The full title of the above painting by the Serbian artist Uroš Predić is "Happy Brothers, Their Poor Mother!" It shows three intoxicated youths walking through their village whilst their mother shouts her disapproval from the distance. The painting is said to have been inspired by a frequent sight in Predić's home village—that of drunken youths returning from the pub at dawn. Predić painted the composition hoping it would persuade the villagers to change their ways. He was disappointed that it not only failed to decrease the incidence of drunkenness in the village, but was well received by the villagers themselves, who were happy merely to have been depicted.
Sonja, I'm not gonna deny, I think the mother fussing at the brothers was the one in the right so to speak. I think the brothers might of got a bit tired of the fussy mother, and so they went to the pub, but if them boys ain't getting no work done and no product is being made, then consider me on the side of the fussy mother.
Now with that said, I can't deny, after looking at your organic chemistry homework or test or whatever that you presented, I can't deny, that I decided to post this post.
So, I'll tell you this, on the multiple choice question, I think I could have with decent probability answered it without even knowing.....the way I did it was look at the two Nitrogens in the hexagons and the spaces twixt them going around the edges and that gave 6 if I recall correctly. And then, when you looked at the 4 multiple choice answers only one to be circled for credit, there was only one that had a spacing of (edit) five and that is the one that was circled - so I think you got that correct, but I don't know why you didn't answer question 5h.....but.....why read too much into this or that, but sometimes it is worthwhile to look close is what I think.
I commented because I found it interesting that the author chose a painting portraying drunken farmers for his piece on property. I also wondered how he learned about the painting. I am familiar with this Serbian painting because I am Serbian. The brothers presented in the painting are comparatively well off because they are able to pay not only for an all-night drinking party but also for a musician to play for them at dawn. That does not mean they are lazy. It is fall and the work in the fields has been mostly complete. But it means that they have not developed other interests or ways to entertain themselves.
I was taking an online class in organic chemistry during the pandemic and the page posted was from one of my tests. The way chemistry is taught is too abstract. I am sure the nineteenth century farmers knew more about it than graduates in chemistry nowadays.
Oh gracious I checked closer - "what product is formed when the following compound is hydrolyzed with aqueous acid"
Sonja - that is brilliant!
Like I said, just us hanging around here now, so the compound had two nitrogens one in each six chain ring. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't take me long to find the name of the compound. The nitrogen locations are fixed in orientation and that is important with respect to the product formed.
For the rest of it, seems to me like typical organic chemistry homework and job well done on sharing that - it is appreciated by me!
Sonja - it is just us talking here now, so I'm trying to "make out" the geometric images you have there in your presentation of yourself, and the text is too small to decipher.
Now, if you want to know more about me, then click on my Substack Place. Still, I can't deny I'm curious what the "proof" was presented on the geometric shapes you had in the "icon" by your name. So - nice to meet you.
Mar 24, 2023·edited Mar 24, 2023Liked by Harrison Koehli
🤩 Reached the end without ever encountering the dreaded paywall that has a [questionable] habit of blocking the wider horizon for logocratic content. Deep insights sure merit to be reclassified as Class II property 😊
Harrison - somebody "liked" a comment of mine elsewhere and turns out they subscribe to your "stack" here, so I figured why not - I'll check it out. Then I figured, hmmmm, I need to read this, but I'm curious what the commentors are saying.....and when there weren't any comments I figured, I'd post one mainly just to say....hello.
Hey, I started my own Substack. It is about my gardening ambitions for 2023.
No need to reply to this, but I want to say how much I have learned from your presentations with others at sott.net. It has been invaluable to me, so thanks.....and I'll read this article, I'll add it to my list. I still haven't finished the "Big Serge" article that I said I'd read, so I better get down to business.
What is the probability we all would happen to be posting here presently?
Now, Harrison I sort of promise I won't be a trouble maker and I wont post needlessly and I might not ever post again, but seriously, what is the probability you, Sonja, and I would just happen to be here at this moment in time to share ideas?
~
(Edit) - OK, what the hell I looked much more closely at the painting and I don't think that is three brothers but I do think they hired a bagpipe blowing musician while they reveled in the muddy road with stumps already chopped down. I'm just gonna say the fella first of the three did not look like a brother to me...and I can't deny the piece of fabric hanging down the mother was sort of beating in disdain truly looked like an arm sleeve on from one of the brothers and I don't think this is a coincidence either.
Sorry to be a stickler and I'm gonna work my way through this whole article, but it is stated in the article as follows:
~
"In alignment with many religious perspectives (particularly Catholic Social Teaching), Lobaczewski does not see property as an end in itself, observing that this notion is relatively new to humanity."
~
ok, but what is the basis of claiming this is "relatively new to humanity"......I mean I beg to differ on that...but maybe I need to read the rest more closely, so I reckon I'll do that before I post again, but my sentiment is that the notion of "property" runs deep and it is an end in itself in the minds of most and it is in my mind so that informs my sentiment.
~
OK, I'll read it all again, but I appreciate this presentation of thought, but I think "property" the concept of it, is both individual and collective, and on an individual level, I think it basically has always been this way, so that is why I can't just ascribe that the notion of property as an end in itself is somehow "new" to humanity. I think it is actually what makes humans humans.......nothing wrong with the concept of property, but it takes good communication to establish boundaries. Regardless, you got yours and I got mine....so to speak.
Here's the sentence from the chapter in question: "It should also be remembered that modern legal concepts, which emphasize private property as never before in history, were formed relatively recently, during the period of the enfranchisement of peasants and the development of capitalist industry in Europe."
Also, read my sentence again. I didn't say the notion of property was new, but rather property "as an end in itself." You make this point yourself by saying that the concept has "always been" "both individual and collective." Combining these two ways of putting it, the idea of property as an end in itself, divorced largely from its collective aspects (e.g. French peasant views on land before the revolution) is a relatively new phenomenon.
"Grandin highlights the need to understand that there are different thinking styles: verbal thinkers, “object visualizers,” and “visual spatial pattern thinkers.” "
~
Like everything else it is helpful sometimes to have categories, but I don't consider these "thinking styles" mutually exclusive and in fact I think most folks have all three. So, I don't get the desire to break things down into discrete categories when we all ought know there is a spectrum to it all. I mean who is somebody who thinks they can categorize thinking? I think that is a fair question.
You should probably read her book. Grandin, for instance, thinks almost exclusively in pictures. That's not to say others can't do all three, but that's not her point.
The full title of the above painting by the Serbian artist Uroš Predić is "Happy Brothers, Their Poor Mother!" It shows three intoxicated youths walking through their village whilst their mother shouts her disapproval from the distance. The painting is said to have been inspired by a frequent sight in Predić's home village—that of drunken youths returning from the pub at dawn. Predić painted the composition hoping it would persuade the villagers to change their ways. He was disappointed that it not only failed to decrease the incidence of drunkenness in the village, but was well received by the villagers themselves, who were happy merely to have been depicted.
Sonja, I'm not gonna deny, I think the mother fussing at the brothers was the one in the right so to speak. I think the brothers might of got a bit tired of the fussy mother, and so they went to the pub, but if them boys ain't getting no work done and no product is being made, then consider me on the side of the fussy mother.
Now with that said, I can't deny, after looking at your organic chemistry homework or test or whatever that you presented, I can't deny, that I decided to post this post.
So, I'll tell you this, on the multiple choice question, I think I could have with decent probability answered it without even knowing.....the way I did it was look at the two Nitrogens in the hexagons and the spaces twixt them going around the edges and that gave 6 if I recall correctly. And then, when you looked at the 4 multiple choice answers only one to be circled for credit, there was only one that had a spacing of (edit) five and that is the one that was circled - so I think you got that correct, but I don't know why you didn't answer question 5h.....but.....why read too much into this or that, but sometimes it is worthwhile to look close is what I think.
What you think?
Ken
I commented because I found it interesting that the author chose a painting portraying drunken farmers for his piece on property. I also wondered how he learned about the painting. I am familiar with this Serbian painting because I am Serbian. The brothers presented in the painting are comparatively well off because they are able to pay not only for an all-night drinking party but also for a musician to play for them at dawn. That does not mean they are lazy. It is fall and the work in the fields has been mostly complete. But it means that they have not developed other interests or ways to entertain themselves.
I was taking an online class in organic chemistry during the pandemic and the page posted was from one of my tests. The way chemistry is taught is too abstract. I am sure the nineteenth century farmers knew more about it than graduates in chemistry nowadays.
FYI, I found it when searching for paintings of farmers and peasants. I wasn't familiar with it before, but found it amusing. :)
I consider it brilliant and thanks for sharing.
BK
Oh gracious I checked closer - "what product is formed when the following compound is hydrolyzed with aqueous acid"
Sonja - that is brilliant!
Like I said, just us hanging around here now, so the compound had two nitrogens one in each six chain ring. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't take me long to find the name of the compound. The nitrogen locations are fixed in orientation and that is important with respect to the product formed.
For the rest of it, seems to me like typical organic chemistry homework and job well done on sharing that - it is appreciated by me!
Peace,
Ken
ps - looks like you "missed" question 5h
Sonja - it is just us talking here now, so I'm trying to "make out" the geometric images you have there in your presentation of yourself, and the text is too small to decipher.
Now, if you want to know more about me, then click on my Substack Place. Still, I can't deny I'm curious what the "proof" was presented on the geometric shapes you had in the "icon" by your name. So - nice to meet you.
Ken
🤩 Reached the end without ever encountering the dreaded paywall that has a [questionable] habit of blocking the wider horizon for logocratic content. Deep insights sure merit to be reclassified as Class II property 😊
Harrison - somebody "liked" a comment of mine elsewhere and turns out they subscribe to your "stack" here, so I figured why not - I'll check it out. Then I figured, hmmmm, I need to read this, but I'm curious what the commentors are saying.....and when there weren't any comments I figured, I'd post one mainly just to say....hello.
Hello from Buffalo_Ken
Warm Regards,
Ken
Thanks, Ken! Hello to you too.
Hey, I started my own Substack. It is about my gardening ambitions for 2023.
No need to reply to this, but I want to say how much I have learned from your presentations with others at sott.net. It has been invaluable to me, so thanks.....and I'll read this article, I'll add it to my list. I still haven't finished the "Big Serge" article that I said I'd read, so I better get down to business.
With Respect,
BK
What is the probability we all would happen to be posting here presently?
Now, Harrison I sort of promise I won't be a trouble maker and I wont post needlessly and I might not ever post again, but seriously, what is the probability you, Sonja, and I would just happen to be here at this moment in time to share ideas?
~
(Edit) - OK, what the hell I looked much more closely at the painting and I don't think that is three brothers but I do think they hired a bagpipe blowing musician while they reveled in the muddy road with stumps already chopped down. I'm just gonna say the fella first of the three did not look like a brother to me...and I can't deny the piece of fabric hanging down the mother was sort of beating in disdain truly looked like an arm sleeve on from one of the brothers and I don't think this is a coincidence either.
~
See you later.....
BK
Sorry to be a stickler and I'm gonna work my way through this whole article, but it is stated in the article as follows:
~
"In alignment with many religious perspectives (particularly Catholic Social Teaching), Lobaczewski does not see property as an end in itself, observing that this notion is relatively new to humanity."
~
ok, but what is the basis of claiming this is "relatively new to humanity"......I mean I beg to differ on that...but maybe I need to read the rest more closely, so I reckon I'll do that before I post again, but my sentiment is that the notion of "property" runs deep and it is an end in itself in the minds of most and it is in my mind so that informs my sentiment.
~
OK, I'll read it all again, but I appreciate this presentation of thought, but I think "property" the concept of it, is both individual and collective, and on an individual level, I think it basically has always been this way, so that is why I can't just ascribe that the notion of property as an end in itself is somehow "new" to humanity. I think it is actually what makes humans humans.......nothing wrong with the concept of property, but it takes good communication to establish boundaries. Regardless, you got yours and I got mine....so to speak.
~
BK
Here's the sentence from the chapter in question: "It should also be remembered that modern legal concepts, which emphasize private property as never before in history, were formed relatively recently, during the period of the enfranchisement of peasants and the development of capitalist industry in Europe."
Also, read my sentence again. I didn't say the notion of property was new, but rather property "as an end in itself." You make this point yourself by saying that the concept has "always been" "both individual and collective." Combining these two ways of putting it, the idea of property as an end in itself, divorced largely from its collective aspects (e.g. French peasant views on land before the revolution) is a relatively new phenomenon.
Thankyou for that clarification.
Per the text above:
~
"Grandin highlights the need to understand that there are different thinking styles: verbal thinkers, “object visualizers,” and “visual spatial pattern thinkers.” "
~
Like everything else it is helpful sometimes to have categories, but I don't consider these "thinking styles" mutually exclusive and in fact I think most folks have all three. So, I don't get the desire to break things down into discrete categories when we all ought know there is a spectrum to it all. I mean who is somebody who thinks they can categorize thinking? I think that is a fair question.
~
BK
You should probably read her book. Grandin, for instance, thinks almost exclusively in pictures. That's not to say others can't do all three, but that's not her point.
OK. Fair enough.