocentric frame of reference based on a belief that the universe revolves around a fixed flat horizon. This certainly was the generally held belief throughout most of history, until the Enlightenment. And for very good reason, as Heisenberg explains: "Immediate experience teaches that the earth at rest and that the sun goes around it. In the more precise terms of our own day, we might even say that the word 'rest' is defined by the statement that the earth is at rest, and that we call every body at rest that no longer moves relative to the earth. If the word 'rest' is understood in this fashion - and it generally is so understood - then Ptolemy was right and Copernicus wrong." (6)
There is an issue of relativity here, obviously. Are facts relative to common experience, or are they decrees handed down from on high by a scientific priesthood? It used to be the latter, but the winds of change are blowing. If we all see a flat earth bounded by a circular horizon, it may well be the case that our psyche has been structured according to this common perception. Our experience of cosmic cycles would then be relative to this constant generic frame of reference. If evolution has given us this view of the environment, the horoscope as model of the psyche seems a viable proposition.
The symbol of the circle with a dot in the centre has represented the Sun for astrologers for at least several centuries. To scientists it represents the hydrogen atom. To the Chinese it has since ancient times represented the cosmos - earth is the central dot and heaven is the surrounding circle. In the theory of holism this symbol is generalised to represent the holistic relation between part and whole. This points to the archetype underlying the symbol. Kepler retained the form of the archetype in agreeing with Copernicus that the Sun, not the Earth was at the centre of the planetary orbits. Our perception of self in relation to earth is from a centre to a surrounding circle of the horizon which bounds our arena of social interaction, so the same archetype is involved. Whether this be essentially 3-dimensional or 2-dimensional may not be an issue, because it may manifest in either way depending on context and perception. There may also be a reciprocal relativity involved in the way the archetype operates, in that sometimes the part is in the centre and sometimes the whole, but that may just be a consequence of usage of the symbol as model. Another feature is the triplicity of structure, which to Kepler meant Christian trinitarian divinity. His correlation of the link between part and whole with the holy spirit seems appropriate, inasmuch as something holistic and indefinable mediates a bond via which they connect and interact. Gravity is the physical term for what maintains the planetary orbits; it does not explain their relative proportions, nor their form.
(1) "The Astrologer and the Paradigm Shift", D Frank, 1992, p264. (2) ibid. p52. (3) "Quantum Questions", ed. K Wilber, 1984, p162. (4) ibid. p66. (5) This and the following 2 paragraphs are copied from my book p54, and the source of the quote is "The Ancient Wisdom" G Ashe, 1977, p74/5. (6) "Quantum Questions", ed. K Wilber, 1984, p40.
Dennis Frank
End of Exegesis Digest Volume 5 Issue 65
[Exegesis Top][Table of Contents][Prior Issue][Next Issue]
Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-1999 their respective authors.


text:
…I'd like to think so anyway.
I don't usually gaa gaa or go goo gooo over celebs. There are only a few. And honestly Buddy Valastro the Cake Boss…wasn't someone on top of my list to meet. I do love his work and admire his drive and his passion… !
I now view him a whole different light. Really… this is a man who is so genuine and sincere. This is a man whose drive is inspiring!! I didn't even know his story until I won a chance to hear it directly out of his mouth….
Serious… I friggin won something else. How great has this year been too me!! I was blown away with the support of my husband and friends on facebook and twitter! I couldn't believe that I won the TLC Cake Contest after only entering the night before. I couldn't believe that so many people spread the link and so many people voted for my cake. That brought tears to my eyes. Even when I had thought I had lost the contest I felt as though I was a true winner…
The email I received from Amy of the Discovery Channel was a shocker. I was truly excited!! I won! I won!! Of course I had to take my mentor cakiest Christine of Not a Crumb! Exquisite Cakes because if not for her I wouldn't have known what my hands are capable of doing. She opened my eyes to so much in the cake world and continues to do so! Plus… she is a pleasure to be around.
We packed up the car and headed to Tennessee. We certainly stood out at the Tennessee theatre! For …sure.. you could tell we were from Atlanta. We stood staring up at the theatre which reminded me of the Fox Theatre here in the ATL..a bit. The line was practically wrapped around the building. I guess that is what the line looks like outside his shop in Hoboken. Wow! This man is soooo admired!
And when I say admired.. .I mean people practically threw themselves off the balcony when he entered the theatre walking through the aisles! My goodness, I had never seen such a thing. Christine and I were in awe of the crowd.
He enters the stage and began shooting Carlos Bakery T-shirts in the air with some sort of shooter gadget. The people went full attack mode.. trying to grab a shirt. It was so unbelievable.
The show was hilarious. 2 plus hours of cake decorating contest…from moms decorating cupcakes, to dudes making roses from modeling chocolate and having to dance or as Buddy says "get freaky deaky", to their wives across the stage. Whoever brought their piping bag skills on …and in the men's case.. their dance grove poppin.. basically was deemed the winner. He even had the kiddies on stage. It was hilarious hearing them throw their moms under the bus when Buddy would ask if mom was a good baker!
He also had a question and answer section of the show and he decorated a cake in like 2 minutes (minor exaggeration folks).. piping black scrolls on a three tiered cake. Ah-maze-ing. He proudly told us how his new cake factory will be delivering within the USA in December.
The most heartfelt part of the show was when he spoke of his dad… and how he and his mom came to the USA, of how he wanted to live the American Dream…and of course how he died… and how Buddy took over the bakery…devastated… but knew he must move on and take over and continue what he and his dad had in vision for the bakery.
Part of being a VIP ticket holder was the meet and greet at the end. Christine and I felt so unprepared as we had nothing for him to sign. Imagine our joy when his DJ Rusty, to us Buddy would sign our T-shirts… while they were still on us. Too funny…out of all the people I swear we were the only ones that had to strip a little (removing our layers of clothes to get to the undershirts) for an autograph from Buddy. I was looking around for Lisa. I would totally run from her.. Yeah..seriously.. she doesn't look like one to mess with!! Buddy cracked a few jokes about how he wears "wife beaters" as he signed the back of the one I had on. ::Pause for Blush:: ::Carry on:: He also congratulated me on winning the cake contest. ::Blush more::
What struck me the most… ? As Christine and I walked away..he called back to us… we turned.. he wished Christine the best of luck in her bakery. And he told us "God Bless." He had my heart then.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
We often hear from agitated users having issues with their keyboard media keys not working in desktop apps when the Chrome browser is running.
So what's going on? Well, their batteries have not run out, and there's not a kink in their system.
Global Shortcuts in Chrome
Google Chrome introduced Global Keyboard Shortcut control earlier this year. The feature allows Chrome Apps and extensions, be they media players or toolbar add-ons, to have a specific keyboard shortcut or button assigned to them. Tap it and the extension appears, window opens or track plays, even when Chrome isn't in focus.
It's a great feature on the whole, one that makes the new Google Play Music Player so handy. It puts album art and controls on the Windows, Mac, Linux and Chrome OS desktop. But it doesn't need to be visible to respond to presses of media/F7-F9 keys.
According to the Chrome Web Store listing more than half a million people use this one app alone — so that's a lot of people who may find themselves wondering why iTunes or Spotify don't respond to media key presses when Chrome is running.
Thankfully there are a few ways to solve it if the behaviour isn't one you want.
You can set to the keyboard shortcuts to work only when Chrome is in focus:
- Open the Chrome app menu
- Select Tools > Extensions
- Click the 'Keyboard Shortcuts' link at the bottom of the page
- Find the Google Play Music section
- Change any specified media key options from 'Global' to 'In Chrome'
Or you can disable/remove the app/extension from Chrome entirely:
- Open the Chrome app menu
- Select Tools > Extensions
- Find 'Google Play Music'
- Uncheck the 'Enabled' box OR click the trash can to remove
- Chrome apps and extensions can be assigned shortcuts
- Some are assigned global shortcuts, meaning they work when Chrome isn't 'in focus'
- Global shortcuts can interfere with regular desktop app shortcuts
- With Google Chrome set to run 'in the background' it can be confusing
- You can manually change app shortcuts yourself through the Extensions page
This post is part of our Handy Helpers series, covering small tips and fixes for common problems in Chrome.


text:
- News
- Sports
- Police Beat
- Opinion
- Community
- Obits
- Lifestyle
- The Forecaster
- MaineJobs
- Directory
Summer music festivals and seasonal concert series have been part of Maine's cultural landscape for many years; there are now about two dozen. The first festivals of the 2010 season open within the week.
One of the newest is produced by the Portland Conservatory of Music. PCM's seventh annual International Piano Festival opens this Friday with a concert by Frank Glazer, a Mainer, and wraps up on Monday with Russian artist Tamara Poddubnaya.
The Portland String Quartet has some interesting events scheduled as part of its fifth annual Maine Festival of American Music, held in New Gloucester. Perhaps the most intriguing is this Saturday's concert, in which musical furniture is featured. One item was fashioned from "Herbie," Yarmouth's majestic elm tree.
The Bowdoin International Music Festival is Maine's biggest classical gathering of the summer. The 2010 edition gets underway June 30 on the Bowdoin College campus in Brunswick.
PORTopera's Young Artist program offers a pair of one-acts sung in English in six different locations over the next month. The series starts Friday in Portland.
International Piano Festival
One of Maine's newest classical music festivals, a production of the Portland Conservatory of Music, opens June 25 with a concert by Frank Glazer, the dean of Maine pianists. Now over 90, Glazer is an artist-in-residence and lecturer at Bates College. He has picked works by J.S. Bach, Franz Schubert, Frederic Chopin and Robert Schumann.
George Lopez, a New Hampshire artist who frequently collaborates with the Midcoast Symphony Orchestra, will perform pieces by Schumann and Bach on Sunday.
Russian-born pianist Tamara Poddubnaya, a globetrotting performer and professor at the North Netherlands Conservatory, will wrap up the series on Monday. Poddubnaya is the International Piano Festival's star performer, pedagogue and all-around anchor. Her June 28 program comprises four solo works by Schumann and Chopin.
These three concerts are slated for 7:30 p.m. at Woodford's Congregational Church, 202 Woodford St. in Portland, the home of PCM.
Also scheduled are run-out concerts by festival students in Brunswick and Bar Mills on Saturday plus public master classes on Tuesday in Portland. For details, call the Portland Conservatory of Music at 775-3356 or visit www.portlandconservatory.net.
Maine Festival of American Music
The legacy of "Herbie," Yarmouth's ancient and iconic elm tree, lives on – as a piece of musical furniture and an exemplar of Maine craftsmanship.
After succumbing to Dutch elm disease, Yarmouth's beloved behemoth named Herbie was cut down last January. About 6,000 board feet of wood from the 217-year-old landmark was salvaged and distributed to several dozen Maine craftsmen.
Some of this wood was recently turned into a music stand by Christian Becksvoort, New Gloucester's famed furniture maker.
Becksvoort's music stand will be featured this Saturday at the Portland String Quartet's annual festival at the Shaker Village at Sabbathday Lake in New Gloucester. Two other music stands built by Pine Tree State craftsmen (but not from Herbie wood) will also be featured at the Maine Festival of American Music, which takes place every June at the historic village.
All three will be showcased on the festival's finale concert, scheduled for June 26. The four musicians of the Portland String Quartet – violinists Stephen Kecskemethy and Ron Lantz plus violist Julia Adams and cellist Paul Ross – have invited the three woodworkers to share the stage and speak about their craft. The other furniture makers are John Stass of Lewiston and Robert Cariddi of Buxton.
Although the Maine Festival of American Music is only 5 years old, the Portland String Quartet has been performing at the Sabbathday Lake village since the early 1970s.
Guest artist is pianist Paul Posnak, a frequent PSQ collaborator. He'll join in performing in Ernest Bloch's Piano Quintet No. 1. Swiss-born Bloch emigrated to this country in 1916. He was very prominent in American musical circles until his death in 1959. The Portland String Quartet is particularly noted for interpreting Bloch; one CD was cited by The New York Times as Best Chamber Music Recording.
The June 26 program is slated for 7 p.m. at the Old Shaker Meeting House on Shaker Road (old Route 26) in New Gloucester. Call 926-4597.
Bowdoin International Music Festival
Biggest of Maine's summer classical gatherings, the Bowdoin International Music Festival was founded in 1964 by violinist Lewis Kaplan, a Juilliard pedagogue, and the late Robert Beckwith, the longtime chairman of the Bowdoin College Music Department.
The festival has grown over the years and now offers approximately 80 concerts in multiple series plus public master classes and lectures over the span of six weeks. BIMF is a personal favorite of mine. Every year I try to attend one concert per week, sampling the various series.
The first concert is June 30, marking first of the festival's Wednesday Upbeat! series. It will take place at 7:30 p.m. at Studzinski Recital Hall on the Bowdoin College campus in Brunswick. The featured ensemble will be the Ying String Quartet, four siblings from suburban Chicago who have been festival regulars for years.
As in past years, the four Yings will perform and teach for three weeks. On Wednesday, they'll play Dmitri Shostakovich's String Quartet No. 9. Festival newcomer Boris Slutsky, who teaches at the Peabody Institute of Music, will perform Chopin's famous Polonaise Fantasy.
For tickets and a season brochure, call 725-3895 or visit www.bowdoinfestival.org.
Young artists
PORTopera is the Port City's own professional opera company, slated to produce Engelbert Humperdinck's "Hansel and Gretel" at the end of July. Less known is the company's Young Artist Program, which stages smaller productions in June and July under the direction of University of Southern Maine School of Music voice professor Ellen Chickering.
For 2010 Chickering has selected a pair of one-act operas to be performed in English, beginning on Friday.
"The Impresario" was written in Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and is set in the theater manager's room at the opera house, with the impresario juggling the egos of two sopranos who auditioned for the same role. The rivalry between the two divas is this delightful opera's comic driving force.
Gaetano Donizetti's "The Night Bell" follows the attempts of an unsuccessful lover to prevent his successful rival, an apothecary, from enjoying his wedding night. He succeeds by adorning various disguises, ringing the night bell, and asking for medicine, interrupting any thoughts of romance.
Six performances are slated in southern Maine and New Hampshire. The first and only Portland performance takes place June 25 at 7:30 p.m. at Hannaford Hall in the Abromson Community Education Center, 88 Bedford St. on the University of Southern Maine's Portland campus. Call PortTix at 842-0800.
Sidebar Elements


text:
Week of Wonder is what I call my Weekly Wrap-up. I will link up everything that I did on my blog this week - books I read, books I reviewed, what challenges I've added to, what I'm currently reading, all my other posts, etc. I will also let you know about any upcoming events that are coming up on my blog.
I was so excited to win my first ever giveaway!
The Hesitant Heiress by Dawn Crandall
Other Posts
Release Day Blitz - Runaway by Renee Donne
Waiting On Wednesday - Deluge by Lisa T. Bergren
July Recap
Entering Arc August
Stacking the Shelves
July Recap
Entering Arc August
Stacking the Shelves


text:
|K e n s m e n : 4 3 r d B o m b G r o u p (H), 5 t h A A F
2 May, 1942
8th Photographic Squadron, 5th Air Force (attached to Allied Air Forces), transfers from Brisbane to Townsville, Australia with F-4's; first mission was 16 April.
Monday, 4 May, 1942
B-26's bomb Vunakanau Airfield at Rabaul, New Britain Island. P-39's and B-17's hit the airfield at Lae, New Guinea. HQ 27th Bombardment Group (Light) and 16th, 17th and 91st Bombardment Squadrons (Light) transfer without personnel and equipment from Batchelor Field and Charters Towers, Australia to Hunter Field, Savannah, Georgia. The units will be remanned and equipped and fight in the Mediterranean.
Thursday, 5 May, 1942
28th Bombardment Squadron (Heavy), 19th Bombardment Group (Heavy), transfers from Cloncurry to Longreach, Australia with B-17's; a detachment is operating from Perth, Australia.
Wednesday, 6 May, 1942
B-17's unsuccessfully attack shipping in the Bougainville Island, Solomon Islands area. Corregidor Island in Manila Bay, Philippine Islands surrenders. All US organized resistance to the Japanese in the Philippines ends. The air and ground echelons of the following AAF units are killed or captured; the units are carried as active units without personnel until 2 Apr 46: 24th Pursuit Group (Interceptor); 2d Observation Squadron (Medium); 3d, 17th, 20th, 21st and 34th Pursuit Squadrons (Interceptor); 14th Bombardment Squadron (Heavy); Most of the ground echelon of the following units were killed or captured: V Bomber Command; 5th Interceptor Command (Provisional) ; 19th Bombardment Group (Heavy) ;27th Bombardment Group (Light); 16th, 17th and 91st Bombardment Squadrons (Light); 28th, 30th and 93d Bombardment Squadrons (Heavy).
Thursday, 7 May, 1942
Battle of the Coral Sea, which began on 4 May, approaches its climax as Allied naval forces intercept Japanese naval forces near Misima Island, New Guinea. US Navy (USN) dive bombers sink the aircraft carrier Shoho. Allied forces lose the destroyer USS SIMS (DD-409). Allied Air Force bombers join the battle but their effect is limited; several bombers attack Allied vessels by mistake.
Friday, 8 May, 1942
Main action of Battle of the Coral Sea occurs as Allied and Japanese carrier forces clash. Allied bombers join USN aircraft in attacking the enemy's main support force which has around the S of San Cristobal Island, Solomon Islands. The aircraft carrier Shokaku is severely damaged by aircraft from the carriers USS Lexington (CV-2) and USS Yorktown (CV-5). USS Lexington is damaged so severely that it later is sunk by USN fire. USS Yorktown also suffers damage from aircraft. Both sides lose heavily in aircraft, US losses totalling 66 and the Japanese considerably more. The Allies turn back the sea assault against Port Moresby, a key base in New Guinea and of great importance to the security of Australia. The battle is the first major naval engagement in history in which the opposing warships do not exchange a shot. The Coral Sea battle marks the end of the period in which the Allied forces in the SWPA are only on the defensive and paves the way for offensive operations. The reconnaissance work of the AAF proves of greater importance than its bombardment operations, which have no real effects on the battle. Lack of USN-AAF coordination is apparent from the Coral Sea action, and this eventually leads to better interservice communication.
Saturday, 9 May, 1942
8 B-26's and a single B-17 attack shipping and seaplanes at Deboyne Island, New Guinea. 8th Bombardment Squadron (Light), 3d Bombardment Group (Light), transfers from Port Moresby, New Guinea to Charters Towers, Australia with A-20's; combat operations continue.
Sunday, 10 May, 1942
B-25's bomb the seaplane base at Deboyne Island, New Guinea. 80th Pursuit Squadron (Interceptor), 8th Pursuit Group (Interceptor), transfers from Lowood to Petric, Australia with P-39's and P-400's; first mission is 22 July.
Monday, 11 May, 1942
B-17's attack Kessa in the N Solomon Islands while B-26's hit the seaplane base at Deboyne Island, New Guinea.
Wednesday, 13 May, 1942
B-17's and B-26's hit shipping and the airfield at Rabaul, New Britain Island. 30th Bombardment Squadron (Heavy), 19th Bombardment Group (Heavy), transfers from Cloncurry to Longreach, Australia with B-17's.
Thursday, 14 May, 1942
B-17's, B-26's and B-25's attack Rabaul, New Britain Island and Lae, New Guinea.
Saturday, 16 May, 1942
In New Guinea, B-25's, B-26's and and B-17's hit the airfield and storehouses at Lae and seaplane base at Deboyne Island. 64th Bombardment Squadron (Heavy), 43d Bombardment Group (Heavy), transfers from Sidney to Daly Waters, Australia with B-17's.
Monday, 18 May, 1942
B-17's bomb shipping in Koepang Bay, Timor Island. HQ 19th Bombardment Group (Heavy) and 93d Bombardment Squadron (Heavy) transfers from Garbutt Field to Longreach, Australia with B-17's. Detachment of 28th Bombardment Squadron (Heavy), 19th Bombardment Group (Heavy), ceases operating from Perth and returns to Longreach, Australia with B-17's
Wednesday, 20 May, 1942
B-17's attack the airfield and AA guns at Koepang, Timor Island.
Thursday, 21 May, 1942
B-26's bomb aircraft at Lae, New Guinea.
Friday, 22 May, 1942
B-17's pound the airfield at Rabaul, New Britain Island while B-26's hit the airfield at Lae, New Guinea and attack shipping in the harbor.
Saturday, 23 May, 1942
B-25's strike the airfield and buildings at Lae, New Guinea.
Sunday, 24 May, 1942
B-26's attach Lae Airfield, New Guinea, but heavy AA and at least 15 intercepting Zekes prevent accurate bombing. Several of the B-26's are shot down or badly damaged and forced to crashland.
Monday, 25 May, 1942
B-17's bomb Vunakanau Airfield at Rabaul, New Britain Island.
Wednesday, 27 May, 1942
B-17's bomb the base at Rabaul, New Britain Island.
Thursday, 28 May, 1942
B-26's attack the airfield at Lae, New Guinea.
Sunday, 31 May, 1942
B-17's attack Lae and Salamaua, New Guinea.


text:
While we have excellent coverage in most parts of the country, we still have some areas where we do not have listings, and Montgomery County is one of those counties. We're sorry for the inconvenience!
If we have appraisers in counties near Montgomery County, we have listed them below. These appraisers Do Not Cover Montgomery County, but may be able to help you or possibly refer you to an appraiser that does cover Montgomery County.
Appraisers that cover counties near Montgomery County.Remember that These Appraisers do Not Normally Work in Montgomery County, but may be willing to help you.
- Chester County is 15.1 miles away, and has 1 appraiser.
- Chester County is 15.6 miles away, and has 1 appraiser.
- Chester County is 17.0 miles away, and has 1 appraiser.
- Chester County is 19.8 miles away, and has 1 appraiser.
- Chester County is 20.4 miles away, and has 1 appraiser.
- Chester County is 21.1 miles away, and has 1 appraiser.
You may also be able to reach us directly at 252-332-6220.
Are you a Real Estate Appraiser?
APPRAISERSdotCOM is the oldest (since December of 1998) and best internet advertising service for Real Estate Appraisers on the Internet . Don't let your competition be first in Montgomery County! You need to sign up now for a listing and you can do that by completing our Online Application and Have Your Company on the Internet for only $13.50** a month.
** If you are the first to sign up, and you have not listed with us before, you will get our 10% First In Area discount, and can List Your Company in Montgomery County for only $13.50 per month! Do you serve more counties? We have special rates to cover your specific situation, and your discount applies to your entire listing!. Check our Fee Schedule for details on our Listing Plans and the First In Area discount requirements.
Remember, we will list all appraisers in all counties, including Montgomery County, in the exact order that they are received, so don't wait, sign up now.
For your convenience, we accept most major credit cards and can enable your entire listing immediately if you choose to pay by credit card. Be sure to sign up now, and call or e-mail us if you would like to use your credit card. For your security, we take card information by telephone only.
Large Cities in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania: Norristown, North Wales.
Cities/Towns in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania: Abington, Ambler, Arcola, Ardmore, Audubon, Bala Cynwyd, Belmont Hills, Blue Bell, Bridgeport, Bryn Athyn, Cedars, Center Square, Cheltenham, Collegeville, Colmar, Conshohocken, Creamery, Dresher, E Greenville, Eagleville, Earlington, East Greenville, East Norriton, Elkins Park, Erdenheim, Fairview Village, Fairview Vlg, Flourtown, Fort Washington, Foxcroft Sq, Foxcroft Square, Franconia, Frederick, Ft Washington, Gilbertsville, Gladwyne, Glenside, Green Lane, Gulph Mills, Gwynedd, Gwynedd Valley, Gwynedd Vly, Harleysville, Hatboro, Hatfield, Haverford, Hollywood, Horsham, Huntingdon Valley, Huntingdon Vy, Jeffersonville, Jenkintown, King of Prussia, Kng of Prussa, Kulpsville, Lafayette Hill, Lafayette Hl, Lamott, Lansdale, Laverock, Lederach, Limerick, Linfield, Lower Gwynedd, Mainland, Maple Glen, Meadowbrook, Melrose, Melrose Park, Merion Sta, Merion Station, Miquon, Mont Clare, Montgomeryville, Montgomeryvle, Narberth, Oaks, Ogontz Campus, Oreland, Palm, Penllyn, Pennsburg, Perkiomenville, Perkiomenvlle, Phoenixville, Plymouth Meeting, Plymouth Mtng, Pottstown, Red Hill, Rockledge, Roslyn, Royersford, Rydal, Salford, Salfordville, Sanatoga, Sassamansville, Sassamansvlle, Schwenksville, Skippack, Souderton, Spring House, Spring Mount, Stowe, Sumneytown, Telford, Trappe, Trooper, Tylersport, Valley Forge, W Cnshohocken, West Conshohocken, West Point, Willow Grove, Worcester, Woxall, Wyncote, Wyndmoor, Wynnewood, Zieglersville, Zieglerville.


text:
There's a huge difference between software on Windows and OS X: with the former (Windows) the OS vendor continually create some of the ugliest dirtiest code in history and seldom measure up to third party vendors who often do a much better job.
With the latter (OS X) it's exactly the opposite: the OS vendor's products are paragons of software engineering and stand as yardsticks against which the efforts of third party suppliers often fall short.
Anyone who makes the effort to look inside OS X application bundles sees the difference.
There's actually another difference as well: Windows programs are monolithic, looking like just so much binary gobbledegook to the naked eye, modifiable only with special tools (if then) whilst OS X programs are actually file hives which can make sense to the naked eye and can be modified with a number of typical system tools.
Following is a brief look at what's supposed to be inside OS X application bundles, what's not supposed to be in there, how all this is supposed to work, what Apple do, what ISVs do not (but should).
The cover for an application bundle is the 'app' directory. It's treated as the application itself; the actual executable is embedded further down (and in theory may be in any one of several different places). The only item in the app directory is the subdirectory 'Contents'.
This is where it all starts. On OS X you'll find at least three, perhaps (with Apple) four items.
The directory for the OS X executable. Generally there's only one file in this directory too.
The name of the executable is generally the name of the app directory minus the '.app' extension but it need not be so - Firefox being one accessible example. The name is set in 'Info.plist' - see below.
Apple executables are always 'install' builds - that is to say they contain absolutely no debugging information. There is a trick to making these program files so lean but it's not obscure; however it's something not all ISVs care about, even if the frequency of properly stripped executables is relatively high.
You can sometimes save hundreds of kilobytes here: some ISVs are so sloppy they send you megabloat monsters that only need a couple dozen kilobytes on disk. Apple don't commit such indiscretions; ISVs do.
The repository for the resources used by the application. These generally include image files and 'NIBs' - NeXTSTEP Interface Builder files.
The resources can also be organised according to language. The directories for this generally will have the extension 'lproj'. The system will determine which language is most appropriate at runtime.
Programs do not generally specify an exact location as they cannot know which language will be used. The 'API' for finding resources goes through the NSBundle method 'pathForResource:' - the system will start at the Resources directory and work down from there.
If your application is not localised - if it has only one 'lproj' directory - the contents of the directory can be safely moved up to Resources and the 'lproj' directory removed. See the structure of Safari as an example of how this can be done.
Resources may also contain help files - and in several notorious cases can contain embedded compressed and obfuscated executables. Some of the cover applications in question demand your admin password; finding out that they at runtime unleash hidden programs can't be comforting.
NIB (NeXTSTEP Interface Builder) files are actually directories containing at least three common files used to construct the visual representation of an application: classes.nib, info.nib, and objects.nib (or keyedobjects.nib).
These files are used by Interface Builder at development time (and in fact Interface Builder will not function without them) but it's only the lattermost - (keyed)objects.nib - that's used at runtime.
Thus classes.nib and info.nib are expected to be cleaned out of release packages; if you check your Apple bundles you'll see Apple have done this - but check an ISV product at random and you're very likely to find them still there.
As the files do absolutely nothing, they should be (and by Apple are) removed.
Each of these files consumes a minimum of four kilobytes on your disk, no matter the touted 'official' size. And so it adds up fast: a typical OS X setup has over three thousand (3,000) NIBs [sic]; each NIB requires otherwise an additional 8 KB of storage requirements (at least).
That's 24 MB (23.4375 MB) and that's a conservative estimate.
Icon files are actually image directories containing images for up to four different resolutions: 16x16, 32x32, 48x48, and 128x128 pixels. The ADC Icon Composer can be handy for inspecting icon files.
OS X icon files use only four resolutions, but many legacy icons have others that are never used. As OS X does not recognise other resolutions, simply opening and saving these files with Icon Composer can make them leaner.
This is a special 'strings dictionary' with localised version information.
Image files are sometimes not compressed, and here even Apple can screw up from time to time. A popular format for image files is 'TIFF' and this format admits of a non-lossy compression which too many vendors forget to use.
TIFF files that are just too big in comparison to their display can probably be compressed.
This 'property list' (dictionary) file determines how the application runs. It tells the system where the application icon is located, what Cocoa class (usually NSApplication) starts the whole thing off, where the executable is located, what the version is, and so forth.
It also itemises the file extensions the application can handle.
This is a very important file: it's absolutely necessary for the application to run.
Apple products generally have this file but not many ISV products do.
This is an eight byte file the contents of which are also found in Info.plist. It's supposed to help speed up Finder, but if Finder can't find it (and as long as it's not part of a Carbon app) it will look for Info.plist and get the information there.
Many people feel it's time to stop cutting Finder slack - and if you're not running Finder, it's all irrelevant anyway. And as it takes 4 KB on disk for a mealy bit of data that's going to be found in another file anyway, you might want to remove it - and you'd get support from a lot of people in that decision.


text:
White collar crimes and financial frauds are increasing in India. By its very nature these high profile crimes affect corporate sector. Indian companies are also facing increased corporate frauds, financial frauds, white color crimes and technological frauds.
With growing dependence upon information and communication technology (ICT) for various corporate functions, corporate systems and corporate assets are exposed to diverse forms of cyber attacks. Further, data privacy laws in India, data protection laws in India, privacy laws in India, etc have further added responsibilities for corporate sector of India.
Further, companies in India are also required to follow cyber law due diligence in India and cyber security due diligence in India. However, absence of techno legal cyber skills and cyber crimes investigation trainings in India, technology related crimes and cyber crimes have increased in India. Companies in India are facing growing threats from malware attacks, phishing attacks, ATM frauds, online banking threats, trading fraud, etc.
Clearly, Indian companies are not prepared to deal with these sophisticated technology crimes and organised crimes. Recently the companies bill 2011 has been tabled in lok sabha that carries few reformatory provisions in this regard. It was planned to give more powers to serious frauds investigation office (SFIO) of India. Under the proposed companies bill 2011, SFIO has been given a statutory recognition. This is a good step as it would help in curbing corporate frauds in India.
Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) strongly recommend that it is high time for Indian companies to take care of the cyber due diligence and cyber security due diligence requirements under various laws of India. These due diligence requirements are essential part of overall audit strategy of each company. The sooner cyber law and cyber security are taken seriously by Indian companies the better it would be for the larger interest of all stakeholders.
Source: PTLB Blog.


text:
Exploring Gullah-Geechee Culture
When West African people were enslaved and brought to America, a rich heritage of language, music, stories and traditions came with them. For generations, people known as Gullah-Geechee have kept the culture alive, weaving threads into Georgia's history since before it became a state. This week we're hearing how some descendants are passing along the Gullah heritage to the next generation.
This project is supported in part by Georgia Humanities through appropriations made by the Georgia General Assembly.


text:
share:Remind Me
TCMDb Archive MaterialsView all archives (0)
DVDs from TCM Shop
Cyrano de Bergerac A swordsman and poet helps... MORE > $10.95 Regularly $14.99 Buy Now blu-ray
powered by AFI
Cyrano de Bergerac is a swashbuckler unto itself. Since it first saw the light of night on a Parisian stage in 1897, it never goes long unperformed in some form or other. Kevin Kline and Jennifer Garner are reviving Edmond Rostand's plumed, caped evergreen on Broadway. In Michigan, a new operatic version by David Di Chiera is being unveiled. Nor has it been ignored on film. Christian Coquelin, who originated the role, recorded a soliloquy in one of the first attempts at recorded sound on film. Gerard Depardieu starred in a 1990 version resplendent with idiomatic rightness and France's collective affection for it as a cultural treasure. Steve Martin's Roxanne (1987) remains a sweet contemporary reimagining. But the one everyone refers to, the one against which the rest are invariably measured, is the 1950 Cyrano de Bergerac starring Jose Ferrer.
Starring? He's the whole movie, filling it with bravura flair, making it dynamic, witty, ardent, playful. The others are dim satellites orbiting him at quite a remove. Not that it matters. Rostand's extravagantly glorified reinvention of the real-life 17th century guardsman, freethinker, writer and swordsman, abundantly endowed with everything a hero needs, and over-abundantly endowed with a super-sized nose that at once becomes his despair and his motivation to overcompensate spectacularly, is the kind of role that gets actors drooling. For a while there was back-and-forth involving Laurence Olivier and his wife, Vivien Leigh, as Cyrano and Roxanne, the beautiful cousin he loves, but dares not approach for fear she'll laugh at his "poor big devil of a nose." Olivier's love of stage noses was well-known, and likely was a lure. But an Olivier Cyrano was not to be.
Orson Welles, whose appetite for extravagant gesture was even greater than Olivier's was for plasticene, tried for a decade to get financing for a Cyrano film. He even hired his friend, the great Paris-based designer Alexandre Trauner, to design the production. Some of Trauner's designs made it into the eventual film. But Welles didn't. Instead, producer Stanley Kramer, who emerged with the rights, settled on Ferrer. Like his fellow Princeton alum, Jimmy Stewart, the Puerto Rican-born, New York-raised, and Swiss-schooled Ferrer, came to film by way of the Princeton Triangle Club (a private recording featuring Ferrer and Stewart is one of the holy grails of record-collecting!) and Broadway. Although he had only made his Hollywood debut two years before in 1948, snagging an Oscar® nomination in the epic Joan of Arc alongside Ingrid Bergman, Ferrer had starred in Cyrano on Broadway since 1946, and won a Tony for the performance that also was to win him a Best Actor Oscar®.
Thus he was no stranger to the swordplay, the buckles, the capes, the boots and the white plume of freedom with which the fiercely proud Cyrano topped his plain hat. That's part of Cyrano's appeal. With sword and wit far nimbler than those of the nobles he mocked, the functional plainness of his dress, devoid of ribbons and lace, is in itself a statement of his rugged individualism. But Rostand and Ferrer take the sting out of Cyrano's swagger by making sure to provide a more than compensating internal grace and nobility of soul. That's the core of Cyrano, and Ferrer uses the close-ups to make sure we're never unaware of the suffering concealed by his panache. In a brilliant stroke of dramatic irony, Rostand not only keeps him from the thing he wants most the love of his beautiful cousin, Roxanne but turns him into his own worst enemy on the romance front when he's pressed into service as the protector and worse mouthpiece for Christian, the handsome, noble, but hopelessly wooden and dim comrade Roxanne adores. You wonder how Rostand and Cyrano can possibly top their brilliant opening set piece, where before a scandalized, then titillated, audience in a theater, he banishes a hammy actor from the stage and pretends to nonchalantly fight a duel to the death after picking a fight with a condescending noble after another dared seem to notice Cyrano's nose.
It's the famous Twenty Ways to Insult a Nose speech Cyrano delivers, one-upping the cloddish aristocrat by telling him how he could have insulted Cyrano's nose with wit and style, instead of mere rudeness. Moments later, as he completes a ballad he improvises during the duel, he skewers an even more condescending high-born wretch. Swordplay spiced by class warfare? Not since Mercutio has a duel so sparkled. Where can he possibly go from there, but down, you wonder, until he takes over-the-topness to a new place by dueling 100 sword-wielding would-be assassins in a dark street, exhilarated by the emotions unleashed after Roxanne invites him to a meeting the next morning. "I am a storm," he shouts. "I'll fight 100 armies. I have 10 hearts. I have 100 arms. Bring me giants!" And he's just the man to take them on. Until Roxanne, oblivious to his love for her, deflates him by asking him to babysit the earnest but inexperienced and far less worthy Christian.
Stoically, Cyrano resigns himself to lovelessness. Not only that. Because Christian is so wooden, tongue-tied and fundamentally non-verbal, he becomes Christian's mouthpiece, using his words and eloquence to win for another the woman he loves in a deft parody of Shakespeare's balcony scene from Romeo and Juliet. Until then, Rostand had been parodying Dumas' Three Musketeers, upping the ante by rolling all three into one. Not that Ferrer is a mindless Romantic superhero with a nose that makes Pinocchio's seem a pencil stub. His performance is more subtle and complex than it first might appear. During the sword fighting, the alertness in his eyes tells us he's taking it seriously, never overconfident, as calculating as he is impulsive. Ferrer uses his baritone voice to advantage, too using it to bring a somber undertone to many of the pronouncements of this cavalier, with his passionate heart doomed to remain on the outskirts of love.
Rostand was too knowing a sophisticate not to layer Cyrano with more than heroics, including heroic renunciation. One reason the play clicked with audiences at the time was that it played to France's fin de siecle view of the mid-17th century as France's Golden Age. Its romanticism in a romantic era didn't hurt, either. Yet even here, Rostand seems to be satirizing the idea of romantic love in his ironic portrait of the idealized Roxanne as a callow baggage, played by Mala Powers as a beauty of extremely limited vision, taken by the external beauty of the pretty boy Christian, oblivious to the internal beauty, depth, grandeur and generosity of Cyrano. William Prince's Christian is essentially consigned to male bimbo status. Perhaps relenting, Rostand allows him the biggest laugh. When he tells Cyrano he feels he ought to speak for himself, and Cyrano lets him, he almost ruins it for himself with Roxanne. When he looks longingly at her and says, "I love you," she replies, expectantly, "Yes, and?" He gulps and says, "I love you...very much." She can hardly hide her disappointment. Of course, Cyrano steps back in, hidden in the shadows, to save the day with his verbal inventiveness.
Shadows count for a lot here. This black and white film, when it finally got made, was a low-budget affair. Producers Kramer and Carl Foreman made it work for them. It has a boxy look and a stagy feel. Certainly this must have aided Ferrer's performance, shaped, as it was, by the stage production. Deliberately, the film begins with the opening of a fleur de lys-festooned curtain, embracing the artifice. Better this approach, you feel as the film proceeds, than panoramic realism. Cyrano de Bergerac is, above all, a construct. Brian Hooker's deft translation reminds us that Cyrano is more about its couplets than its couples. Far from being hindered by its flavor of artifice, riding Ferrer's grand gestures and sonorous cadences, it's reinforced.
Producer: George Glass, Stanley Kramer
Director: Michael Gordon
Screenplay: Carl Foreman, Brian Hooker, Edmond Rostand (play)
Cinematography: Franz Planer
Film Editing: Harry W. Gerstad
Art Direction: Rudolph Sternad
Music: Dimitri Tiomkin
Cast: Jose Ferrer (Cyrano de Bergerac), Mala Powers (Roxane), William Prince (Christian de Neuvillette), Morris Carnovsky (Le Bret), Ralph Clanton (Antoine Comte de Guiche), Lloyd Corrigan (Ragueneau).
by Jay Carr
Cyrano de Bergerac, play by Edmond Rostand
The Man Who Was Cyrano: A Life of Edmond Rostand, by Susan C. Lloyd
Citizen Welles: A Biography of Orson Welles, by Frank Brady
Orson Welles: Volumes 1 and 2, by Simon Callow
Rosebud, by David Thomson
Girl Singer, by Rosemary Clooney and Joan Barthel


text:
A place to find out more and share what you know about this awesome rare poultry breed! **NOTE: Those who wish to register as a new member on the forum are asked to email email@example.com and an Administrator will gladly help you join the forum!
You are not logged in.
Ideally the leg colour of Euskal Oiloak should be yellow ( ww) this is a double recessive with Ww and WW showing white. We are also seeing blue and willow legs often showing up. Other genes such as Id play a role as well. Share what you know about leg colour here and ask questions as well
For white legs you need at least one Id allele and one W allele. id+ (the wildtype recessive form of this sex-linked gene) allows expression of dermal melanin, so W/W id/id, W/W id/-, W/w id/id and W/w id/- will have blue legs, while w/w id/id and w/w id/- will be willow (green). The B allele also inhibits melanin deposition when homozygous (which only happens in males, as it is sex-linked), which is why males of purebred barred breeds will often lighter coloured (yellow or white) legs while the females show some darker colouring.
Thank you!! Does anyone have EOs with all the leg colors, not all on the same bird It would be nice to have a visual so we could compare the colors.
XOX Monika
I was hoping that a mod could transfer the wonderful info on leg color that is over in that other post (Time for ipf to get EOs) into this thread
Last edited by Island Girl (2012-04-18 16:13:06)
i'm pretty sure i have blue, white, willow and yellow.
here is the blue
By Monika: "I think I understand that to breed out the white legs I need to breed to a yellow legged roo and a % of the chicks should have yellow legs. But would I be further ahead if I bred a yellow legged hen to a yellow legged roo, getting a larger % of yellow legged chicks. Guess I better go back and study that!
By ipf:
"To breed out white legs, you just need to breed only yellow-legged birds. That's the nice thing about dominant traits, one generation and you're rid of them. Recessive traits stick around for a long time; pretty mich forever if you don't do it right.
BUT your white legged birds may have lots of other good genes, so keep them in in your breeding programs (if they do, indeed, display other desirable traits), knowing that you can easily get back to yellow legs in one or two generations" Sounds like we need a new thread. . . discussing traits to select for, and when to do it.
By Monika:
"Yes please, its much easier for me to understand when we discuss certain traits not using genetic codes I didn't get it that it would only take 1 generation to breed out those white legs. Do I get this now, if I breed a yellow legged roo with a yellow legged hen ALL the chicks should have yellow legs? That is exciting. Yet I also get what ipf is saying about keeping a hen with other desirable traits. I have a very nice large hen with a nice shape to her and a very pleasant personality and good coloring except for white legs. I think I would like to keep her and see if those other traits would show up in offspring despite that some of her chicks would end up with white legs because some of her chicks would also have yellow legs, and maybe a chick would have it all from her size, shape and personality and then get her papas yellow legs. Oh my, I think I like this.
By ipf:
"Yes, a yellow-legged hen (w/w) crossed with a yellow legged roo (also w/w) will have all yellow-legged (w/w) offspring. IG, it's a good idea to try to understand those genetic codes - they're really like shorthand, and do make it easier in the long run.
DO keep that nice white legged girl!"
Gubi wrote:
"I am using a white legged rooster on my yellow legged hens and have been hatching mostly yellow legged chicks. This tells me that my rooster is W/w. Blue/willow legs are much harder to get rid of because the id gene is recessive. Even though non of my breeders have blue or willow legs I am hatching a large number of chicks that look like they will have willow legs! Because of this I know my rooster is Id/id. I know this because Id is sex linked and the hens are either id/-(willow or blue) or Id/-(yellow or white)
Hopefully I got it now and I figured if I write it down I will be able to remember it too!"
Did I get everything Monika? Is that what you were looking for?
Yes Susan!
XOX Monika
Island Girl check this out.
I have pictures of all leg colors on my youngsters last year.
Always interesting--and the mottling topic as well!