The first version of the novel This week we reported that the original manuscript of the first volume of the Harry Potter novels is currently displayed to the public as part of an exhibition on English literature, very close to central London station King's Cross. This manuscript of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone JK Rowling contains important information about two men, unknown so far: According to Rowling escrutura hand, Dudley was originally going to call Didsbury, and Hedwig was going to Kallicrater call. It also describes passages that were not included in the book, which is crossed out by the author, as Harry marking the days on a calendar to go to Hogwarts for the first time, and the beginning of the course starting 9 days before the August 21:. It's great to know this interesting information, although several years have passed from the beginning of the saga of Harry Potter books
. WOW! interesting to know these data that good that JK was decided by the name of Hedwig is a pretty name for an owl like that was Harry. I started trying to read what is written but it is noteworthy that I do not understand the lyrics of Rowling. -. It has lyrics by Dr. CX Hahaha. LESTRAS DOCTOR AND THE ONLY UNDERSTAND THEMSELVES As a lover of books, journals, and old maps, I found it interesting to share this link on some very old books. The first of these is the Codex Sinaiticus (Codex Sinaiticus), a manuscript of the Greek version of the Bible written in scriptio continuous (it is a style of manuscript writing in the unused spaces to separate words) between 330 and 350 of our era. The Codex Sinaiticus is one of the most valuable manuscripts for textual criticism of the New Testament in its Greek version, along with the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus. But the most interesting, at least what prompted me to write this brief entry, which is available on the web, with free access, allowing the scholars to access the originals. In the same vein, another manuscript of different features, but related to religion, is the Codex Gigas. The Codex Gigas ("big book" in Latin) is an ancient medieval manuscript written in the early thirteenth century, presumably by the monk Herman the Recluse, the monastery of Podlažice (Czech Republic). In its time it was considered as the eighth wonder of the world due to its enormous size: 92cm Global Voices (Global Voices) is an international network of bloggers who translate, report and defend the blogs and citizen media around the world Find out why It is necessary in this centenary (1912-2012) collected the work of the immortal poet dispersed Orihuela, as well as many articles, reviews, oponiones and comments have been posted on it. This is unique opportunity to collect unpublished. And claiming the publication of his Complete Works. We fenollianos. Directed by Ramon Fernandez Portal Palm. The objectives of these few words are a brief description of the manuscript in question, noting the importance of Carlos Fenoll in life and poetry of Miguel Hernandez and investigate If she would retire one day, leaving his work and signs on the beaches of our civilization, structuralist invasion would become a question for the historian of ideas. Maybe even an object. But the historian be wrong if it came to that: for the gesture as he saw it as an object, he would forget the meaning, and it's an adventure first glance, to conversion in the manner of questioning in any subject. Before his historic objects ¾ ¾ in particular. And among them very unusual, literary thing. Nevertheless, by a zone of irreducible his thoughtlessness and spontaneity, the shadow of essential undeclared, the structuralist phenomenon deserves to be treated by the historian of ideas. Right or wrong. The deserve everything in this phenomenon is not transparent to itself the question, everything in the effectiveness of a method, that of Infallibility is ready to sleepwalking and was attributed previously to instinct which was said to be even more sure that he was blind. This is not the slightest dignity of the science called human history that concern by privilege, in deeds and institutions of man, the vast region of sleepwalking, the almost-everything that is not the awakening pure, sterile and silent acidity of the question itself, the almost-nothing. [T] hese analyzes are possible only after a certain defeat of force and the fervor of the movement subsided. That in which consciousness is consciousness structuralist short as thought of the past, I mean the fact in general. Reflection of the achieved, consisting of, the construct. Historian, and Twilight by eschatique situation. God, the God of Leibniz, as we just talked about, did not know the agony of choice between possible: this is something he thought possible and disposed of it as such in his Mind or Logos c is the "best" that in all cases, favors a narrow passage that is Will. And each continued existence of "express" the entire universe. There is therefore no tragedy of the book here. There is only one book and it's the same book which is distributed in all the books. This is because it is opening, within the meaning of the word young, that writing is dangerous and scary. She does not know where it goes, no wisdom custody of the rush [Latin praecipitatio (n-), from praecipitare 'throw down or headlong'] essential to the way it is and who is first its future. It is yet capricious as cowardice. So there is no insurance against this risk. [...] Circularity and traditionality of the Logos. Strange conversion work and adventure where grace may be that the absent. The mere anticipation of the Idea or the "inner purpose" in terms of a work which expresses only, what would be a bias: that of traditional criticism called idealist. It is no accident that the theory we could say that ¾ times ¾ theology of this prejudice flourished during the Renaissance. [...] If writing is inaugural, it is not because it creates, but by some absolute freedom to say, to bring out the already there in its sign, to take his auguries. Freedom of response which recognizes only horizon-world history and speech that can not say: Being has always already begun. On qualities, strengths and values, also works on non divine read by finite minds, that confidence in the mathematical-spatial representation seems to be (on the scale of an entire civilization because it is not here Language of rousset but all of our language and its credit) analogous to the confidence of Kanak artists, for example, spreads in the representation of depth. [...] We do not oppose here, by a simple pendulum, balancing or upset, the term space, quality over quantity, strength of form, depth of meaning or value at the surface of FIGS. Quite the contrary. Against the simple alternative, against the simple choice of one of the series, we believe that we must seek new concepts and new models, an economy beyond this system of metaphysical oppositions. This economy is not an energy of pure strength and informs. Differences were considered both differences and differences in places of power. If we appear here to oppose a series to another, it is only within the conventional system, we want to show the non-critical privilege only granted by a certain structuralism, to another. Our speech is the system of irréduciblement metaphysical oppositions. We can not announce the breakdown of membership by some organization, some strategic planning, within the field and its own ouvoirs, turning him against his own stratagems, produces a force of dislocation propagating through all system, the cracking in all directions and de-limiting side to side. [T] he simultaneity is the myth, promoted regulative ideal, a read or a total description. Research explains the simultaneous fascination with the image space: the space is it not "the order of coexistence" (Leibniz)? But saying "simultaneity" instead of space, we try to focus on time instead of forgetting it. "The term takes on the illusory form of a homogeneous medium, and the link between these two terms, space and duration, is simultaneity, we could define the intersection of time with space." [Bergson, An Essay on the immediate data of consciousness] In this requirement the flat and horizontal, it is the richness, the involvement of the volume that is intolerable to structuralism, all that the service can not be spread in the simultaneity of a shape. But is it a coincidence that the book's first volume? And if the meaning of meaning (in the general sense of meaning and not signaling), is the involvement infinite? Indefinite referral of signifier to signifier? If its strength is a certain pure and infinite equivocality leaving no respite, no rest for the purposes served, the engaging in its own economy, to sign and still differ?. It is true that the denial of teleology is a rule of law, a methodical standard that structuralism is difficult to apply. It is towards the telos a vow of impiety which the work is never true. Structuralism and lives in the difference between his vow and its done. Whether it is biology, linguistics and literature, how to see without an organized totality from its end? the presumption, at least, its end? And if the meaning is the sense in a whole, how would arise if all was not driven by the anticipation of an end, by an intentionality that is also not necessarily and primarily that of a conscience? If there are structures, are possible from this basic structure by which all opens and beyond to make sense in more indeterminate. This opening is certainly freeing time and genesis (blends well with them), but also that risk by informing, to confine the future. Force to silence the form. While it is recognized that [...] what the threat inside the light, it is also what threatens all metaphysically structuralism: hide the meaning in the very act by which it is discovered. Understand the structure of a becoming, as a force is losing its meaning the winner. The sense of fate and of force, in their pure and clean as is the rest of the beginning and the end, peace of a show, or face horizon. In rest and peace in this, the quality of the fate and force is offended by the very meaning. The meaning of meaning is Apollonian in all that it shows up. Mean force as the origin of the phenomenon, it's probably not saying anything. When it is said, the force is already phenomenon. Hegel had clearly shown that the explanation of a phenomenon by a force is a tautology. But in saying this, we must aim for a certain inability of language to come out of himself to say his original thought and not of force. The strength is the other language, without which it would not be what it is. Because philosophy was determined in its history as a reflection of the poetic inauguration. [...] As such, that is to say until it has not explicitly opened the strategic operation which we spoke above, which can simply be thought of as the structuralism, critical n 'have neither the means nor the motive above all to abandon the eurythmy, geometry, the privilege of looking, to which ecstasy Apollonian "product before the irritation of the eye that gives the eye the faculty vision. " They may not exceed the strength to love and the movement for it displaces lines, to love as a movement, as desire, em himself, and not the accident or the epiphany of the lines. To writing. There is no Trojan horse has reason Reason (in general). Unsurpassable greatness, irreplaceable, the imperial order of reason, so she is not an order or structure is a historic structure determined from a structure, other possibilities, it is one can not appeal against it to her, we can not protest against it in her, she leaves us, on his own field, that recourse to stratagem and strategy. That is to summon a historical determination of reason to the court of reason in general. The revolution against reason, as history of classical reason, of course (but this is just one example given of reason in general. And it is because of this uniqueness of Reason that The term "history of reason" is difficult to think and therefore also a "history of madness"), the revolution against reason can be that she, as a Hegelian dimension to which, for my part I was very sensitive, in Foucault's book, despite the lack of precise reference to Hegel. Can not operate only within reason as soon as she utters, the revolution against reason has always limited the scope of what we call, precisely in the language of the interior ministry, a agitation. One can probably not write a story or an archeology against reason, because, despite appearances, the concept of history has always been a rational concept. This is the meaning of "history" or "Archie" he might have had to ask first. Exceeding a writing, to question them, the original values, reason, history, can not contain let the metaphysical closure of archeology. [Speaks of Derrida here too has some unitary origin, a common root (soi carrying Within the "free trade" of the Middle Ages) the split making possible]. The free movement of crazy, besides it is not so free, so just open it, if only an epiphenomenon socioeconomic on the surface of a reason already divided against itself since the dawn of its Greek origin. [...] Wanting to write the history of the decision, the sharing, the difference, there is a danger of division in the event form or structure occurring at the original presence of a unit, and thereby confirm the metaphysical in its basic operation. If, conversely, otherwise no unity and inclusive of logos is preserved until the "crisis" classic, then it is li, so to speak, secondary and derivative. It does not commit any reason. And in this case be said in passing, the Socratic discourse would therefore reassuring. The classic crisis would develop from elementary and in the tradition of a logos that do not have an opposite but carries with it and determined says contradiction. This doctrine of tradition and sense of reason would have been all the more necessary that she alone can give meaning and rationality in general discourse of Foucault and all talk of war between reason and unreason. Because they hear speech to be heard. And if the madness is, in general, beyond any historical structure and dummy purpose, absence of work, then madness is in essence and in general, silence, speechless, in a break and a wound that begin life as well historicity in general. Silence not determined, not taxed at that time rather than another, but in essence linked to a coup, which open to a forbidden history and speech. In general. It is in the dimension of historicity in general, not be confused with an ahistorical eternity, nor with any time empirically determined facts of history, from silent irreducible door and haunts language, and off which one, and against which it can only arise, "cons" here denoting both the background against which the form is removed by force and the opponent against which I am assured and reassured me by force. Although the silence of madness is the absence of work, it is not simply highlight of the work, it is not out of work for the language and meaning. It is also, as nonsense, and the resource limit deep. So, getting back to Descartes, philosopher or speaking subject (and the philosopher is the speaking subject of choice) to evoke the madness within the mind (not just the body or any authority extrinsic), can not do that in the dimension of the possibility and the language of fiction or the fiction of language. Thus he reassures his language against the madness that is ¾ can sometimes seem very talkative, that's another problem ¾ it takes its substance, the distance necessary to continue to speak and live. But there is not a failure or a search of security that a particular historical language (for example, the quest for "certainty" in the Cartesian style), but the essence and very project of any language in general and even more insane in appearance, and even and especially those who, by the praise of folly, for complicity with madness, are measured as close to madness. The language is breaking even with madness, it is more akin to its essence and its vocation, he breaks even better if it is measured more freely and she approaches it more: up n ' be only separated by the "transparent sheet" referred to Joyce, by itself, because this diaphaneity is nothing other than the language, meaning, the ability and discretion of an elementary anything that neutralizes all. In this sense, I would be tempted to consider Foucault's book as a powerful gesture of protection and confinement. A Cartesian gesture for the twentieth century. Recovery of negativity. Apparently, this is the reason that it contains in turn, but, as did, this is the reason he chose yesterday as the target, not the possibility of meaning in general. [...] Not only does Descartes more madness at the door in the phase of radical doubt, he not only moved into the possibility threatening the heart of the intelligible, but he allowed no knowledge determined to escape the law. Threatening the whole of knowledge, the extravagance of the hypothesis ¾ ¾ extravagance is not an internal modification. At no time can therefore knowledge alone dominate. madness and control, that is to say objectify. At least until the doubt is lifted. Since the end of the doubt is a problem that we find ourselves in a moment. It would be an example only because one discovers one day what is the ground dogmatic and historically determined ¾ ours ¾ on which the critique of deductivism Cartesian, the rise and the madness of Husserlian reduction of the entire world [CERN is More Than Willing to Realize Such a project] had to sit and say to deprive. We can repeat for Husserl what Foucault did for Descartes: show how the neutralization of the world is a factual neutralization (in the sense that neutralize, but also control, reduce, indulge in a straightjacket), neutralization of nonsense The most subtle form of a coup. And in truth, Husserl increasingly associated the theme of normality and that of the transcendental reduction. The roots of transcendental phenomenology in the metaphysics of presence, the whole theme of Husserl's living present is the assurance of deep meaning in his certainty. And nowhere and never the concept of crisis could enrich and bring together all the potentialities, as all the energy of its meaning, as, perhaps, that from the book by Michel Foucault. Here the crisis is on the one hand, in the Husserlian sense, the danger threatening the reason and sense in the case of objectivism, of forgetfulness of origins, the recovery by unveiling his rationalist and transcendental itself. Risk as the movement of its security threatened by reason itself, etc.. Crisis because finally, access to reason and because of access. For what Foucault teaches us to think, is that there are crises because strangely complicit in what the world calls crises of madness. 95-7, 61-3. In the Book questions [...] a powerful and ancient root is exhumed and an injury on her ageless naked (because that Jabesh teaches us is that the roots talking, tired words that want to push and poetic discourse is started in a wound): this is a Judaism as birth and passion for writing. Passion for writing, love and endurance of the letter can not be said if the subject is the Jew or the Letter itself. Root may be common to a people and writing. Immeasurable intended in any case, that the story of an ente. Autonomy poetic, unlike any other, suppose the broken tables. [...] Between the pieces of the broken table and pushes the poem is rooted the right to speak. Text adventure starts as a weed, outside the law, far from "the homeland of the Jews" who "is a sacred text in the middle of comments …" The need of the commentary is, as the poetic necessity, the very form of the word exile. In the beginning is hermeneutics. But the common inability to reach the middle of the sacred text and the common need of exegesis, the interpretation of this requirement is interpreted differently by the poet and Rabbi. The difference between the horizon of the original text and exegetic writing makes the irreducible difference between the poet and the rabbi. Can never meet, yet so close to each other, how they would join the community? The opening of the original interpretation basically means that there will always rabbis and poets. And two interpretations of interpretation. The Act becomes law in question and the word is confused with the duty to question. The book of man is a book of questions. [...] Breaking tables of said first rupture in God as the origin of the story. God separated self to let us talk, we wonder and ask ourselves. He did so not by speaking but by keeping quiet, letting silence interrupt his voice and his signs, leaving the broken tables. 102-3, 67. Kafka said: "We are nihilistic thoughts that rise in the brain of God. "If God opens the question of God, even if the opening of the question, there is no simplicity of God. What was unthinkable for classical rationalists here becomes evident. God doing in the duplicity of his own questioning, does not act by the simplest ways and it is not truthful, he is not sincere. Sincerity, which is simplicity, a virtue is false. We must instead go to the virtue of the lie. [...] This way no truth above to prescribe its correctness, it is the way in the desert. Writing is the time of the desert as the time of separation. Their name implies ¾ ¾ in Aramaic: the Pharisees, the misunderstood, the men of the letter were also "separated. "[...] Must be separated from life and communities, and to confide in traces, become a man of respect because we no longer hear the voice in the immediate vicinity of garden. 103-4. "The Nothing is our primary concern, said Reb Idar" and nothing like ¾ ¾ Being can only be silent and hide. [...] Nothing flowers in the sand between the pavers or, if not in words. [...] (The Greek language we would probably say a lot about the strange relationship of the law, of wandering and non-self-identity, the common root ¾ ¾ nemein sharing, the economy and nomadism). [...] The poet and the Jew ¾ ¾ protects the wilderness that protects his word who can only speak in the wilderness that protects his writing that can roam the desert. That is to say by inventing, only a path not found and no resolution Cartesian inassigné which we can ensure the right line and the end. "Where is the path? The way is always to find. A blank sheet is filled with paths … We will trace the same route ten times, hundred times … "105, 69. Being a poet is to let the word know. Let it speak for itself, what it can do so in writing. [...] Leave writing this is to be there only to let her pass, to be the diaphanous element of his procession: everything and nothing. In view of the work, the writer is mad at everything and nothing. 106. Metaphor or animality of the letter is the first and ambiguity of the signifier as infinite Life. Psychic subversion of literality inert, that is to say, or the nature of speech returned to nature. This power-on life as meaning occurs in the restlessness and wandering of language always richer than knowledge, having always movement to go beyond the certainty peaceful and sedentary. "How to say what I know / with words whose meaning / is multiple? ". If adding, what we do here, miserable graffiti immense poem, it was taken to reduce its "thematic structure" as they say, you should recognize that nothing is original. The question in God, the negativity in God as the historicity of liberation and of human speech, writing of man as desire and the question of God (and the double génitivité is ontological before being grammatical or rather the roots of the ontological and the grammatical graphein), history and discourse as wrath of God out of self, etc.., etc.., these are reasons enough proven: they are not specific to First Boehme, the German Romantics, Hegel, the last Scheler, etc.., etc.. Negativity in God, exile as writing the life of the last letter, it is already the Kabbalah. Which means "tradition" itself. Jabesh and is aware of the resonances of his cabalistic book. He plays sometimes. 111-2, 74. Between the flesh too strong for the event literal and cold skin of the concept runs meaning. Thus it happens in the book. Everything (is) going on in the book. All must live in the book. The books also. That is why the book is never finished. There are still outstanding and dormant. 112. If it [writing] is not tearing itself to the other in the confession of infinite separation, if it is self-enjoyment, pleasure of writing to write, contentment of the artist, it destroys itself. She syncope in the roundness of the egg and the fullness of the Same. It is true that going to the other, it is also denied and if the meaning is alienated in the passage of writing. The intent is hard to surpass and to say so. [...] Without doubt, as the end of writing the script goes, its origin is not she still in the book. The writer, a builder and caretaker of the book, stands at the entrance of the house. The writer is a smuggler and his destiny has always a meaning statement. The non-issue we are talking about is not yet a dogma, and the act of faith in the book may precede, we know, the belief in the Bible. Also survive him. The non-issue we are talking about is the certainty inentamée that being is a grammar, and the world from end to form a cryptogram or decryption re-entry or poetic that the book is from, any thing is the book before it and to be born can be born in approaching the book, failing that can not die for the book and still impassable shore of the book is first. But if the Book was, in every sense of the word, a time of being (see time graduate leaving Being in the glow of his agony or loosening of his grip and multiply, as last illness, as the tenacious hypermnesia talkative and some dying, books on the book death)? If the shape of the book should no longer be the model make sense? If Being was radically out of the book, Out of his letter? On a transcendence that would not allow himself to touch by writing and meaning, which would lie not in the page that would rise above it before? If the being lost in books? If books were the dissipation to be? If the world be, his presence, his sense of being, proved only in illegibility, illegibility in a radical who would not be an accomplice of a lost or sought clarity on the one page that n ' would not cut in any encyclopedia divine? If the world was not even, in the words of Jaspers, "the manuscript of another," but first of all the other script possible? And if he was still too early to say that "the revolt is a crumpled page in the wastebasket …"? Still too early to say that evil is only indecipherable, by the effect of some slips of the pen or cacography of God and that "our lives, in Evil, is shaped like an inverted letter, excluded because of qu'illisible Book of Books? "And if death does not leave register itself in the book where, as we know, moreover, the God of Jews enrolled each year on behalf of those who can only live? And if the dead soul was more or less, anything that in any case the dead letter which should always be awake? If the book was only the safest oblivion of death? Concealment of a writing older or younger, from another era that the book, the grammar and everything what is announced as the sense of being? Write a still unreadable?. That philosophy is dead yesterday, since Hegel or Marx, Nietzsche and Heidegger ¾ and philosophy should still wander toward the meaning of his death ¾ or has always lived to know moribund, which admits quietly in the shadow cast by the very speech that declared the perennial philosophy, she died one day in history, or has always lived in agony and open violently history by removing its ability against non-philosophy, opposing its bottom, its past or its result, death and resource, that beyond the death or the death of philosophy, perhaps even because of them, thought to have a future or even, we say today or whole to come from what is still reserved in philosophy even more strangely, that the future itself has a future as well, these are issues that are not in power response. These are, by birth and for once at least, problems that are posed to philosophy as problems it can solve. Perhaps these questions are they not philosophical, they are more than philosophy. They should still be the only ones to build community today that, in the world, is still called philosophers. 118. Community of the question on the possibility of the issue. It's just that ¾ ¾ is almost nothing but take refuge there and are just now a dignity and duty inentamables decision. An impenetrable responsibility. Difference between philosophy as power or adventure of the question itself and philosophy as a specific event or turning point in the adventure. This difference is thought better today. Let her come to light and be thought as such, this is probably the feature most unapparent to the historian of facts, techniques and ideas, as inessential to his eyes. But it may be, even with all its implications, the character most deeply embedded in our time. Better think this difference, even if not particularly know that if something is yet to come from the tradition in which philosophers know always surprised, it will be provided in the original request and continually make rigorous effort to keep closer to itself. This is not stammer and lazily snuggling in the palm of childhood. But precisely the opposite. 119 [to the total repetition Ordered by Husserl, Heidgger, since Hegel]. 2. 126. 126. 2. 139. 139. 3. 1. [See P. 251. 293.