life- you can probably Google her. His father was Randolph, I believe,
who married for money like other peers of the period. His gift was
"blah"- a spurring rhetoric. His histories are not respected by
history majors as he fudged the facts. Like Napoleon, he has many
admirers who disregard the terrible realities of their dances with
Jenny, by the way, had two later husbands younger than her son. Her
death is a warning against high heels- a heel broke- she fell down the
stairs- the mend was botched- her leg was amputated- blood poisoning-
On Dec 30, 6:31 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Two came with the house Allan. The one at the back blew down - pity
> as it was a nice mountain ash type of rowan. The one in the front is
> called a street rowan and serves no purpose other than to block out
> what little sun we get at the front. An odd squirrel or two use it.
> I know it's ours only because the Council wouldn't include it when the
> thinned out some street trees last year. I have rather more against
> Churchill than the tree, but would like to replace it with something
> more colourful. Churchill is something of a heroic oak in our popular
> culture, but led the country to bankruptcy in wars that suited the
> American Empire rather too well for me to believe it was accidental.
> He was hand-in-glove with JP Morgan and they now run our Post Office
> bank accounts!
> I feel the proof issues in matters like this are more likely to have
> relevance to why we have no democracy free of bankster-finance than
> speculation that god is proved by the fact the tree is in the
> quadrangle when we don't look.
> On Dec 30, 8:35 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Maybe a better question is why would you need a rowan tree Neil
> > Allan
> > On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 8:46 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Questions like whether the tree is in the quadrangle if no one is
> > > looking are classroom tricks aimed at getting some thinking going.
> > > Frege had some ideas I've not seen discussed in here. For him, ideas
> > > were not thoughts. Thoughts existed in a third realm. I'm shaky on
> > > phenomenology - largely because a lot of it ends up in a complex
> > > lexicon of terms to describe itself. Heidegger suggested the firm
> > > ground of our lives was a better place to consider thoughts and
> > > thinking.
> > > Ordinary objects like trees are problematic in philosophy - they turn
> > > out to be some structure of atoms and so on. Some have suggested we
> > > should exclude them. In language I can say that 'unheard trees have
> > > been done to death' and most will get the drift, without thinking I
> > > have been out beating unheard trees with my cricket bat. Frankly, if
> > > the unheard tree stuff had an import we'd find illegal logging
> > > companies telling us about it when their sawmills were full and our
> > > forests empty.
> > > More interesting to me is that I can say (truthfully) that there is a
> > > rowan tree in my front garden. Confirming this is relatively
> > > straightforward. What I think we need to be better able to spot as in
> > > need of argument is stuff like the context of argument that allows
> > > politicians to tell us the same lies over and over again. This might
> > > help is to a better grip on what democracy is as a theory-in-action.
> > > Let me cast this by saying I believe Winston Churchill was an American
> > > spy and bag man for JP Morgan - against the fact that there is a rowan
> > > tree in my front garden. It's easy enough for you to ask for evidence
> > > to establish beyond doubt that the rowan tree is where I say it is
> > > (however much we might discuss its atoms or whether it's there when
> > > none of us is watching it). What we should ask is why the Churchill
> > > thing is so much more difficult (I can't prove this to my own
> > > satisfaction as a fact - but what would be the grounds)?
> > --
> > (
> > )
> > |_D Allan
> > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -