#mark nisbet

[daily-praise]

Today’s Reflection:

Not everything we see or witness should be taken at face value, for the true value of anything may come from its core. Take for instance, an ordinary looking rock that a paleontologist may find, and when split in two may reveal an unknown fossil. Jesus, in our Gospel today is facing the same problem, because those he encountered all saw Jesus as nothing more than a carpenter and as such, they did not seek Jesus for any cures and for this Jesus left there unable to help them. Who really loses here? Not Jesus: He had many victories especially over death. The real losers are all those who will not open themselves up to Jesus and allow a seemingly ordinary person to help.[1] Therefore, let us take a step back and see Jesus as he really is, for he came to free us from our sins and give to us eternal life.

[1] Gracilla Boddington, A Practical Commentary on the Gospel of St. Mark, in simple and familiar Language, (London, James Nisbet and Co., 1863), 52.

Today’s Spiritual Links for January 31, 2024

National Eucharistic Review Today’s Mas Readings Today’s Reflection Rosary Liturgy of the Hours New American Bible Non-Scriptural Reading Prime Matters

[filmnoirfoundation]

FNF Donation Drive Giveaway!

For a chance to win a copy of NOIR CITY Annual 14 (new for 2022) donate $20 or more to the FNF between now and December 29.  Your name will be entered in a random drawing. Two winners will receive the Annual which features the best articles from the 2021 issues of the NOIR CITY Magazine.

And, for a donation of $50 or more, a winner in a random drawing will receive Flicker Alley’s Blu-ray/DVD releases of two FNF restorations – Too Late for Tears (1949) with Lizabeth Scott and Dan Duryea and Woman on the Run (1950) with Ann Sheridan and Dennis O’Keefe – both with special features produced by the FNF.

Everyone who donates $20 or more and signs up on our e-mail list, will automatically receive the digital version of NOIR CITY e-magazine for a year! From the striking cover art and story celebrating Veronica Lake's centenary to Eddie Muller’s memorial tribute to novelist and close friend Jim Nisbet, and many great articles in-between, our new issue is a vivid and multi-faceted collection exploring noir both contemporary and classic.

 Already a NOIR CITY subscriber? We have drawings for you too!

For $20 donations, four winners in four random drawings will receive the brand new 2023 NOIR CITY t‑shirt, Suffering … with style, in their requested size. T‑shirt size can be noted in the NOTES section when donation is made.

For $60 donations, two books from FNF-associated scribes: Hollywood Celebrates the Holidays (1920 – 1970) by Karie Bible and Mary Mallory and Renee Patrick's Script for Scandal, plus the new 2023 NOIR CITY t-shirt, Suffering … with style, in the requested size.

For $100+ donations, a winner in a random drawing will receive the Argentine collection of FNF restorations on Blu-ray/DVD from Flicker Alley: The Beast Must Die (1952), El vampiro negro (1953), and The Bitter Stems (1956) — all with FNF-produced special features. All $100+ donations already received in the month of December will qualify for this offer.

For $175+ donations, a winner in a random drawing will receive a 1st edition (NEW — not used) of Mark Fertig's book The 101 Best Film Noir Posters from the 1940s — 1950s, plus three FNF restorations on Blu‑ray/DVD from Flicker Alley: Repeat Performance (1947), Trapped (1949), and our latest release El vampiro negro (1953) — all with FNF-produced special features. And, we'll include two new 2023 Suffering … with style NOIR CITY t-shirts in the requested sizes. All $175+ donations already received in the month of December will qualify for this offer.

For a shot any of these goods, make your donation to the FNF between now and December 29. Your name will be entered into the random drawings for your donation amount. All winners will be announced on Wednesday, January 4, here on the FNF's news page.

Your donations help the FNF locate, restore, and exhibit films that, without our intervention, would be lost forever.  

[ulkaralakbarova]

The lives of two struggling musicians, who happen to be brothers, inevitably change when they team up with a beautiful, up-and-coming singer. Credits: TheMovieDb. Film Cast: Susie Diamond: Michelle Pfeiffer Jack Baker: Jeff Bridges Frank Baker: Beau Bridges Monica Moran: Jennifer Tilly Girl in Bed: Terri Treas Nina: Ellie Raab Lloyd: Xander Berkeley Charlie: Dakin Matthews Ray: Ken Lerner Henry: Albert Hall Vince Nancy: Gregory Itzin Earl: Bradford English Kid at Vet: David Coburn Theo: Todd Jeffries Man with Cleaver: Del Zamora Bathroom Attendant: Howard Matthew Johnson Veterinarian: Stuart Nisbet Laughing Bar Patron: Nancy Fish Waitress: Beege Barkette Bad Singer: Martina Finch Bad Singer: Wendy Goldman Bad Singer: Lisa Raggio Bad Singer: Vickilyn Reynolds Background Voice (voice): Tina Lifford Background Voice (voice): John Lafayette Hotel Masseuse: Gregory James Doorman: Robert Henry Eddie: Drake Film Crew: Producer: Mark Rosenberg Original Music Composer: Dave Grusin Writer: Steve Kloves Director of Photography: Michael Ballhaus Editor: William Steinkamp Producer: Paula Weinstein Production Design: Jeffrey Townsend Stunt Coordinator: Jon Conrad Pochron Executive Producer: Sydney Pollack Associate Producer: Robin Forman Unit Production Manager: Bill Finnegan Associate Producer: Julie Bergman Sender Casting Director: Wallis Nicita Costume Design: Lisa Jensen Executive Music Producer: Joel Sill Location Manager: Robin Citrin First Assistant Director: Charles Myers Second Assistant Director: Tracy Rosenthal-Newsom Key Grip: Steve Smith Set Decoration: Anne H. Ahrens Assistant Art Director: Michael Perry Hairdresser: Jeanne Van Phue Makeup Artist: Ronnie Specter Assistant Makeup Artist: Tammy Kusian Special Effects: Robert E. Worthington Sound Mixer: Stephan von Hase Supervising Sound Editor: J. Paul Huntsman Music Editor: Bunny Andrews Sound Effects Editor: John Haeny Stunts: Paul E. Short Movie Reviews:

[kwebtv]

Loose Change - NBC - February 26-28, 1978

Drama (3 Episodes)

Running Time: 360 Minutes Total

Stars:

Cristina Raines as Kate Evans

Season Hubley as Tanya Berenson

Laurie Heineman as Jenny Reston

Guy Boyd as Rob Kagan

John Getz as John Campbell

Gregg Henry as Hank Okrun

June Lockhart as Irene Evans

Ben Masters as Joe Morgan

Joshua Shelley as Sol Berenson

Judy Strangis as Judy Berenson

Carl Franklin as Ed Thomas

Paula Wagner as Roxanne

Stephen Macht as Peter Lane

Michael Tolan as Mark Stewart

Stuart Nisbet as Steve Evans

Richard Stanley as Timmy Reston

Theodore Bikel as Tom Feiffer

Alice Hirson  as Rosemary

Kate Reid as Hilda

David Wayne as Dr. Moe Sinden

[david-d-levine]

My OryCon Schedule

OryCon 43 is coming, November 10-12 at the Holiday Inn Portland – Columbia Riverfront, and I'll be appearing in the following program events!

NOVEMBER 10 • FRIDAY

4:00pm – 4:50pm: Returning from Hiatus, White Stag

Speakers: Christopher Sebela, David D. Levine, Anthony Pryor You're finally ready to start creating again, but you feel like your creative muscles atrophied. How do you take the shaky first steps? What pressures do you face from yourself and society to suddenly run and catch up?

5:00pm – 5:50pm: Creators in Chaos, White Stag

Speakers: Theresa Reed (M), David D. Levine, Matt Haynes, John M Lovett, Anthony Pryor To be alive is to exist in chaos. There's always something to interrupt. Family, finances, death, disarray. You say, I would make that, but- and most excuses are genuine concerns. How do you prepare for the worst, get organized, and focus enough to create?

NOVEMBER 11 • SATURDAY

11:00am – 11:50am: Beyond One World and One Species, Rm 256

Speakers: Walt Boyes, Mark Niemann-Ross, Manny Frishberg, David D. Levine, G. David Nordley Millennia of diaspora from Old Home Terra would almost certainly produce any number of subvariants of humanity including genetically engineered transhumans and cyborgs. Consider not "the" future of humanity but "the futures" of humanity. Save for a common heritage distant in time, they might be alien species. What might that be like?

12:00pm – 12:50pm: The Sensitive Manly Man, Pendleton

Speakers: Neil Cochrane (M), Steven Barnes, Stoney Compton, David D. Levine, Frog Jones Empathy, reflection, and emotional vulnerability are essential to character growth, but not easy to employ if your protagonist is cut from the patriarchy. How do you give depth and redefine masculinity with today's gender norms evolving?

3:00pm – 3:50pm: David D. Levine Reading & Novel Launch, Flanders

Speakers: David D. Levine David D. Levine discusses and reads from his new novel, The Kuiper Belt Job.

4:00pm – 4:50pm: Science and Speculative Fiction, Lovejoy

Speakers: David D. Levine (M), Alma Alexander, Rhiannon Held/R. Z. Held, Walt Boyes What role does science play in fantasy and horror (as opposed to "hard" science fiction), particularly in light of genre conventions? To what extent can speculative fiction authors and creators play "fast and loose" with science?

NOVEMBER 12 • SUNDAY

2:00pm – 2:50pm: The Concept of "Civility": Needful Myth or Trap?, Pettygrove

Speakers: David D. Levine (M), Andrew M Ross, Andrew Nisbet, Manny Frishberg Definitions of "being civil" span a range in communities with wide world views. How does the idea of "civility" influence writing, art, and media in the sci-fi/fantasy creation community? Does "being civil" limit free expression, or expand it?

[thedeliblog]

#163 A Garázsország hat éve

cikk: 01:10 perc olvasás videó: 15:10 perc

Mike Vallely karrierje még a 80-as években kezdődött, amikor felkarolta a Powell Peralta, a híres Bones Brigade szponzora. Mike leginkább azzal tűnt ki korának deszkásai közül, hogy egyedi módon ültette át a félcső deszkázás trükkjeit az utcákra. Kiváltképpen a különböző ‘plant’-eket, azaz az olyan trükköket, melyek során a félcső vagy pool szegélyén kézzel támaszkodunk meg és innen épül tovább a trükk.

A nevéhez köthető az így kialakult ‘street plant’, amely később saját cége névadója is lett. A Street Plant idén ünnepli a hatodik születésnapját, amelyről Mark Nisbet készített dokumentumfilmet. Mike többször próbálkozott különféle vállalkozások gründolásával, több kevesebb sikerrel, de inkább kevesebbel. A Street Plant-et nagyobbik lánya unszolására indította el, aki emellett saját antikvitását viszi, marketingeli és az így szerzett tapasztalatait szívesen forgatta be egy olyan autentikus vállalkozásba, ami Apu élete álma volt.

Az egész cég a Vallely család garázsából fut, innen a neve is: Garageland, azaz Garázsország. Mike és csapata innen szórja a Paul Schmitt (PS-Stix) professzor által gyártott prémium deszkákat, gyakran minden egyes vevőnek külön-külön feliratozva, szignózva vagy éppen egyedi grip-art-tal felszerelve.

A Street Plant lapok mind tükrözik Mike egyedülállóságát a deszkás világban, ahogy folyton újabb és újabb formákkal kísérletezik. Nem épít csapatot és ha lehet nem dolgozik disztribútorokkal. Minden dizájn és ötlet egyedi, és a garázsból indul. Egy olyan családi vállalkozást vittek sikerre, amely nagyon mélyen gyökerezik a gördeszkázás szeretetében.

Korábbi cikkeink Mike Vallely-vel:

Mike Vallely a The Nine Club-ban

S-KAranTEn #14

[settledthingsstrange]

Recommended Reads for 2022

Novels:

Paul Kingsnorth, The Wake, Beast, and Alexandria

Evelyn Waugh, Helena

Katy Carl, As Earth without Water

George MacDonald, The Princess and the Goblin, The Princess and Curdie, Phantastes, and Lilith

Poetry:

Martin Shaw and Tony Hoagland, Cinderbiter: Celtic Poems

Amit Majmudar, What He Did in Solitary

Thomas Merton, Selected Poems

Anya Silver, I Watched You Disappear

Simon Armitage, trans., Pearl

Simon Armitage, trans., Sir Gawain and the Green Knight

Rhina P. Espaillat, Her Place in These Designs

Ephraim the Syrian, Select Poems (Brock and Kiraz, eds.)

Eavan Boland, Outside History: Selected Poems, 1980-1990

Diane Glancy, A Line of Driftwood: the Ada Blackjack Story and Island of the Innocent: A Consideration of the Book of Job

Nonfiction:

Arthur Brooks, Love Your Enemies: How Decent People Can Save America from the Culture of Contempt

Jeffrey Bilbro, Reading the Times: A Literary and Theological Inquiry into the News

Laura Mooneyham White, Jane Austen’s Anglicanism

Mark Boyle, The Way Home: Tales from a Life without Technology

Paul Kingsnorth, Confessions of a Recovering Environmentalist

Simone Weil, The Need for Roots

Michael Brendan Dougherty, My Father Left Me Ireland

Robert Nisbet, The Quest for Community

Dom Rembert Sorg, Holy Work: Towards a Benedictine Theology of Manual Labor

John G. Neihardt and Black Elk, Black Elk Speaks: Being the Life Story of a Holy Man of the Oglala Sioux

Michael F. Steltenkamp, Black Elk: Holy Man of the Oglala

David Treuer, Native American Fiction: A User’s Manual

[tabernacleheart]

It may help us to love God more and to adore God Incarnate with more definite and intelligent acts of worship if we carry in our minds clear ideas respecting the facts and the results of the Incarnation. The facts of the Incarnation are these: God the Son was from all eternity, is now, and will be for ever, ‘equal to the Father as touching His Godhead.’ In all the ages of time that preceded the days of the Cross the Son of God existed, even, according to His own words, ‘Before Abraham was, I AM’; and in all the ages of eternity— if we may speak of ‘ages’ in a period of unmeasurable duration— He also had existed; according to the words of the Holy Ghost, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ The unmeasurable eternity passed on, and there came a ‘beginning’ which marked the first boundary of time; and in that ‘beginning God created the heaven and the earth,’ and in that creation God the Son, the Eternal Word, took part, for ‘all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.’ He, then, Who was sent into the word by the Eternal Father and Creator, was the Eternal Son and Creator. It is He of Whom Saint John writes, ‘And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us’; of Whom the Angel Gabriel said to Joseph respecting Mary, ‘That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins’; of whom Saint Luke writes, ‘And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling clothes, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn’; Who, at the end of His humiliation and sufferings, ‘cried with a loud voice’ and said, ‘Father, into Thy hands I commend My Spirit; and having said this, gave up the ghost’; and Who, having ‘shewed Himself alive after His Passion by many infallible proofs,’ was ‘carried up into “that” heaven’ in human nature where He had been in Divine nature from all eternity. Most wonderful facts, and yet attested beyond all rational contradiction in the Gospels, that ‘perfect God,’ the Son of God in all the qualities of Divine nature, thus became ‘perfect man,’ the Son of Man in all the qualities of human nature; and that, after thirty-three years of life on earth as a babe, a holy child, a working, teaching, suffering man, He ascended to heaven to reign there with His Divine and human nature inseparably united for ever.

James Nisbet

[caribbeantourismassociation]

AIRLINES & PRIVATE JETS

St Barth Commuter  Since 1995, St Barth Commuter transported more than 500,000 passengers.

Tradewind Aviation  Enjoy seamless travel to destinations throughout the Caribbean and beyond.

Winair  Winair has provided safe and efficient air transportation in the Caribbean for 55 years.

HOTELS & RESORTS

Four Seasons Resort Nevis  Infinite perfect place in one perfect paradise.

Golden Rock Inn  Intimate sums up the Golden Rock Inn.

Hermitage Plantation Inn  The proud tradition of fine Caribbean hospitality.

Montpelier Plantation & Beach  A 300-year-old sugar plantation happily embraces effortless luxury.

Mount Nevis Hotel  Elegant and intimate island resort.

Nisbet Plantation Beach Club  Magnificent lawns lead down to the soft sands and the sea.

Oualie Beach Resort  Eco-friendly and family owned since 1980.

Paradise Beach  Offers thirteen private 2, 3 and 4 bedroom luxury villas and beach houses.

The Hamilton Beach Villa & Spa  A recent addition to the island.

RESTAURANTS & BEACH BAR

Bananas Restaurant  The restaurant looks out through the palms to the Caribbean waves.

Chrishi Beach Club  (Beach Bar)  Great steaks, seafood, burgers, fondues, tapas and more.

Double Deuce Restaurant  British cuisine with a Caribbean twist.

Drift Restaurant  Canadian husband and wife team Mark and Vikki.

Lime Beach Bar  (Beach Bar)  Another great spot on Pinney’s Beach.

Mount Nevis Restaurant  The views of the Caribbean waters and St Kitts beyond.

Oasis in the Gardens  Thai cuisine and panoramic views of Nevis Peak.

Rodney’s Cuisine  Genuine local cuisine.

Sunshines Beach Bar  (Beach Bar)  The fresh seafood and jerk chicken are delicious.

The Gin Trap  A favourite haunt for both locals and visitors alike.

Yachtsman Grill  (Beach Bar) Delicious beachfront dining with stunning views of sister isle St. Kitts.

SHOPPING DESTINATION

NIGHT LIFE

FOOD & DRINK

CRUISES

CHARTERS

CAR RENTAL

FITNESS & LIFESTYLE

HEALTH & BEAUTY

Amma - Iyengar Yoga Instructor  A qualified Iyengar yoga instructor since 2002.

Bac 2 My ROOTS SpaTique  open since 2005.

Four Seasons Resort & Spa  Impressive award-winning spa.

Mobile Bare Necessities  Enjoyed the hot springs at Bath Village.

Montpelier Plantation Suite Spa  Serene setting dedicated to refreshing body and soul.

Myra Jones Romain  Licensed & Certified Medical Massage Therapist.

Nevis Hot Springs  Nevis is blessed with an abundance of geothermal energy.

Nisbet Plantation Palms Spa  A visit to the Palms Spa will melt away all the stresses in the world.

Oualie Beach Spa  A tranquil oasis offering a selection of tantalising treatments.

Phenomenal Wellness Corner  the most personalized massage or other treatment you have ever had.

DESIGN SHOWROOMS & HOME DECOR

HOME & REAL ESTATE

THINGS TO DO

ART GALLERIES

Chapmans Stone Art  WATCH VIDEO

Nevis Craft House  WATCH VIDEO

Nevis Island Living  Deborah Tyrell Cloth Artist.

Rogers’ Souvenir and Crafts A small craft shop carrying an unlimited inventory.

Vaughn Anslyn Design  Born in the Island of Nevis, where he has become a household name.

ONLINE MAGAZINES PARTNERS

Hotels Escapes  Exclusive Access to the World’s Most Captivating Places.

Islands Magazine  A glimpse into The World’s High & Hip Society, Travel + Lifestyle!

Travel Secret Escapes  Call +1(561) 247 9101 we’re here to help!

Vizium Group  Digital agency that provides business strategy, design and marketing.

[tevhidigundem]

Tevhid ve sünnet daveti

Küfrün Karanlıklarından, Vahyin Aydınlığına... Tevhid ve Sünnet Daveti Her vesileyle yeniden ortaya çıkan bir gerçeği ifade etmekle başlayalım konuya. Hangi mekânda ve ortamda olursa olsun tüm resûllerin ortak çağrısı olan tevhid akidesine davet, son derece önemlidir. Tevhid ve sünnet daveti; insanlar arasındaki ilişkilerde her bir kişi için asıl olanın, bağlı bulunulan din olduğunu ortaya koyar. İnsanları parti, grup veya cemaat hâlinde bir araya getiren veya birbirlerine rakip ya da hasım kılan en önemli şey inançtır. İnanç aynı olunca diğer tüm ilişkiler de işler de yolunda demektir. Bu husus gayrı İslami diğer tüm inanç ve dinler için de geçerlidir. Çağdaş veya çağdışı yaftalı tüm putperestlikler tarih boyunca şekil değiştirerek tekerrür eden bir olgudur. Mekke müşrikleri bu hususta ilk akla gelen örnektir. Taştan ve tahtadan birer heykel oldukları hâlde o devirde Lat ve Menat'ı ilah edinenler ile günümüzde betondan veya bronzdan yapılan heykelleri veya toprağın serinliğinde gömülü ölmüş kişileri ilah edinenleri aynı çerçevede değerlendirmek gerekir. Kendileri için ilah edinip ona tapındıklarına göre tüm Budistler için Buda bir "ilah"tır. Aynı şekilde kendisini tanrılaştırarak ona tapınanlar için Zerdüşt nasıl "ilah" olabiliyorsa kendisine ya da geride bıraktığı fikrî ve icraî mirasına ibadet bilinci ve disipliniyle tam bir bağlılık ve itaat gösterenler için Karl Marks veya Kamal Atatürk de bir "ilah"tır. Bunları ya da ölmüş veya hayattaki tağut (olan veya olmayan) kişilikleri ilah edinenlerin şer'î şerife göre hükmü ise açıktır. Zaman zaman müşahade edildiği üzere davetçi sıfatıyla arz-ı endam eden bir sürü insan işlerini güçlerini bırakmış çağdaş paganistlere laf yetiştirmeye çalışmaktadırlar. "Ve de ki: 'Hak Rabbinizdendir.' Öyleyse dileyen iman etsin dileyen inkâr etsin…" [1] Tevhid ve Sünnet davetinde "Şu ilah değildir! Bu ilah değildir!" diye kendini paralamaya yer yoktur. Bırakınız kim neye ibadet ediyorsa etsin. Bizim için asıl olan, insanları Allah'ın subhanehu ve teâlâ ibadete layık bir ve tek hak ilah olduğuna davet etmektir. Somut ve soyut olanlarıyla beraber hâlen tapınaklarda, kiliselerde, zihinlerde, anıtlarda, meydanlarda ve kalplerde binlerce, belki de milyonlarca put varken "Şu ilah değildir! Bu ilah değildir!" diye saymaya kalkarsa bir mümin, hem emrolunmadığı bir işi yapmış olur hem de öyle bir hâle gelir ki "La ilahe illallah" demeye dahi fırsatı kalmaz. Bunun anlamı da pratik bir sonucu da olmaz. İtikaden, fikren ve uygulanan politikalar zemininde tarih boyunca gelmiş geçmiş olanlar ile günümüzde iş başında bulunan tağutların, bu tağutların avanesinin, yardakçılarının, tağutlara yaltaklananların, onların gölgesine sığınan acizlerin ve küresel güç pozisyonundaki tağut şeflerinin keyfini kaçırarak istikbal korkusunu depreştiren ve sonuç olarak onları tevhid ehli müminlere karşı daha da azgınlaştıran "Davet" nedir? Tevhid önderi peygamberlerin aleyhimusselam yaptığı ve dünya durdukça bu sünneti ihya edecek kişiye şeref olarak yetecek yegâne amellerden olan davetin mahiyeti nedir? Tevhid ve sünnet daveti, putlara tapanlar hakkında şirk hükmü verip onlardan tiksinirken aynı tavrın tağutun hükmünü benimseyenlere ve tağuta itaat edenlere karşı da gösterilmesidir. Tevhid ve sünnet daveti, geçmişte olsun günümüzde olsun koyu cahiliyenin düşüncelerini, değer yargılarını, gayrıfıtri istikamete doğru evrilen ahlaki ve toplumsal yapılarını, İslam dışı din ve kültürlerin etkisine girip değişen gelenek ve göreneklerini, ferdî, ailevî, toplumsal münasebetlerini ve hatta çevreyle ilişkilerini, birçoğu rüşvet ve fesat yuvası hâline getirilen devlet kurumlarını ve şirk akidesine dayalı zulüm rejimlerini baştan başa değiştirmek, yenilemek ve arındırmak demektir. Tevhid ve sünnet daveti, bugünün dünyasında egemen olan bozuk inanç ve fikirlere ve devlet politikası olarak gayrıfıtri ve gayrışer'i bir şekilde uygulanan her türlü tuğyana karşı; kişinin hayatı boyunca karşılaşıp nasiplenebileceği hayırların en büyüğü olan hidayet üzere zor, zahmetli, zaman zaman da ağır bedeli olan bir fıtrat başkaldırısıdır. Tevhid ve sünnet daveti bidatçi, hurafeci, münafık ve muhafazakâr müşriklerin kalplerini eleme sevk eden ve azıcık inşirah bulmak için tağutun nasihatleriyle kendilerine yeni menhecler ihdas edenlere karşı, müminlerin ağırlığını omuzlarında hissettikleri doğru sözün eğilip bükülmeden net bir şekilde açıklanmasıdır. Tevhid ve sünnet daveti, her halükârda "İslam dolmuş"unda bulunduklarını vehmeden ve kendilerini şimdiden cennetu'l firdevs'in vârisleri olarak gören çok sayıdaki partici, bidatçi, tasavvufçu, rafızi, hadis inkârcısı, demokrat, milliyetçi, diyanetçi, reisçi, bozkurtçu, gandici, asenacı ve her devirde her kılığa bürünebilen omurgasız kişilikleri ortaya çıkararak şeytani havzayı deşifre edip kurutmayı misyon edinmiş köklü bir devrimsel çağrıdır. Tevhid ve sünnet daveti, bâtılı bertaraf edebilmek için savaşmanın kuralının evvela hakkın ölçülerine göre hakkı oluşturmak, içtenlikle tabi olmak ve sulandırıp bulandırmadan insanlara takdim etmektir. Tevhid ve Sünnet daveti; adalete, hoşgörüye, sevgiye, fedakârlığa ve cömertliğe çağrıyı barındırdığı gibi küfrün elebaşı küresel şirk güçlerine karşı cihada, zalimlere karşı öfkelenmeye, şirkten ve müşriklerden nefret etmeye ve maddi imkânını fisebilillah seferber etmeye teşvik eder. Tevhid ve sünnet daveti; tağutu reddedip ondan yüz çevirmeyi, k��frü deşifre edip ötekileştirmeyi, vicdan pazarlamacılığına soyunan envai çeşit …izm militoşlarının emperyalistlerle iş tutarak mazlumlara yaptıkları vahşiliği deşifre ederek lanetlemeyi, engellemeyi ve mahkûm etmeyi, zulme karşı durmayı ve fitnenin ortadan tamamen kaldırılmasını emreder. Tevhid ve sünnet daveti, tüm insanlara maddi alanda çalışma ve üretimle, bilimle, sanatla, edebiyatla, devasa hastane, köprü ve havaalanı inşa etmekle, edebiyatla, mimariyle, felsefeyle ve benzeri diğer alanlarla uğraşmanın toplumsal hayatta başarılı sayılmanın yegâne yolu olmadığını gösterir. Tevhid ve sünnet daveti, bugün yeryüzü halklarının büyük çoğunluğuna akide ve yaşam tarzı bakımından İslam nazarında bir hiç olduklarını ilan etmektedir. Tevhid ve sünnet daveti, kendilerini İslam'a nisbet eden toplumun hayatının temeli ve emr-i bi'l maruf ve nehy-i ani'l münker amelinin zeminini hazırlayan asıl mesele, yani tevhidin aslı öcüleştirilip değersizleştirilmişken bazı cemaatler, partiler veya şahısların "dıdının dıdısının dıdısı" türünden teferruatlarla uğraşmasının boşa kürek sallamak olduğunu ortaya koyar. Tevhid ve sünnet daveti, Aziz ve Celil olan Allah'ın uluhiyetinin reddedilmesi ve sosyo ekonomik düzeni tümüyle Allah'ın hayat için koyduğu yasaların iptal edilmesi ve ilahi kanunların yerine ihdas edilmiş beşerî kanunlara dayalı olan bir toplumda ufak tefek ahlaki ıslah çalışmaları yapmanın cahiliye tortularından kurtulmak ve tevhidin aydınlığına ulaşmak için asla yeterli olmayacağını haykırır. Tevhid ve sünnet daveti, Allah'ın subhanehu ve teâlâ egemenliğini kabul etmeyen ve kanunları faizi, zinayı, içkiyi ve türlü sapkınlıkları helal sayan bir toplumda "şu haramdır… şu helal değildir…" demenin nebevi menhecle yüzde yüz çeliştiğini ve bu şekilde ortaya konan çabaların hedeflendiği şekilde müspet bir sonuç getirmeyeceğini bildirir. Tevhid ve sünnet daveti, Allah'ın subhanehu ve teâlâ hükümleriyle hükmetme ve tek ilahlık davasıdır. Çünkü ancak bu şekilde ilahlık makamı bire indirgenebilir ve tevhid akidesi de ancak bu şekilde gerçekleşebilir. Tevhid ve sünnet daveti; bu davete samimi olarak icabet eden mümin toplulukta somut olarak ortaya çıkmakta ve tevhid akidesinin çağımızdaki doğru örneği ve hakiki tercümanı olmaktadır. Tevhid ve sünnet daveti, günümüz muvahhidleri tarafından muhafazakâr laikler ile zihinlerinde ve meydanlarında ürettikleri "ilah"larına tapınan çağdaş cahiliye yığınlarının yüzlerine karşı açıkça dile getirilmedikçe ve onlarla rızaya dayalı organik bir ilişkiden kaçınılmadıkça zafere ulaşmak ve yeryüzü hâkimiyetini elde etmeye ilişkin Allah'ın subhanehu ve teâlâ nihai vaadi gerçekleşmeyeceğini hatırlatır. Tevhid ve sünnet daveti, bugün yeryüzünde tevhidin tüm boyutları anlamında Allah'tan başka ilah olmadığına şahitlik etmeyen ve tevhidin tam ve eksiksiz anlamı gereği olarak Allah'ın dinini gerçek anlamda din edinmeyen fakat kendilerini yüzeysel olarak inatçı bir şekilde İslam'a nisbet eden milyon milyon insana sarsıcı bir mesajdır. Tevhid ve sünnet daveti, İslam coğrafyasında yaşayan halklar için bir patinaj alanı hâline gelen ve bir yanda La ilahe illallah ilkesinin ve İslam'ın anlamının çerçevesini öte yanda modern şirk ve ilhadın anlamlarını çevreleyen karışıklık ve kapalılığı ortadan kaldıran nebevi menhec üzere yapılan davettir. Tevhid ve sünnet daveti, tevhid ve sünnet ehli muvahhidler ile mücrim müşriklerin yolunun apaçık bir şekilde belli olmasını, hak ve bâtıl zümrelerinin özelliklerinin birbirine karışmasını ve itikad kavşağında yolların ayrılış noktasını seçemeyecek kadar bir şaşkınlığın hâkim olmasını engeller. Tevhid ve sünnet daveti, Allah'ın subhanehu ve teâlâ hâkimiyeti meselesiyle itikad meselesini birbirinden ayırmaz. Zira Rasûlullah sallallahu aleyhi ve sellem Allah'ın hâkimiyeti konusu ile inanç, ibadet ve şeriatı birbirinden ayrı tutmamıştır. Tevhid ve sünnet daveti, tağuta tabi olmayarak ve tağuta itaat etmeyi de reddederek tek ve kahhar olan Allah'ın dinine girmekle tüm zorluklarına rağmen üstlenilen sorumlulukların, tağutun dinine girmekle yüz yüze kalınacak tehdit ve tehlikelerden daha hafif ve daha az olduğunu gösterir. Tevhid ve sünnet daveti, gerçek özgürlüğün, tağutların tuğyanına, münafıkların nifakına, mücrimlerin cürmüne, bidatçilerin bidatine, zorbaların zulmüne ve bozguncuların bozgunculuklarına net ve nezih tevhid akidesi ile üstün gelinmesinden ibaret olduğunu ilan eder. Tevhid ve sünnet daveti, Allah'ın subhanehu ve teâlâ müşriklikle, hak dinden yüz çevirmekle ve "Allah'ı bırakıp başka ilahlar edinmekle" suçladığı İslam'ın düşmanı rejimler, ideolojiler ve kişilerin günümüzdeki takipçilerine her fırsatta ısrarla "İslam" yahut "Müslüman Kardeşimiz!" etiketini yapıştırmak için biribiriyle yarışan benzer tıynetteki acizlerin bu iddialarını reddeder. وَمَا عَلَيْنَا إِلاَّ الْبَلاَغُ الْمُبِينُ "Ve bizim üzerimizde açıkça tebliğden (bildirmekten) başka bir şey (sorumluluk) yoktur." [2] [1] . 17/Kehf, 29 [2] . 36/Yâsîn,17 Bu Sayfayı Paylaş : Tevhid Dergisi Hakkımızda Künye Duyurular Arşiv İletişim Yazarın Makaleleri Kadın2019-12-17 Men Azze Bezze2019-11-16 Modern Şirk ve Laik Yaşam Tarzının Vazgeçilmez ''İbadet''i: Falcılık ve Medyumluk2019-10-16 Safevilikten Selefîliğe İran2019-09-16 Münafık!2019-08-19 Batı: Bu Bataklık Kurumalı/Kurutulmalı2019-07-15 Demokrasi Küçük İnsanlar ve Uzayan Gölgeler2019-05-15 Ramazan: Her Şey Bu Ayda Başladı!2019-04-15 Bizim Dinimiz Bize Batıl ve Batıni Dinleriniz Size2019-03-15 Sosyal Medya, Asosyal Nesil ve Sorumluluğumuz2019-02-28 Kitap Raporu2019-01-23 Tevhid ve Sünnet Daveti2018-12-26 Ümmeti Bölünmüşlüğe ve Kuşatılmışlığa Mahkûm Eden Yıkım Modeli: Ulus Devlet2018-11-20 Muhbirliğin Mahiyetine Dair2018-10-16 Demokrasi Gemisi İçin Batış Vakti2018-09-19 Afganistan Aynasında Osmanlı ve Cumhuriyet Silueti2018-08-16 Batılın Egemenliği ve Müslüman(sı)ların İktidarı2018-07-18 Tevhide Karşı Yükseltilen Dalalet Dalgaları: Deizm ve Tengricilik2018-05-17 Evladın İzzeti: Anne Baba Hukukuna Riayet2018-04-19 Mele', Melâ ve Ulema2018-03-16 'Asr-ı Bidat' ve İbadetleştirilen Bidatlar2018-02-15 İki Arada Bir Derede Çok Mezhepli Kadim Bir Din: Alevilik2018-01-18 Milliyetçiliğin Anavatanı Avrupa'da Milliyetçiliğin Bumerang Hali2017-12-16 Romalılardan Romacılara: Müslümanlara Karşı Bitmeyen/Bitmeyecek Savaş2017-11-15 Münzehim Zümrelere Dair2017-10-25 Yıkım Çemberinde Hiçleşen Gençlik2017-09-19 Nefsin Afetleri, İstismarı ve Marabalığı2017-08-16 Ramazan, Kur'an ve Bayram2017-06-18 Ramazan-ı Şerif: Değerli, Önemli ve Sevgili Bir 'Dost'u Karşılarken2017-05-16 Ahlaksızlığın 'Ahlaklaştırılması' ve Şer'i/Fıtrî Ahlak2017-04-21 Yeni Anayasa: Laik-Demokratik Sisteme Baş, Laikleştirilmiş Muhafazakâr Cumhura Başkan2017-04-20 Tevhid Davetinin Yeniden Gündeme Gelmesi2017-02-17 Tadımlık Özgürlük Hâlleri2017-01-17 Bahtiyarlık ve Bedbahtlığa Dair Şifa Niyetine Notlar2016-12-16 Hanedanlık veya Demokratik2016-11-19 Medrese Geleneği ve Kürdistan Medreselerine Kısa Bir Bakış2016-09-20 Nebi Örnekliğinde Fıtrî ve İmanî Bir Değer Olarak Vefâ2016-08-19 Tevhid ve Kulluk Bağlamında Sorumluluğa Dair Bir Mülâhaza2016-06-16 İki Kutuplu Dünya Şirk Sisteminden Eş Başkanlı Küresel Şer Koalisyonuna2016-05-17 Gözlük2016-04-15 Bayrak2016-03-15 Uzman Münafıklık Siyaseti ve Yediden Yetmişe Kaybettirdikleri2016-02-15 Demokrasi: Dikili Putu ve Takkeli Papası Olmayan Şirk Dini2016-01-17 Kardeşimden Bana Bir Tutam Nasihat2015-12-16 Tevhid Ümmetine Karşı Birleşi(r)k Laik Güçlerin Topyekün Taarruzu2015-10-16 Yakin Üzere Yakınlık2015-09-15 Dı Pêvajoya Hılbıjartına Demokratîk De Ji Nû Ve Bıbîranîna Laîlaheîllallah'ê2015-06-06 Selim Fıtrat, Rüşd ve Mürüvvet2015-05-04 Uzaktaki, Çevremizdeki ve Aramızdaki Batı2015-03-03 Şeytanizm2015-02-01 Kerem Çağlar ile Röportaj2015-01-05 Kaybolan Sınırlar Birleşen Hizipler ve İslam'ın ‘Devlet' Yürüyüşü2014-12-05 Yazıklar Olsun Şu Kavme...2014-11-09 Eğriltim-Öğütüm Yılı Başladı!2014-10-01 Recep Tayyip Erdoğan: Yeni Cumhurbaşkanı, Potansiyel ‘Halife'2014-09-04 Mümin Baba Çocuğuyla Ne Konuşur?2014-07-02 Demokrasi: Millet İradesi İle Tecelli Eden Zillet Halleri2014-06-01 Yakarış2014-05-13 CemiA(BD) CemaA(KP) ve Cemaat2014-04-01 Olağan Üstü Süreçler, Fetoperatif Manzaralar2014-03-01 Umut, Hakikat ve Akıbet2014-02-01 Durum ve Göreve Dair...2014-02-01 Dosta Vela, Düşmana Bera!2014-01-01 Naif'lere Mektup2014-01-01 Afganisşam2013-11-01 Müjdeler Olsun Size !2013-10-01 Ahdine Sadık Bahadır Yiğitler2013-09-01 Daru't Takrib'den İmhaya- Ahzabu'ş Şia2013-08-01 Her Yerde Var Olmaya Çalışan Hiç Bir Yerde Bulunamaz2013-07-01 Sırtını Halka Dayayan Ağır Siklet ve Garson Boy Tağutlar2013-06-01 ‘Makbul' Tağut ve Deve Yürekli Raiyeti2013-05-01 Haçlı Harekatına Yeni Mezar Yeri- Mali 2013-04-01 Garip İslam'ın Gurabası- Muvahhidler2013-03-01 Zulüm ve Zalim2012-12-01 Mele2012-11-01 Tevhidi ve Fıtratı Bozan Laik Bir Eğitim Kurumu Olarak Okul2012-10-01 Akıbet Müttakilerindir (28 Kasas, 83)2012-09-01 Nefsimiz ve Halkımız Hakkında Mülahazalar2012-08-01 İlahlaştırılan ‘İktidar’ ve Yeşillerin Savaşı2012-07-01 Tevhidi Bir Cemaat Ne Değildir2012-06-01 Ortadoğu’daki Hareket ve Suriye Aynasındaki İran2012-05-01 Buhranların Doğurgan Anası- Demokrasi2012-04-01 Çalışma Kamplarından Zihin Kamplarına- Okul Esareti2012-03-01 Yegane Davete, Bigane Kavimler2012-01-01 Footer İkon Mobil Uygulama Bize Ulaşın İletişim Tevhid Dersleri Tevhid Meali Ebu Hanzala Bizi Takip Edin facebook facebook Google+ google+ Twitter twitter Youtube youtube Instagram instagram Issuu Issuu E-Bülten Aboneliği Adınız Soyadınız E-Mail Adresiniz Telefon Numaranız Gönder Copyright 2019 - tevhiddergisi.org

[orientaltribe]

Posted @withregram • @margaretashdesign This year, March 8th is not only a special birthday for me but also marks International Women’s Day. Being a female founder of my own business I could never have done it without the support and mentorship of so many significant women around me. This space created while working with Amanda Nisbet is just one of those examples. Let’s celebrate today and everyday! #womensupportingwomeninbusiness . . . #internationalwomensday #womeninbusiness #femaleentrepreneurs #femaleinteriordesigner #amandanisbet #purpledecor #purpleinterior #hamptonsinteriors #femalementors #femaleceo #smallbusinesssupport https://www.instagram.com/p/CfWBGgsPyqb/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[biomedgrid]

Biomed Grid | Disability and Sociology: Anatomy is Not Destiny

Introduction

Talking about disability through a sociological look brings with it the urgent imperative to analyze the secularization of such a phenomenon, understanding it from other than mythical and supernatural bases. The endeavor proposed by this task requires tracing the constitutive elements of sociology itself, a process of the utmost seriousness. Nisbet [1], in a seminal text, defines sociology as a modern science of core and base. Its appearance is related to the context engendered by the English Industrial Revolution (economic transformation) and the French Revolution (political transformation), and the consequent advent of political etymologies rooted in the ideas of progress, individual, contract and reason, which marked a space of split towards the social ties of the Medievo. Roughly speaking, sociology is concurrent with the future of individualistic rationalism, the genesis of industrialization, and the assumption of the state as a cardinal disciplinarian of social relations, whose analytical focus lies in the rational explanation of the world. Its emergence is linked to a series of specific events and circumstances, coinciding with the final moments of the breakdown of feudal society and the consolidation of capitalist society.

The eighteenth century emerges as an effective milestone for the creation of sociological science (although the word only appears in the nineteenth century in Comte) due to its political, economic and cultural transformations arising from the materialization of the two revolutions already mentioned and also through the establishment of social problems. unprecedented for society at the time, such as: salaried labor and alienation; the laborious discipline and the new notions of time and space implanted by machines; the issue of urbanization; the dismantling of the patriarchal family and morality previously established as dominant and, fundamentally, the emergence of two opposing classes (bourgeoisie and proletariat). On these elements the Sociology finances its leather of relations. Since then, the incessant task of building a system of thought that renounces the supernatural explanations of everyday phenomena towards scientific and rational clarification has been the same. It is therefore misleading to think that the primordial task of Sociology was revolutionary in principle, quite the contrary, its genesis is related to accommodating things in an unstable age. Singular, in this sense, presents the evolutionary model proposed by Auguste Comte and his proposal for understanding the history of human development. Comte [2] suggests that the human intellectual process can be divided into three stages: theological, metaphysical, and positivist, with the first two merging into space and time. This model suggests the passage, as history progresses, from an interpretation of reality from the religious point of view to another of naturalistic origin, later overcome by the rise of the scientific way of understanding the natural and social world. For Oliver [3], this evolutionary model proved useful in understanding the development of the change in the historical perception of deviance, which as a moral and legal problem is now analyzed through biomedical control mechanisms. Similarly, Albrecht [4], points out that a review of medical practices throughout history, even when medicine was not even established as knowledge, allows us to understand the deviation from three paradigms that reigned each in a given historical period, the name, the idea of deviance as sin, the deviation as a crime and subsequently the deviation as disease, the which, however, does not mean that the thought assent to a linear perspective on certain event.

History is one and diverse, and phenomena are interpreted from a myriad of concomitant positions, hence the importance of the Gramscian concept of hegemony, understanding it as a set of ideas and power structures that clothe themselves with dominant authority and cognitive guidance historical era. In the typically modern way of thinking, the body that expresses differences beyond those taken as variations of human nature itself is no longer understood from mystical evidence or providences from the sphere of the divine, into the etymological field of biological inaccuracies. This phenomenon is uniquely portrayed by Foucault [5] when he points out that with the prevalence of the medical narrative about the body, a new discourse authorized by modernity, much of what concerns the supernatural has lost its strength and meaning and what was previously seen as punishment or wrath of the gods came to be coded as pathology derived from certain clinical conditions. Since the eighteenth-century medicine has established itself as one of the fields of knowledge in close connection with state power, intuition of violent repression about the body and, above all, to deviate from certain previously established pattern.

It is about this scenario and only in its spectrum, according to Canguilhem [6] that we witness the birth of the abnormal body, an abnormality seen as a derivative in irremediable antagonism to normality, which should not be confused with the naturally most probable, even because this concept is defined in a normative and hierarchical way. The normal is a dynamic and controversial concept that also involves what is supposed to be, the basis of which is clearly axiological. For Canguilhem [7], there is no normal and pathological in themselves. The pathological is not the absence of norm, but another norm. Even so, in his view [7], theoretically it makes no sense to take our life from an alleged relationship between the normal and the pathological, because “the concept of normal is not a concept of existence susceptible in itself to be measured objectively. The pathological must be understood as a kind of the normal, since the abnormal is not that which is not normal, but that which is a different normal. Thus, the abnormality cannot be seen only as negativity, amorphous phenomenon and latent passivity, because although it can represent, on several occasions, a reduction in creative potential, never left and never cease to materialize a new life marked by original physiological constants.

It is therefore a groundbreaking experience concerning the living being, not just a diminutive fact or in subtraction contributions. It is not a variation of the health dimension, but a new dimension of life. The natural never ceased to be cultural. These relationships are not even envisioned by classical knowledge in the field of disability, not least because one of its main bastions of discrimination, to cite, would be the concept of the ideal type or average man. Without norm there is no ideal type. Without this, there are no deviants. What if there are no deviants how to justify the intrinsic social inequality experienced by various groups? In order not to have to answer this question and to confront the very structure upon which it rests, the capitalist system creates thousand mechanisms in order to demarcate a supposed objectivity of the norm. We seek the norm at all costs, which is ideologies through a rigid process of technical instrumentation that intends to make visible and quantifiable the differences and deviations previously interpreted as divinatory fruits. A natural order is established, which coincides with the dominant groups, and seeks to numerically demarcate all that is distinguished from this order.

The deaf is a normal person subtracted from the faculty of hearing. Oppositions define it. The homosexual is, above all, a nonheterosexual. The woman not a man. The black one not white. The blind a non-seer. The wheelchair a non-walker. It is the absence that defines those who depart from the supposed norm. In this sense, every reference to the possible order is intrinsically accompanied by the aversion of the possible reverse order. The different from the preferable is not the indifferent, but the refutable, the obnoxious, the one to avoid. More than one definer, the norm holds an implicit element of segregation. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that the norm never erases the difference, quite the contrary, it demarcates it at an early stage and then considers it of lesser value. Disability is not denied by society, but explicitly recognized for later being bombarded by deleterious meanings of the most diverse species. The combination of these elements makes Canguilhem [6] consider the idea of normality as a cutoff point in the process of social inclusion or exclusion expressed by capitalist societies. What escapes it can only be included margins, an inclusion by exclusion.

Of course all societies throughout their history have defined patterns of inclusion and exclusion, but in none of them have we seen limits as rigid and narrow as those imposed by the capitalist system and its maxim of the useful and productive body, as we have pointed out earlier, demarcated no longer by the divine and mystic, but by the medical and biological. Unique in this sense is Davis’s [8] reasoning, for whom after the emergence of the concept of norm, the state that people longed for was an unattainable ideal. To resemble the creator spiritually was the goal, but everyone knew that such objective would never be reached. No one was extirpated for it. With the advent of modernity and the norm the power relations and raison d’être of the ideal man change completely. Being ideal now meant having a body fit for machinery and industrial paraphernalia. Failure to reach this somatic and psychic stage was the reason for the highest social refusal, a sign of discredit and disability, of dependence. The norm, under the auspices of capitalism, gives rise to a quasi-gardening culture where one cuts and prunes all the elements that are not considered major.

The strengthening of this essentially abstract, almost metaphysical concept acts as a conservative force that explicitly aims at preserving social structures. The material fills with the ideological. Those who distinguish themselves from the norm are debased by the norm and end up experiencing psychological and socioeconomic conditions of extreme, often irreversible disadvantage, whose improvement would fall hypothetically only to the arms of medicine. Deviation from the norm is only corrected by medical practice, which turns the deviated into patients, those who resist submissive, who depersonalize themselves. It is on the path of these relationships that disability will be worked on and conceptualized in modern societies: a problem of order and medical derivatives, an individual deficit that can only be remedied through clinical and therapeutic designs. So deeply rooted in our minds and everyday practices, this conceptualization seems to constitute an unquestionable form of explanation of disability, a naturalistic vector that amalgamates a simple cause-and-effect relationship materialized in the idea that this condition carries an intrinsic disadvantage to its biological condition.

However, there is nothing natural about such a relationship, because as we point out, it is a product built under the auspices of the consolidation of the capitalist regime and its modus operandi. Medicine imposes itself on deficiency only and exclusively on modern tropes. Thus, as naturalistic as it may seem, the medical explanation is nonetheless a heuristic device for characterizing disability, as is, albeit from other perspectives, the social model, which we will portray later. Whether or not referring to this supposed heuristic device, the values, knowledge and explanation fingered on this phenomenon unequivocally follow the path of these perspectives, even when we are not even aware of the existence of these explanatory models, as Oliver [9] points out. In most times, not being aware of these models has meant adhering to a posture in strict coherence with the individualistic lineage of interpretation of disability, a phenomenon justified due to the massive diffusion and recognition achieved by medical knowledge in the most diverse social spheres. But after all, what does the individual model of disability consist of? What is your base of support?

The Individual/Medical Disability Model

Said model is anchored in a set of assumptions and knowledge originating in the Health Sciences, with the hallmark the treatment of disability as a deviation to the normality anatomic bio-physiological; to trace this arch in the opposition between healthy and unhealthy, therefore, no longer referring to moralistic contributions as we witnessed in premodern times. Since the emergence of the individual model, according to Stiker [10] “we no longer speak in terms of good and evil, divine and evil, but sanitary/ morbid or hygienic/unhealthy. There is what is healthy and what is dangerous. No one else supports the speech of good and evil, surpassed by medical scrutiny”. Historically, the individual model emerges as an explanatory device erected within the processes of constitution of modern society and his way of thinking man in society, whose formative core is in the replacement of the magical and mythical forms of explanation of disability so common until the age.

Average for scientific reasonableness and supposedly objective explanation of the phenomenon. The logic of apprehension is radically reversed, so if previously disability has been interpreted as a kind of divine punishment due to the impurities of the parents or even as a demonic work, it nowadays acquires a status of failure, limitation and incapacity to be explained by the lens of industry, biology, statistics and medicine, guardians of the state and transmitter of the official knowledge that surrounds it . The disabled individual appears. It is necessary to understand the above statement as a result of the subject’s detachment process in relation to the great collective that surrounded him until the Middle Ages. The large families that spanned several generations practically ceased to exist and gave way to the nuclear family, centered on the wife, father, and children only. The motto God bless you all is replaced by each one for you and God for all. The destiny of each one now no longer depends on a network of fraternal relations, but only and exclusively on the forces themselves. With the rise of capitalism, the individual, isolated and private appears definitively in history, forging the individual we know today.

The further capitalism advanced and the higher its development became the more individualized man became. This high state of development brought new problems of order and social control in its composition. Among this set of problems, the body appears as the carrier of new variables, being divided not only between rich or poor, fed or malnourished, submissive or indolent, strong or weak, as we observed in previous historical stages. Is now also defined between usable, conducive to profitable investment, those with prospects of higher or lower degree of survival and of course those who are useful to receive the new training and discipline required to machine-managed production. In the words of Oliver [9], Prior to this time, the contribution that the individual provided to the production of social wealth was not computed by head and detached from the group. The family, the community, the clan, finally, the collective produced and all were evaluated by the production. Everyone’s success, injury as well as possible sanctions as well. Already in capitalism this situation is reversed. Now it is the individual who produces.

Only he is responsible for his production and the sanctions are applied on his body. Not of the family, of the community, but of the body of the individual, whose failures are interpreted as synonymous with his failure. This new reality, together with the idea that the bodies of people with disabilities would not accommodate to the postulates of capitalist society and wage labor eventually exclude them from this space, thus being controlled by what we might call the economics of exclusion. This process of exclusion became even more pronounced when medical science was definitively established as the ideological arm of the state and the interests of capital. Such an intervention model is rooted in an overemphasis on clinical diagnosis and visualization of disability as a tragic and inhibitory nature of humanity to become. Disability becomes, under the medical nickname, a problem of the individual, who must take responsibility for their situation. They are now blamed for the continuing failures of their insertion into the social body.

On this blaming and medicalization of disability rests the individual model that has decisively marked the interpretation of this phenomenon in modern societies. Thus, not necessarily the dominant character assumed by medical knowledge meant an effective democratic transformation regarding the possibilities of enjoyment and cultural appropriation by people with disabilities. That there has been a transformation in the understanding of this category in society is indisputable, however, we believe that the biologist approach should not be the last word in terms of disability. There is no linearity between the predominance of medical knowledge over the religious as correlating with a more democratic attitude towards the phenomenon of disability. If we look closely at history, we realize that many of the self-fulfilling prophecies about the incapacity for social inclusion of people with disabilities have been delineated exactly from the medical perspective. This perspective has defined in terms of synonymy deficiency and disability. These are identical terms in this field, accentuated by efficiency and capacity.

A perverse conceptual binarism that keeps the opposite pole of social enjoyment is maintained through the definition of an ideal type, which reserves to those who deviate from the dominant patterns of behavior, functionality and aesthetic contributions all kinds of possible storms that make their full insertion difficult society. Within this perspective, the linear transfer of the social nonadjustment of the disabled person to his physiology and deviant body is notorious, that is, a complex social issue is addressed as the sole and exclusive responsibility of the individual. When we start from this normative assumption, we imply the idea that people with disabilities will only integrate into society when they transform their deteriorated organic condition and regain a supposed state of normativity. Therefore, any possibility of intervention that is not focused by medical knowledge is removed. And it is to this set of prerogatives presented that Oliver [11,12] calls the individual model of disability.

The alluded body of knowledge enjoyed unwavering prestige until the throes of the twentieth century, when in its last quartile it begins to be criticized viscerally, at least as regards the naturalness of discrimination against the disabled. Not surprisingly, therefore, that even in areas such as sociology, epistemologically interested in symbolic production and materials of social conflicts, echoed and still echo almost unison voices of a speech composed of theoretically unrelated lines the historical constitution of disability, reiterating the position taken by Oliver [9] that over decades and decades, disability has been treated as a pre- sociological theme by much of the human and social sciences, which considered it a social problem only when medicine had previously diagnosed and scanned it. It is not part of a foundation that has been eaten with impunity, so the sociological basis in interpreting disability, when it was rarely considered, ultimately referred to the novelty interests of medical definitions, thus, at most, sociology colonized by the parameters of the biological. It was necessary to conceive and not just describe the phenomenon, it was urgent to outline a social model of disability.

For a Social Model of Disability

The cornerstone of the theoretical construction of the Disability Studies/social model of disability pulses from the conceptual rupture of any alleged causal link between disability and impairment-injury already materialized in the far manifest granted by UPIAS, being singular the words of Finkelstein [13], that “disability is imposed upon our disabilities by the way we are unnecessarily isolated and excluded from full participation in society. People with disabilities are therefore an oppressed group in society”. This view is shelter in Oliver [12] and Barnes [14], which highlights the failure in-lesion theoretical scheme of the social model can be, broadly speaking, regarded as a body characteristic such that skin color or sex. Exemplary is the practical and concrete definition of the distinction between injury and disability made by Morris (1991, p.25), for whom, in short terms we can define disability and disability quite simply. The inability to walk represents an injury, while the inability to enter a building because entry can only be done by a flight of steps is a disability. An inability to speak is an injury, but an inability to communicate because proper technical aids are not available is a disability. An inability to move a body is an injury, but an inability to get out of bed because adequate physical help is not available is a disability. Disability is a product of social exclusion.

In this theoretical architecture it becomes perfectly understandable to have an injury and not to experience the disability, whose achievement depends on the degree of flexibility of society to adapt to the most diverse differences, materiality clearly far from becoming practical. This creates a new concept of disability that has the peculiarity of being both native and analytical. Analytical because it allows the analysis of a certain set of phenomena, in this case disability, and only makes sense in the body of a given theory, anchored in the need to bring sociology to the explanation of disability, whose basis is given in the lineament of writings of Marx. Native for being a category that arises from the very experience of the group in question. It is the experience of disability that comes to be seen as a bridge to its definition, so that concept also acquires a practical, effective, historical, objective and specific sense for a particular human group. Under this intersection lies the main strength of the concept of disability expressed by the social model in that it manages to blend seemingly contradictory structures. The native and most common to people with disabilities is also the most complex in the academic field, a dynamic difficult to observe in other social movements.

The individual model of interpretation of disability has never achieved such a feat, quite the contrary, because it establishes a striking gap between the experience of disability and the writings about it, coming from a body of professionals, which in most cases do not have a relationship of disability familiarity with the subject. The concept created by the social model starts from the idea that one social fact, disability, could only be explained by another social fact (notion of clear Durkheimian varnish), the oppressive capitalist society, with the aim of creating a sociological concept for disability that could replace the previous, bio-based one. This distinctive form of analytical inquiry arises academically in a historical context in which black scholars sought to create a new concept for race and to explain discrimination as a social product and not derived from any biological composition. The similarities are evident and contributory to both movements. In this sense, the definition of Guimarães [15] is visceral, when he is asked what race is. He says It depends. It really depends on whether we are speaking scientifically or whether we are speaking of a real-world category.

This word “race” has at least two analytical meanings: one claimed by genetic biology and the other by sociology. Biology and physical anthropology created the idea of human races, that is, the idea that the human species could be divided into subspecies, such as the animal world, and that such a division would be associated with differential development. moral values, psychic and intellectual gifts among human beings. To be honest, this was science for a while and only then became pseudoscience. We also know that what we call racism would not exist without this idea that divides humans into races, into subspecies, each with its own qualities. It was she who hierarchized human societies and populations and founded a certain doctrinal racism. This doctrine survived the creation of the social sciences, the cultural sciences, and meanings, supporting insane political postures of disastrous effects such as genocide and holocaust. Only after the tragedy of World War II did we see an effort by all scientists - biologists, sociologists, anthropologists - to bury the idea of race, disallowing its use as a scientific category. What is race in biological terms? A mistake, a profoundly intentional historical error.

The construction based on physiognomic traits, phenotype or genotype, is something that has no scientific support. What about race in sociological terms? Now, just because knowing that race does not exist biologically, and blacks continue to occupy the worst social positions is a concept that is useful in sociology. One is almost the antithesis of the other, because while biology seeks to justify discrimination and prejudice, in the field of sociological concept, ways of directly addressing these forms of oppression have been sought. Thus, race is not only a political category necessary to organize resistance to racism in Brazil, but it is also an indispensable analytical category: the only one that reveals that the discriminations and inequalities that the Brazilian notion of ‘color’ entails are effectively racial and not just ‘classy’. Just as the sociological concept of race is diametrically distinct from that defined by biology, the deficiency conceptualized by the social model is radically different from that defined by the individual model. Both one and the other area since then seen in terms of social oppression by an insensitive society difference. Sociologically speaking race and disability are not watertight concepts like those derived from the biological matrix, they are concepts that are just like class, in a continuous process of formation.

It is never permanent, because it strengthens and changes with the modification of society. In fact, for sociologists who study racial themes and for the authors of the social model, the consideration of race and disability as biological categories is a historical mistake if we assume that the nominal, effective and effective existence of these terms only materializes in the world. Social. However, intersectionality with race studies is not the most explicit evidence of linking disability studies with other minority groups. Starting from the idea of distinguishing between biological and social, the analytical separation promoted by Disability Studies between injury and disability is embodied as a clear parallel to gender studies. The concept of gender emerges as a response given by critical sociology, in the 70’s of the last centuries, to the analyzes based on the natural difference between male and female, justified the inequality in the most diverse spheres in which men and women were considered in society. Therefore, gender should be understood as a social construction whose direction sought to study the inequalities presented by men and women in their process of insertion in the scenario of history.

Rather than explaining inequalities through a biological and naturalistic variant, the gender category, while not disregarding the biological differences that exist between men and women, considers that on the basis of these, others are built on the set of values established as dominant; which radically interfere with the social insertion and educational possibilities offered to men and women in the daily sphere, in short, transform gender differences into social and cultural inequalities. For Scott [16] , gender is an analytical category useful to the entire history of humanity and not only the history of women, because its scope allows the study of various inequalities, hierarchies, oppressions and discrimination in the set of social relations; Though it may cast reflections on the history of women in particular, as well as that of men, however, this particular needs to be collated by the general, which in this case is given by the continuing relationship between men and women. Appropriating gender studies, the authors of the social model established the cardinal differential of their gnoseological concept, to cite, the differentiation between injury and disability.

Like gender, by emphasizing the fundamentally social character of gender-based divisions and highlighting that embedded in the biological differences between women and men are socially and culturally constructed, disability studies emphasize that based on injury, other Differences are constructed and clutter the possibilities of insertion into the collective, eventually leading to the phenomenon of exclusion. This phenomenon is called disability, which is not unilaterally related to the lesion, but rather to the organization shaped by the capitalist modus operandi. Just as sex would not explain the oppression suffered by women in society, whose concreteness should be sought in its patriarchal structure, the injured body would not determine the socio-political-cultural phenomenon of the subordination experienced by the disabled in capitalism, which could only be explained by the material basis of production of this system in conjunction with personal and institutional prejudice. To explain the condition of printed oppression on the disabled due to loss of skill caused by injury or any biological disorganization was to confuse injury and disability, such as gender and gender. Disability is a material and symbolic product of society, while injury can be understood as an expression of human biology.

Drawing a parallel with gender studies we can highlight that disability can be compared to what represents gender in these studies, a social construction, in contrast, injury would be the equivalent of sex, fruit of nature. Just as the gender role of each gender is the result of a long process of socialization, the transformation of the meaning of the lesion into disability is also a strictly social one. There is nothing natural about it, indeed nothing that is essentially human is. These situations are made clear by the social model, which lies beyond the understanding of disability as a tragic problem of isolated occurrence of some less fortunate individuals for whom only medical treatment is left to view it as a situation of collective institutional discrimination for which the only appropriate response is political action radically reverses the vectors that shaped its understanding in society. Commenting on this process, Diniz [17] points out that the removal of the disability from the field of nature and its transfer to society was a revolutionary theoretical shift, such as that caused by feminism: it was no longer possible to justify the oppression of the people disabled by a dictatorship of nature, but by a social injustice in the welfare division, a statement with disconcerting political implications.

Since then the disability category has come to be a social device of exclusion, which penalizes certain people for not meeting the expectations of the average population in terms of appearance, behavior or economic performance. If it is society that disables people with disabilities, the only way to change reality is through intense struggles to transform the current state of forces and take control of their own lives. The new universe created by the social model opposes to the colonizing discourse expressed by normative, medical, clinical and rehabilitative knowledge a critical, sociological, political, inclusive and contextualized praxis. Under the auspices of a new ontology established between disability and society, the social model decolonizes the study of disability in medical areas, leading to profound consequences in the human formation of the disabled. The radical critique of the composition of the old man with disabilities, which is driven by naturalistic prisms, creates, when consciously internalized, a new way of thinking. And when we think different, we are no longer the same.

Of course, the emergence of a new man will only really materialize with the dawn of a new society, however, and this is of fundamental importance only when people with disabilities are able to point out the path to which dialectics objectively their development is that they may awaken to the awareness of the process itself, and this implies a suspension of all that has been said and done about being deficient in society. Only then can disability arise as a category derived from history and its consequent dismantling as an assumption derived from the praxis itself that unclearly alters social structure. This is the unprecedented desire of the social model to build a body of knowledge that can effectively be called emancipatory research on disability. Therefore, the logic of the social model is about revolution rather than reform, or using a word from Finkelstein [13], a strategy of emancipation rather than compensation.

The ultimate goal of the social model, according to Barnes [18] is nothing less than the creation of a world in which, regardless of disability, age, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, social class, job status, all can coexist as equal members in the community, without oppression and discrimination, and confident that the needs of each individual can be fully accommodated, moreover, the opinions expressed by these subjects must be recognized, respected and valued regardless of their position in society, even as in such a society division would no longer dictate the course of social relations and the very notion of Inequality would be seen in a series of existential crises, tending to disappear. This will be a truly democratic society, characterized by genuine and meaningful equal opportunities. It will continue to produce and increase its wealth yet direct its vector to the collective rather than the private. This equity will generate greater possibilities and, therefore, will broaden the focus of freedom over the human, as it enables effective growth through the appropriation of the characteristic differences of each subject and culture.

The creation of this new world is not called by any anticipated terminology. It is up to men to define their destinies and the name they will give them. The pressing need is to overcome capitalism and build a reality on other foundations. Of course, the creation of a new world will be an arduous and difficult process subject to falls, collapses and new falls, but rising is always necessary. One must look forward, forward. Many will call it utopia. But, as Oscar Wilde [19] has rightly pointed out in his “The Soul of Man under Socialism,” “a map of the world that does not visualize any form of utopia is not worth seeing. We must think that our reality can and should be different. Humanity is always in the process of landing and anchoring in new lands. Land that is not given and needs to be cultivated, also sown with dreams”. These situations show us the need to stand as a socialist. And what is socialism today? Being socialist in the 21st century means first of all being radical, one who takes and attacks problems in the bud. Being a socialist today is linked to a dialectical communion between universalism and particularism that also places the solution of global problems in the personal sphere.

It is to feel pain for another’s pain and to rejoice in their happiness. It is feeling supportive and helpless when murdering a human being anywhere in the world. Cry the tears of other peoples. To suffer and to clash with the hunger that still plagues humanity when the conditions for its suppression are fully met. And what does socialism consist of? E m Lowy [20], we realize that there is nothing mysterious or obscure this question. To be a socialist is to reiterate that nothing should be abandoned to the blind laws of the market, even because its invisible hand has historically shown the face of the interests by which it erects its relations. The paths must be traced after a long, broad and pluralistic democratic debate. For this reason, socialism demands a true revolution that suppresses the capitalist system and opposes the power exercised by the ruling classes. It means the overcoming of a model of civilization based on productivism and consumerism, a predatory relationship with nature and a prisoner subjectivity of the mercantile system. It also means the end of racial discrimination-against the black, the mestizo, the indigenous- from the oppression of women, we would add the disabled, social inequality, environmental destruction, imperialist wars.

It means living in a place where everyone can work and where job offers are the rule rather than the exception. And this is achieved by voting, dialogue and not weapons, popular mobilization and the building of collective interests sustained by those who really need the state, the poor, democratic and necessary attainment given the conservative wave that plagues the globe as a whole we are talking about developing countries like Brazil or the great empires like the USA. Utopia? It depends. If it is nowhere, surely not. Objectified place, one that is desired in the near or distant future. This is it. Therefore, it is crucial to strip we of the well-known idea that the realization of a revolutionary ideal cannot be postponed beyond the life of the one who prescribes it. We cannot be so selfish and want everything to be resolved in our time. The time of a human life is dramatically scarce, this is the inescapable absolute of the human condition. No one transcends death, but not only at present does man live. Believing that the world will be different and established on different bases after our death cannot be seen as a religious creed or a kind of belief in the afterlife. Social history and trust in humanity lead us to rely on this path, so sooner or later we continue to believe in the emergence of a new society that breaks with all the lineage of the previous one and can indeed call itself democratic.

Even because, as Oliver [21] asserts, only an effectively democratic society will hold a libertarian concept of disability, since in the production of their own life men contract determined, necessary and independent relations of their will, relations that correspond to a certain stage of the development of material productive forces. In capitalism such relations will never realize the emancipatory yearning in its fullness and maximum possibility. Therefore, people with disabilities can no longer free themselves from the class that exploits and oppresses them while at the same time freeing society from exploitation. Exploitation societies which find in bourgeois relations their last stage and ultimate antagonistic form of the social process of production, which create the conditions for the very overcoming of this antagonism and allow the closure of the prehistory of humanity. This other humanity can finally be branded as a free society that enables the maximum development of all its beings. In Marcuse’s view, these are the qualitatively different characteristics of a free society. They presuppose, as you may have already seen, a total overvaluation of values, a new anthropology.

They presuppose a kind of human being that rejects the performative principles that govern established societies; a kind of human being who has freed himself from the aggressiveness and brutality inherent in the organization of the established society and the puritanical, hypocritical morality; a kind of human being who is biologically unable to fight wars and create suffering; a kind of human being who is well aware of joy and pleasure and who works collectively and individually for a natural and social environment in which such an existence becomes possible. A kind of human being in solidarity and in communion with the other. How to do this? Although historical materialism seems to be the best way to explain and propose projections about reality, there are still no recipes or easy solutions. As points Adorno [22] and this question surpasses me. Faced with the question ‘what to do’ I can only really answer, in most cases, ‘I don’t know’. I can only try to analyze intransigently what it is. And that, which is the case with disability, lies in the fact that it is produced historically and socially. By way of these elements, social model theorists radically reject the idea as present in the medical knowledge of people with disabilities as dependent and needy in the most diverse welfare cuts, and also refute the dissipated assumption that they need to adapt to society. This is because they place the responsibility for exclusion on the shoulders of the so-called normalization society, rigidly developed over structures designed to create a docile workforce and reward only those considered highly productive. This way of interpreting the phenomenon allows us to analyze disability from the perspective of social creationism, since it allows the visualization of it as a reality produced by certain economic, cultural and political structures of society, so the idea of people with disabilities as an oppressed and discriminated group regains meaning. From a Marxist perspective on the political economy, people with disabilities are viewed as being excluded from the labor market not because of their personal or functional limitations, as in the individual model, nor by the discriminatory attitudes and practices of other. example of interactionism, but fundamentally due to the social organization that work assumes under the auspices of capital.

The production of disability, therefore, is nothing less than a set of activities specifically oriented towards the production of a good, the disability category, supported by a series of political actions that create the necessary conditions for these productive activities to take place and be supported by a discourse that legitimizes them. According to Oliver [12], his criticism is directed at this company and the structure that underpins it, so he reiterates that it makes no sense in terms of political struggle to improve the condition of all people adjective the deficiency of their own lesion. That said, in the words of Oliver [12], As for the specificity of the terminology that I will use in my speech as a tool to fight against any form of oppression I will use the term disabled person in a generic way, because I refuse to divide the group in terms of medical conditions, functional limitation or severity disability. In my view, people with disabilities are defined on the basis of three criteria, namely: a) have a disability; b) are oppressed because of their disability; and c) identify themselves as disabled, regardless of whether intellectual, physical or sensory. The use of the generic term does not mean, under any circumstances, that it does not recognize the differences in experience between the various groups, but I assume that everyone suffers some form of oppression because of their condition.

Accordingly, the idea of using disability as a generic term is not to erase differences, but to create a common ground for the sum of forces of these differences with regard to the critique of capitalism and the pursuit of a rigorous theory of disability embedded. In Marxist canons. It is evident that deficiencies differ among themselves within different categories and also within the same divisions as to the needs that each person may present. The need for housing of a physically disabled child working-class daughter living in overcrowded conditions in a housing estate is not the same as that of a physically disabled child, but a daughter of the elites. On the one hand housing is almost an absence. On the other, a presence that can boast to certain levels of luxury. People’s needs and differences are distinct because they are fundamentally historical and not biological, even though this sphere interferes with their attainment. People do not exist simply as disabled. Are disabled and men or women, workers or unemployed, black or white, native or migrant, etc. Therefore, the difference exists and is undeniable.

This has never been a problem and never has such a relationship been forgotten by social model theorists. The key point, therefore, is not its existence, but who defines difference as difference? How should we understand the difference? How does difference designate the other? What norms are assumed from which a group is marked as different? How are the boundaries of difference constituted, maintained or dissipated? What is the nature of the assignments that are taken into account to define a group as different? Does the difference differ laterally or hierarchically? These are the fundamental questions, some developed, others to be developed as part of the realization of the social theory of disability. The theme of disability from a sociological perspective subverts, including the much-declaimed Marxian aphorism that the anatomy of man is the key to the anatomy of the ape by pointing out that in bourgeois society it is the most developed historical organization, most distinguished from production, which allows to penetrate the articulation and relations of production of all forms of missing societies, on whose ruins and elements it is built, and whose traces, not yet surpassed, it dragged along, developing all that was previously only indicated, thus taking all its form significance etc.

The anatomy of man is the key to the anatomy of the monkey. What in the lower animal species indicates a higher form cannot, on the contrary, be understood only when one knows the higher form. The bourgeois economy provides the key to the economy of antiquity. In terms of economic analysis, this proposition is valid to the present day, but as far as human development is concerned, it is extremely flawed and its inadvertent and misleading use has allowed a series of comparative excrescence that most refer to evolutionary knowledge of the human being than anything else when we are referring to disability studies. As Rousseau rightly pointed out, man is born twice, first to exist and then to continue the species; first as being itself and then as being for itself, the general rule of humanization that differentiates human beings from any other species. In this sense, human beings are unique, incomparable and whose development has remarkable turning points. Being deficient in a society that is still unprepared architecturally and socially indicates remarkable developmental pathways that cannot be compared to any ideal type. Part of this necessary and possible development is hampered by the difficulties created about the disability of being in the labor market, the achievement of which represents the most democratic that would exist in building public policies for people with disabilities. The goal of any modern democracy is the same in everyone: to build a society in which work is the rule rather than exception and that this principle applies to absolutely everyone. Anatomy is not destiny.

Read More About this Article: https://biomedgrid.com/fulltext/volume6/disability-and-sociology-anatomy-is-not-destiny.000986.php

For more about: Journals on Biomedical Science :Biomed Grid | Current Issue

[kwebtv]

Trainer  -  BBC One -  September 1, 1991 - December 2, 1992

Drama (23 episodes)

Running Time:  60 minutes

Stars:

Mark Greenstreet as Mike Hardy

Susannah York as Rachel Ware

David McCallum as John Grey

Floyd Bevan as Nick Peters

Neil Nisbet as Danny Foster

Audrey Jenkinson as Mo Ratcliffe

Des McAleer as Joe Hogan

Marcus D'Amico as David Ware

Nigel Davenport as James Brant

Patrick Ryecart as Hugo Latimer

Nicola King as. Frances Ross

Sarah Atkinson as Kath Brant

Claire Oberman as Alex Farrell

Melanie Thaw as Sue Lawrence

Kenneth Farrington as Jack Ross

John Bowe as Robert Firman

Emma Harbour as Emma Carter

Angharad Rees as Caroline Farrell

Joanna McCallum as Toni Mountford

Jeremy Sinden as Freddie Farrell

Stephen Greif as Stavros Mikhalides

[timezfusa]

Nisbet & Boyle net as Hibs edge out Livi

Nisbet & Boyle net as Hibs edge out Livi

Kevin Nisbet’s goal helped seal a 2-0 victory for Hibs over winless Livingston Kevin Nisbet signed off on a fine week by helping Hibernian beat Livingston and maintain the early pace in the Scottish Premiership. Nisbet, 24, was named in the Scotland squad this week and marked his return from illness with a second-half effort. Martin Boyle added Hibs’ second late on to cap off his call-up with…

[ebooksdownloadpdf]

[PDF EBOOK EPUB KINDLE] Interior Design Master Class 100 Lessons from America's Finest Designers on the Art of Decoration Ebook [Kindle]

[PDF EBOOK EPUB KINDLE] Interior Design Master Class: 100 Lessons from America's Finest Designers on the Art of Decoration Ebook [Kindle]

Interior Design Master Class: 100 Lessons from America's Finest Designers on the Art of Decoration

[PDF] Download Interior Design Master Class: 100 Lessons from America's Finest Designers on the Art of Decoration Ebook | READ ONLINEhttp://read.ebookcollection.space/?book=0847848906

Author : Carl Dellatore Publisher : Rizzoli International Publications ISBN : 0847848906 Publication Date : 2016-10-11 Language : Pages : 352

To Download or Read this book, click link below:

http://read.ebookcollection.space/?book=0847848906

[BOOK]

Synopsis : [PDF EBOOK EPUB KINDLE] Interior Design Master Class: 100 Lessons from America's Finest Designers on the Art of Decoration Ebook [Kindle]

With one hundred essays from one hundred interior designers, spanning stylistic genres from classic to modern, on subjects as varied as Collecting, White, Portals, and Layering, this book highlights the knowledge, experience, expertise, insight, and work of established design legends, as well as members of the new guard, spanning over four decades of work. Unique in the quality of its contributors, this book will be a landmark publication in the field, helpful and inspirational for the home decorator, as well as students of design and design professionals. Poised to become the essential book on design, Interior Design Master Class collects the expertise and knowledge of the best interior designers working today. Opening Interior Design Master Class is like sitting down to the best dinner party you've ever attended. A classic in the making, the book features one hundred essays by America's top designers--from established design legends to members of the new guard--that explore in detail the process of designing a home, from the fundamentals to the finishing touches. Grouped by theme, the subjects range from practical considerations (Bunny Williams on Comfort, Etienne Coffinier and Ed Ku on Floor Plans) and details (Victoria Hagan on Light, Rose Tarlow on Books) to inspiration (Jeffrey Bilhuber on America and Charlotte Moss on Couture) and style (Kelly Wearstler on Glamour, Thomas O'Brien on Vintage Modern). Each piece is paired with images of the designer's work to illustrate the principles being discussed, annotated with informative captions.Unique in the quality of its contributors, this is a book that readers will refer to again and again for advice and inspiration, an invaluable resource for practical tips and thought-provoking design.Select Contributors and their Topics:Vicente Wolf on Teachers; Barry Dixon on Relationships; Barbara Barry on Awareness; Amanda Nisbet on Intuition; Madeline Stuart on Trends; Suzanne Tucker on Archaeology; Bobby McAlpine on Intimacy; Stephen Sills on Aspirations; Mark Cunningham on Symmetry; Richard Mishaan on Portals; Campion Platt on Proportion; Cindy Smith and Jane Schwab on Editing; Juan Montoya on Scale; Amy Lau on Commissions; Suzanne Kasler on Style; Thomas O'Brien on Vintage Modern; Alan Wanzenberg on Modernity; Alexa Hampton on Tradition; Kelly Wearstler on Glamour; Anthony Baratta on Exuberance; Tom Scheerer on Luxury; Suzanne Rheinstein on Nuance; Timothy Corrigan on Welcoming Spaces; Bunny Williams on Comfort; Miles Redd on Reinvention; Martyn Lawrence Bullard on Sex; Mario Buatta on Color; Darryl Carter on White; Alessandra Branca on Red; Alex Papachristidis on Layering; Victoria Hagan on Light; Thad Hayes on Quality; Kathryn Ireland on Textiles; Windsor Smith on Communication; Nancy Braithwaite on Collecting; Kathryn Scott on Patina; Timothy Whealon on Antiques; Rose Tarlow on Books; Thomas Jayne on Provenance; Emily Summers on Sourcing Furniture; Thomas Pheasant on Inspiration; Sandra Nunnerley on Jazz; Penny Drue Baird on Paris; Jeffrey Bilhuber on America; Robert Couturier on Fashion; Ann Pyne on Poetry; Alan Tanksley on Destinations; Charlotte Moss on Couture

[tabernacleheart]

John 3:16- That is the great Magna Charta of Christianity. What is the meaning of it? I believe that it meets with a response not only in your hearts but in all the hearts of all mankind. We believe in God, and we believe in love. Not only in the beginning there was God, but God is, and if there is a God men ask that that God shall exhibit the highest quality known to human nature. What is that quality? It is the theme of all the poets, it is the inspiration of the greatest pictures of art, especially Christian art. What is the meaning of it? There is only one meaning of it—that the biggest achievement of man, springing from the deepest parts of his human nature, is love. [Now,] love manifests itself. Some people think of love as a sentiment. Divine love is far deeper than that. And God reveals His love. How do you reveal your love? Exactly in the same way as you reveal your intelligence—by an incarnation. How is God to manifest Himself that He loves? In the stars? In the flowers? In a magnificent sunset? We all know that, but yet how far is He? If God loves He must come to us in personality, and if He did not the world would say: ‘It is a mistake, and God has not revealed Himself yet as He can and as He ought.’ God was in Christ. That is the highest revelation you can have—God in personality. And why was that? Do you not see what we had done? We were made all right, but we were spoiled by sin. Then the communion was broken, and if the communion is to be established again in personality, as it started in personality, it can only be done when Deity touches the eternal shore on one side and man on the other side, and redeems our human nature. That is what God did, and Christ took our human nature and redeemed it, and presented it perfect and spotless to God. [And so we have] salvation by faith. Mark the text—‘That whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’ People say they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ by a speculative assent of something they call the intellect. That is not belief. Do you know what it cost God to believe in the redemption of men? It cost Him His only begotten Son. What did it cost Christ to save man? It cost Him a Cross, and yet men think they can be saved by the sentimental assent to the doctrines of Christianity. Christ never said: ‘He that believeth in the doctrine of the Atonement shall be saved.’ He said, ‘He that believeth in Me shall be saved.’ What does that mean? Belief with the intellect? Yes. Belief in the Atonement? Yes. What else? You have got to believe with the heart. What else? To believe with the will, and to do His Will. Christ asks you for your heart—all you have got. I want you to give your intellect and lay it at the Cross; I want you to give your love and put it at the feet of the Crucified; I want you to be able to say, ‘O God, not my will but Thy Will be done,’ and give your will to God. Then you will understand that he that believeth has communion with God and hath eternal life. Will you have it? How can you get it? Do you know what wants redeeming? It is human nature, and He has redeemed it. Will you give it back to him and get this new life? Will you understand that you have been reconciled to God through the death of Jesus Christ? I want you to go away believing in the doctrine that God is love, and that the highest life is that which is wholly consecrated to Him.

Rev. A. J. Waldron; James Nisbet's Church Pulpit Commentary; Notes on John 3:16