Sirop pentru sorbet. Acest sirop este utilizat în toate tipurile de sorbet.
750 g zahăr
650 ml apă
90 g sirop de glucoză
Puneți toate îngredientele la fiert. Lăsați să fiarbă 3 minute și înlăturați regulat spuma. După aceea turnați-l într-o sticlă printr-o pâlnie și lăsați-l să se răcească neaparat. După răcire se va putea folosi în toate rețetele de sorbet.
Saturday, 25 September 2010
Poached pears
Acesta este un deliciu autumnal. Pere în vin.
Aveți nevoie de 4 - 6 pere tari. Vin roșu pentru desert. Vin alb pentru folosirea perelor mai departe în tarte.
Le așezați curățate de coajă într-o oală mică cu capac. Veți adauga vinul, zahăr peste 100 de g până la 300g. Apoi coaja de la o portocală și o lămâie pentru desert numai. Ghimbir tăiat fin. Cuișoare. O coajă de scorțisoară. Anason. Și lăsați să fiarbă vreo 40 de minute la foc mediu. Pentru perele pentru comnsum imediat. Scoateți perele după 40 de minute și reduceți siropul rezultat. Apoi strppiți-le și serviți-le calde. Folosiți doar vin roșu. Cu vinul alb nu veți avea același efect.
Aveți nevoie de 4 - 6 pere tari. Vin roșu pentru desert. Vin alb pentru folosirea perelor mai departe în tarte.
Le așezați curățate de coajă într-o oală mică cu capac. Veți adauga vinul, zahăr peste 100 de g până la 300g. Apoi coaja de la o portocală și o lămâie pentru desert numai. Ghimbir tăiat fin. Cuișoare. O coajă de scorțisoară. Anason. Și lăsați să fiarbă vreo 40 de minute la foc mediu. Pentru perele pentru comnsum imediat. Scoateți perele după 40 de minute și reduceți siropul rezultat. Apoi strppiți-le și serviți-le calde. Folosiți doar vin roșu. Cu vinul alb nu veți avea același efect.
Friday, 24 September 2010
Utopic
What if one day we may build our own free heaven?
That is probably never going to happen...
Why not?
Most of them will think that we are just mad. That we are unaware of reality, that we are daydreamers and we have no clue of what real life presuposes.
What does life presupose?
Simplicity. Laughter. Originality. Friendship. Love. And tears...
What is their reality?
I think they are obsessed with leaving a trace. But there are only ripples on the surface of troubled waters. Social standing, money and beauty confined in dictated patterns.
Which is your reality?
I can only percieve it through small-scale detectors. Reality is wider than my powers of observation or expanse of my imagination.This is a very simple idea. This makes me have respect for what is not known. I think that people focused a lot on only the parts of reality without trying to see it as a whole. From there on, they became, like Narcissus, fascinated with their own projections, their own reflection over that certain part, and they begun to structure their own reality and, at the same time, to make it fascinating for all of them.
What does this really mean? What are you trying to say?
That we are creators, too. We create reality as a tool to satisfy owr needs.
I am even more puzzled...
We transform in an intelligent way pieces of already existing reality. From a thought to architectural masterpiece. A thought of a need of some kind had the energy to transcend from imaterial to material and to be achieved such a magnificient material movement. And what really strikes me is that we know the existence of imaterial and we can experience it through our thoughts. Thoughts are imaterial, nevertheless they exist. We are creators of reality. We are still so obsessed with material, that we neglect the imaterial. It exists but it is marginalised. Philosophy should be common between people.
What about philosophy among the people?
It is outrageous how we stigmatise or esteem these people, the philosophers. We even have tops of the Greatest Philosophers. I dont want to diminuish their importance at all. I only want to say that if we all try to think further we would be able to. Yet, we are not doing it. Or may be some of the people only, who have quicken the pace towards that direction. They should not be so special. Thinking is human, everybody is doing it. It is within our nature. This is how we create reality.
But, how do we create it?
We have the ingredients from what we experience during our lives. We take parts of what we have percieved and reflected upon and then we mix them into a new reality. Some new reality can be considered a piece of art.
What about perceiving?
We are endowed with reason and a bodily awareness. We observe, see, feel the reality around us. Every other living being does it one way or another. In addition, we also feel it. We feel the sadness, the joy, various combinations of these two.
We are endowed with logic. We reason between yes or no, similarly to what we call know an algorhytm: "If that is true then yes or no".
Mathematically, between 0 or 1. Zero we know that it is nothingness, but 1, we dont know big is that one.
Between it feels good or it feels bad. It is between to extremes.
Why extremes?
Well to make myself clear, I meant extreme in a social way. The extreme of the norm. How much are we actually allowed to think or feel. Beyond certain limits, though certain scopes, we might become either crazy, either overwhelmed by vice. Therefore, the extremes are dangerous because they are breaching beyond the territory of general social comfort. Once breached, it would have access to other meanings and the general social comfort could be dismissed. Once these limits being breached, and inividual can become dangerous for the existence of the others. We do not know what meanings are therefore we tend to censor until everything seems to be acceptable. One way or another, people are trying and have been forever trying to relax the norms.Some people exceed in advacing to a point where general logic or general feeling is not the matter anymore. Therefore they can inflict pain or react upon paralogic judgments.Think about this dictator who managed to cross the line of logic or sensation and engaged himleft into a word wide war, causing the death of millions. It is not fascinating contamplating the death of the people, but the extent of one thought can reach is worth contemplating. To kill some one is crossing the line. But killing millions is far beyond the general comprensible limit.
That is probably never going to happen...
Why not?
Most of them will think that we are just mad. That we are unaware of reality, that we are daydreamers and we have no clue of what real life presuposes.
What does life presupose?
Simplicity. Laughter. Originality. Friendship. Love. And tears...
What is their reality?
I think they are obsessed with leaving a trace. But there are only ripples on the surface of troubled waters. Social standing, money and beauty confined in dictated patterns.
Which is your reality?
I can only percieve it through small-scale detectors. Reality is wider than my powers of observation or expanse of my imagination.This is a very simple idea. This makes me have respect for what is not known. I think that people focused a lot on only the parts of reality without trying to see it as a whole. From there on, they became, like Narcissus, fascinated with their own projections, their own reflection over that certain part, and they begun to structure their own reality and, at the same time, to make it fascinating for all of them.
What does this really mean? What are you trying to say?
That we are creators, too. We create reality as a tool to satisfy owr needs.
I am even more puzzled...
We transform in an intelligent way pieces of already existing reality. From a thought to architectural masterpiece. A thought of a need of some kind had the energy to transcend from imaterial to material and to be achieved such a magnificient material movement. And what really strikes me is that we know the existence of imaterial and we can experience it through our thoughts. Thoughts are imaterial, nevertheless they exist. We are creators of reality. We are still so obsessed with material, that we neglect the imaterial. It exists but it is marginalised. Philosophy should be common between people.
What about philosophy among the people?
It is outrageous how we stigmatise or esteem these people, the philosophers. We even have tops of the Greatest Philosophers. I dont want to diminuish their importance at all. I only want to say that if we all try to think further we would be able to. Yet, we are not doing it. Or may be some of the people only, who have quicken the pace towards that direction. They should not be so special. Thinking is human, everybody is doing it. It is within our nature. This is how we create reality.
But, how do we create it?
We have the ingredients from what we experience during our lives. We take parts of what we have percieved and reflected upon and then we mix them into a new reality. Some new reality can be considered a piece of art.
What about perceiving?
We are endowed with reason and a bodily awareness. We observe, see, feel the reality around us. Every other living being does it one way or another. In addition, we also feel it. We feel the sadness, the joy, various combinations of these two.
We are endowed with logic. We reason between yes or no, similarly to what we call know an algorhytm: "If that is true then yes or no".
Mathematically, between 0 or 1. Zero we know that it is nothingness, but 1, we dont know big is that one.
Between it feels good or it feels bad. It is between to extremes.
Why extremes?
Well to make myself clear, I meant extreme in a social way. The extreme of the norm. How much are we actually allowed to think or feel. Beyond certain limits, though certain scopes, we might become either crazy, either overwhelmed by vice. Therefore, the extremes are dangerous because they are breaching beyond the territory of general social comfort. Once breached, it would have access to other meanings and the general social comfort could be dismissed. Once these limits being breached, and inividual can become dangerous for the existence of the others. We do not know what meanings are therefore we tend to censor until everything seems to be acceptable. One way or another, people are trying and have been forever trying to relax the norms.Some people exceed in advacing to a point where general logic or general feeling is not the matter anymore. Therefore they can inflict pain or react upon paralogic judgments.Think about this dictator who managed to cross the line of logic or sensation and engaged himleft into a word wide war, causing the death of millions. It is not fascinating contamplating the death of the people, but the extent of one thought can reach is worth contemplating. To kill some one is crossing the line. But killing millions is far beyond the general comprensible limit.
Thursday, 23 September 2010
words
I walked into the contryside today.
Its like motobikes running the highways along fields of high-grasses. Dry brown grasses static in the idle air. And the sky above shining like a magnificent display of light. Pale, but confirmed whirling cloudes were giving a mute tumult to the crepuscular scene. The last rays of the hidden sun were still peeking over the elevated woodly horizons. The trees were just dark, merging into eachother silhuettes. It was an image of swinging moods. A rare image of reality unveiling itself in hyperrealism, chopped into a amorphuous puzzle pieces. Each piece could be grasp at the time, because there wasn't a central piece, nor a point of interest. The sum of all parts was so overwhelming, that it made it very difficult to be focused on a particular fragment. Then the engine stopped. And it felt good. It felt like being alone, bemused with the gist of such rendition of the landscape. And there was sense of broaden possibility. I could think about anything and I could go deeper. That quietness of the marvellous phenomenon was pushing me into the abyss, while I was trying to grasp fragments of words and letters, and to deconstruct them to the very linear shape.
Words are made of letters and letters are made of infinite linear shapes which interescting eachother, leaving me with higlighted segments of a the infintely long lines. I can perceive only what is highlighted and I can only grasp thatportion of a line. The reality becomes then more clear and appereance or phenomenon were only human atributes. It becomes obvious to be to ascertain that the reality is self-revealing, but its apprehension is controlled by the my natural limits of understanding.
How can I describe such magnificent display of light otherwise than in vague and subjective epithetetes like the one that has just been reiterated? I could never put into words in an all encompasive descriptive manner such a scenerey. Alphabetically speaking, the letters are deconstructionist symbols for visible reality, while their fonetics is just audible reality of their entire sound spectrum. I even believe that people educated and shaped into societies whose fashion of speaking imply more extended use of subjective and vague epithetes tend to become less preocupied with practical issues. It is like comparing the hyperbolic literary image of an epic character to a cooking book. They both deal with some virtue and art, but one is descriptive and appealing to the subjectiveness, to the rather irrational and non-mathematical whereas the other appeals to the rational. Similarly, the landscape when looked at entirely charmed my irrational, whilst looked piece by piece seemed rather to solicit my mind. Beauty can be deconstructed to more basic forms, but its entirety appears even more concelead when it is devided into limited vistas. Thus, there must be nonvisual elements which excite the soul. Is it legimate to ask myself whether or not it exists a sub-message into a dimension which we can perceive but we can feel? Might it be delussional to think that what the eyes meet does not inflict a soul sensation; that it might be only through faulty and precipitating logic that through the sight our soul can be somehow inclinated? I have done quickly inferrences and, due to incomplete information I achieved a satisfactory, but unrealistic answer.
Its like motobikes running the highways along fields of high-grasses. Dry brown grasses static in the idle air. And the sky above shining like a magnificent display of light. Pale, but confirmed whirling cloudes were giving a mute tumult to the crepuscular scene. The last rays of the hidden sun were still peeking over the elevated woodly horizons. The trees were just dark, merging into eachother silhuettes. It was an image of swinging moods. A rare image of reality unveiling itself in hyperrealism, chopped into a amorphuous puzzle pieces. Each piece could be grasp at the time, because there wasn't a central piece, nor a point of interest. The sum of all parts was so overwhelming, that it made it very difficult to be focused on a particular fragment. Then the engine stopped. And it felt good. It felt like being alone, bemused with the gist of such rendition of the landscape. And there was sense of broaden possibility. I could think about anything and I could go deeper. That quietness of the marvellous phenomenon was pushing me into the abyss, while I was trying to grasp fragments of words and letters, and to deconstruct them to the very linear shape.
Words are made of letters and letters are made of infinite linear shapes which interescting eachother, leaving me with higlighted segments of a the infintely long lines. I can perceive only what is highlighted and I can only grasp thatportion of a line. The reality becomes then more clear and appereance or phenomenon were only human atributes. It becomes obvious to be to ascertain that the reality is self-revealing, but its apprehension is controlled by the my natural limits of understanding.
How can I describe such magnificent display of light otherwise than in vague and subjective epithetetes like the one that has just been reiterated? I could never put into words in an all encompasive descriptive manner such a scenerey. Alphabetically speaking, the letters are deconstructionist symbols for visible reality, while their fonetics is just audible reality of their entire sound spectrum. I even believe that people educated and shaped into societies whose fashion of speaking imply more extended use of subjective and vague epithetes tend to become less preocupied with practical issues. It is like comparing the hyperbolic literary image of an epic character to a cooking book. They both deal with some virtue and art, but one is descriptive and appealing to the subjectiveness, to the rather irrational and non-mathematical whereas the other appeals to the rational. Similarly, the landscape when looked at entirely charmed my irrational, whilst looked piece by piece seemed rather to solicit my mind. Beauty can be deconstructed to more basic forms, but its entirety appears even more concelead when it is devided into limited vistas. Thus, there must be nonvisual elements which excite the soul. Is it legimate to ask myself whether or not it exists a sub-message into a dimension which we can perceive but we can feel? Might it be delussional to think that what the eyes meet does not inflict a soul sensation; that it might be only through faulty and precipitating logic that through the sight our soul can be somehow inclinated? I have done quickly inferrences and, due to incomplete information I achieved a satisfactory, but unrealistic answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)