Ciobanii și soacra

2 ciobani

Vai ce țipă caprele?
Ce capre, nene? Eu n-aud nicio capră...
Țipă! în depărtare, pe la orizont... pe unde apune soarele...
Țipă pe dracu'!
Țipă de durere!
Țipă din prostia din capu' tău! Capre auzi! Tu ești dus cu pluta... Ești plecat cu capra...
Mă, or fi intrat câinii lui Drăgoi...
În ce-or intrat?
În capre1 La capre! în mumă-ta să intre...
Mă! Tu să nu te iei de mumă-mea că eu nu m-am luat de soră-ta.

și-o soacră.

Măh! Putori! Ce tot bolborosiți atâta. Ia mergeți și mulgeți oile celea că behăie de mă scot din minți. Pesemne că nici ieri seară nu le-ați muls bine, că pe la șase dimineața încă nu am auzit cocoșul de behăituri. M-am dus la ele să văd dacă nu o fintrat vreo nevăstuică și tare le-am văzut umflate la uger.
Dar le-am muls bine.
Măh! Ăla nu e uger de oaia mulsă...
Ba le-am muls, chiar de două ori că și el a mai muls la ele, însă eu le-am muls pe toate...
vedeți ce faceți că sunt ochii pe voi. Dacă sunt încă trează pe la 2, vin să vă trezesc să vă pun la muls...

Dimineața...

Mă... iară nu și-o muls Miron caprele, că m-or căprăit la cap toată noaptea.
Să nu fi intrat câinii lui Drăgoi la ele!
Nu or intrat că-s de ăia dresați. Ce să facă câinele cu capra...
Poate au cățelele pui și le-au dus la supt.
Ți-or supt ție nerozeniile creierii din cap... Du-te și dă la vaci și apoi veniți și mâncați.

Doamnă! Doamnă! Fată vacă!
Ce fată!
Fătă un vițel.
Și ce vrei să-i fac?
Păi mă gândeam că vreți să vedeți...
Măh, la cate vaci au fatat în casa asta atâtea coarne ai tu un cap. Și ai capu' ca un cactus. Dacă nu-i fatată până terminăm de mâncat atunci îi bai și voi da semnal după Jicu Veterinaru', dacă o fătat și e mort o vedea io, și dacă-i viu doar nu ioi da eu să sugă... Ai dat la vaci?...
Da dar nu prea mănâncă... Se cam uită la aia cum fată...
Se uită ca vacile că de aia sunt vaci... Hai să mâncăm mămăligă cu lapte că de poimâine numai corasta veți vedea.

La masă.
Luați-vă căciulile din cap că nu sunteți jidani. Doamne mulțumescu-ți... Fir-ar a dracului de muște că iară s-au ușurat pe brânză... Astea-s de la păstrăvăria lui Gelu.
?!
Simt că pute-a pește și vin la ei.
E de la budă...
De nu ioi da eu cu Lindavet în apă de ți-i întorc pe toți cu burțile-n sus.
Hai să mâncăm...
Bună făină.
Bună mămăligă.
Bun și apa asta. De când am curățat fântâna nu mai pute a broască.
Așa e.
Așa e...
Duceți-vă și vedeți de vițelul ăla...
Doamnă, a fătat vaca dar nu a terminat de fătat... Are doi!
Pă mine să nu prostești la cap... că îi cură placenta...
Cură... dar nu se lasă...
Ce nu se lasă...
Cură dar nu cură de tot...

Seara.
Eu i-am spus că-s doi dar nu a vrut să înțeleagă.
Doamne mulțumescu-ți. Eu ți-am zis când am luat-o că asta e vaca bună?
Așa ai spus...
Vai ce behăie oile alea de nu mai aud caprele lui Miron!

Sfârșit.

No change in social structuring

The pillars of society of society have changed insofar our understanding of this idea has changed. We changed the nomination of certain different more ample social phenomena. The slavery has suffered metamorphose into employment. This would be the corresponding status of the contemporary man. In spite of expectations, in English, the word employ does designate the process of using other people. Certain people, in certain work milieus have even succeeded to hijack the meaning of the word ‘collaboration’. The volume of work is quite similar to the one before, although it seems to have different content. We may call this progress, at least of the content. The structure is still the same based on categories.  Fed constantly with desires we are thought to believe that what is given is the whole of it, that what we sense is the reality and whenever we tend to meditate upon such matters we enter the unreal.  The actual mindset is very much solicitous for keeping us real; what is commonly called reality is just intense focalizing on a certain area of the Being.  This intense observation has become into a particular obsession. Our sense of cohesion has made us so dependable on the other fellows as far as we need external confirmation of our existence.

It is of bizarre appearance the way we carry on with evolution. And yet the phenomena related to this we witness constantly in the wider nature. We stretch to become fitter. It is how we assure our persistence. We follow the cycles, we improve conditions, we are introspective and we achieve results. Through the scope of the entire reality, all our efforts are infinitely small, however, by lowering down the upper limit of the scope, we would look bigger and more important. This fraction is often perceived as the entirety, and the preoccupations outside the section seem impractical and wasteful.  However the benefits of such an attitude are enjoyed only by a small fraction of the population. Since this is happening it might occur that the power is concentrated only in the hands of the elite.  Therefore, the need for capital is so much emphasized.  There must be something even more powerful than God and that is money.

Comments on Mind, Self and Society written by George H. Mead

Sinopsis 1

Somewhere in the subchapter Self, Mead questions whether mind is successive to language. He gives an example, to some extent biblical and to other reminding of suricate families.

He says that each herd has a sentinel. In case of danger, the sentinel will start running quicker than the rest of the heard; the others will automatically begin to run and to follow with the virtue of a herd.  Mead asses that at the time the sentinel announces danger and begins to run and the others to follow, there is no mental process involved, only a particular social stimulus. As stated before, when someone shouts fire, the same impetus to run would arouse within himself. The sentinel does not regards himself  as to be supposed to launch a signal; the primary signal that generated the run of the heard is repeated onto the sentinel. Mead emphasizes that subjective process of the sentinel by answering to his own stimulus is one of internalization through which the individual assimilates the entire social into his own conduct. Further on, Mead assesses that the content of the mind is only the product and development of social interaction.  The intelligence seems to be arisen through the internalization of social processes of experience and behaviour.  Mead argues that this internalization has become possible only through language (i.e. communication) and as a result it is legitimate to assess that the stages of development of language must be situated prior to those of the development of mind and thought.

Commentary 1

I cannot entertain the idea that the sentinel first starts to run and then it realizes why he is running  from. Furthermore, I do not think that is justified to believe in such general terms, that people react to the siren of danger in the fashion described beforehand. Whatever the alarm would be there is a chance that people will not follow, nor react to signal. In addition, in order to be able to identify the danger the sentinel must have a prior cognition of that particular danger. Mead fails to explain whether that cognition is acquired by internalization of a social behaviour. We might avoid dangers because there is a certain social behaviour against meeting a certain behaviour, but in certain circumstances, where the general social knowledge about a certain event is absent we can evaluate the potentiality of danger sensuously, by experiencing it, or by following certain general guidelines or patterns. If we experience that particular event, how can it be said that consecutive experiences like thought and mind would solely be regulated by the internalization of a certain social behaviour?  

Sirop pentru sorbet

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.

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.

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.

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.