(no subject)
May. 20th, 2012 | 11:24 am
No:: san
Tajās pašās sarkanajās kedās, kurās gāju pa sarkano paklāju World Press Photo ballītē, nonācu Ritas Lasmanes mājā Ceriņu kāpā. Kopā ar baru sarkanā tērptu spiedzošu laumiņu un vienu nedaudz apmulsušu līgavu. Jau priekšnamā sapratu, ka nav ko raukt degunu, jo esmu nokļuvusi vienā no jaukākajām seksa dīvu mājām. Tur bija pat apsildāms pods, kā Japānas smalkajās viesnīcās. Olnīcas taču jātur siltumā! Laumiņas nemācēja rīkoties ar daudzajām podziņām, bet es viņām parādīju. Rita pati arī glīta un labi ģērbta, pilnīgi kā no Asos.com izkāpusi. No viņas lekcijas man vislabāk patika apgalvojums, ka vīrietim sieviete jātur aiz kaķa punkta, tad viss būs kā nākas. Un uzreiz arī parādīja, kur tas punkts atrodas. Bez mazākā mulsuma, parādīja arī izvirtības bedrītes. Un, protams, visam cauri Vonnegūtiskā gudrība (varbūt Rita seko Vonnegūtam Twitterī?) - mīlēties jums nāk par labu! dariet to pēc iespējas vairāk.
D. tikmēr ir atnesis maijpuķīšu pušķi, izotoniku, dateles un šokolādi un pats aizskrējis. Ceru, ka vismaz ne garo distanci. Uff, mēģināšu tad iztulkot Dekarta 57. un 21. principu Kashaduras bakalaurim.
> 57. princips
> That some attributes are in things, and others in thought. And what
> duration and time are.
> Some attributes are in the things themselves, of which they are said
> to be the attributes or modes; whereas others are only in our thought.
> For example, when we distinguish time from duration in general, and
> say that time is the measure [n.11] of motion, [n.12] it is only a
> mode of thought. For obviously we do not understand there to be one
> duration in motion, and a different duration in things which are not
> moving. This is made clear by the fact that if two bodies move for an
> hour, one slowly and the other quickly, we will not count a greater
> amount of time in the one than in the other, even though the quantity
> of motion in it is much greater. Instead, whenever we measure the
> duration of anything, we compare its duration with the duration of
> those immense and most regular motions which give rise to years and
> days; and we call this duration ‘time’. So this adds nothing to
> duration in general apart from a mode of thought.
>
> 21. princips.
>
> Nothing can obscure the obviousness of this demonstration, provided
> we concentrate on the nature of time, or the continued existence of
> things. Time is such that its parts do not depend on each other, and
> never co-exist. So from the fact that we exist now, it does not follow
> that we will still exist at the immediately succeeding instant, unless
> some cause (namely the same cause as first created us) continuously
> re-creates us, as it were, or conserves us. For we can easily see that
> there is in us no power of conserving ourselves. And he who has enough
> power to conserve us as beings distinct from himself, is all the more
> able to conserve himself as well (or rather, he does not need any
> conserving) — and, finally, that being is God.
D. tikmēr ir atnesis maijpuķīšu pušķi, izotoniku, dateles un šokolādi un pats aizskrējis. Ceru, ka vismaz ne garo distanci. Uff, mēģināšu tad iztulkot Dekarta 57. un 21. principu Kashaduras bakalaurim.
> 57. princips
> That some attributes are in things, and others in thought. And what
> duration and time are.
> Some attributes are in the things themselves, of which they are said
> to be the attributes or modes; whereas others are only in our thought.
> For example, when we distinguish time from duration in general, and
> say that time is the measure [n.11] of motion, [n.12] it is only a
> mode of thought. For obviously we do not understand there to be one
> duration in motion, and a different duration in things which are not
> moving. This is made clear by the fact that if two bodies move for an
> hour, one slowly and the other quickly, we will not count a greater
> amount of time in the one than in the other, even though the quantity
> of motion in it is much greater. Instead, whenever we measure the
> duration of anything, we compare its duration with the duration of
> those immense and most regular motions which give rise to years and
> days; and we call this duration ‘time’. So this adds nothing to
> duration in general apart from a mode of thought.
>
> 21. princips.
>
> Nothing can obscure the obviousness of this demonstration, provided
> we concentrate on the nature of time, or the continued existence of
> things. Time is such that its parts do not depend on each other, and
> never co-exist. So from the fact that we exist now, it does not follow
> that we will still exist at the immediately succeeding instant, unless
> some cause (namely the same cause as first created us) continuously
> re-creates us, as it were, or conserves us. For we can easily see that
> there is in us no power of conserving ourselves. And he who has enough
> power to conserve us as beings distinct from himself, is all the more
> able to conserve himself as well (or rather, he does not need any
> conserving) — and, finally, that being is God.