The aim of this note is to characterize those doubly ordered frames ⟨X,≤1,≤2⟩ which are embeddable into the canonical frame of its Urquhart complex algebra.

Discutimos aquí una semejanza –sobre la que no se ha hecho hincapié hasta ahora– entre la teoría de relaciones y predicados de The Philosophy of Logical Atomism [TPLA] de Russell y la teoría de los objetos y los nombres en el Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus [TLP] de Wittgenstein. Se detectan puntos de semejanza en tres niveles: en el de la ontología, en el de la sintaxis y en el de la semántica. Esta analogía explica las similitudes prima facie entre la presentación informal de la teoría de los tipos en TPLA y las secciones del TLP dedicadas al mismo tema.

El texto When God Spoke Greek. The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible, de Timothy Michael Law, parte de la idea de que es imposible leer la Septuaginta junto con la Biblia hebrea y concluir que sus contenidos teológicos son idénticos. Aun cuando la fuente hebrea de la Biblia de los Setenta haya sido la misma que la del texto hebreo y las divergencias sean atribuibles a la traducción, el texto griego comporta desarrollos teológicos propios acerca de la escatología, el mesianismo, las profecías y la santidad de Dios, entre otros, que lo separan de la Biblia hebrea. Frente a esta constatación, el objetivo del libro es relativizar las especulaciones que durante mucho tiempo, e incluso en la actualidad, han asignado una posición ancilar a la Septuaginta respecto de la Biblia hebrea y han considerado a esta última como el “genuino Antiguo Testamento”.

We introduce the notion of a critical cardinal as the critical point of sufficiently strong elementary embedding between transitive sets. Assuming the axiom of choice this is equivalent to measurability, but it is well-known that choice is necessary for the equivalence. Oddly enough, this central notion was never investigated on its own before. We prove a technical criterion for lifting elementary embeddings to symmetric extensions, and we use this to show that it is consistent relative to a supercompact cardinal that there is a critical cardinal whose successor is singular.

The Gemini theorem asserts that, given certain reasonable assumptions, no physical system can be certainly aware of its own existence. The theorem can be proved algorithmically, but the proof of this theorem is somewhat obscure, and there exists very little literature on it. The purpose of this article is to provide a brief non-technical summary of the theorem and its proof, with a view to stimulating critical discussion of the proof and its implications. Since the theorem implies that a violation of the conservation of energy will take place within the brains of conscious human beings, it has obvious implications for any physical theory.

In a first time, this paper shows why the classification of philosophical systems defined by Vuillemin improves our understanding of the history of philosophy. I reply in a second time to embarrassments expressed by Bouveresse and Engel about the philosophical pluralism which is, according to Vuillemin, a consequence of the principles and definitions of his classification of philosophical systems. The main thesis of this paper is a conjecture: the philosophical pluralism is not a position that one is forced to admit if one adopts Vuillemin’s classification. Elements that should allow a proof of this conjecture are given in conclusion.

Very recently, on May 23rd of this year [2011], the famous journalist and poet Aleksei Shiropaev made an appearance at a round table in the State Duma called “The Russian Question on the Eve of Elections” on behalf of the so-called National-Democratic Alliance. His speech can be considered a breakthrough; that is, for official structures like the State Duma. National-democratic (or national-liberal) is what that part of the Russian nationalists calls itself which most radically rejects historical Russia and openly propagates her breakup into independent “Russian republics” oriented towards “Western civilization” and market-liberal reforms. “We national-democrats are of the opinion that a correct solution to the Russian question is directly related to rejecting the imperial character of Russian statehood,”

The symbolism of the ancient Assyrian-Babylonian kings (and the Russian Tsars were successors of the Roman Empire, which, according to the Book of Daniel, succeeded the Babylonian empire – Russian scribes developed this inheritance in the “Tale of the Kingdom of Babylon” and the “Tale of Borma Yaryzhka” [2]) included a red bull and a white falcon (or white deer). The Russian Tsar was a White Tsar, that is to say autonomous, not dependent on anyone (in the social sphere, the “white kingdom” is related to the “white towns” and “white clergy” [3]) and a Red Tsar, the anointed commander of the host. The February conspiracy was led by generals and the episcopate [4]. This last point must be acknowledged, as it does not contradict the Soviet (and its mirror opposite, the anti-Soviet) version of the “monarchist clergy.” Investigations by the historian, Dr. Mikhail Babkin, have laid this problem bare. They also explained extremely well why the idea of an Orthodox monarchy is unpopular in contemporary Church circles.

“The battle forActually, the simplest inferences convince us that time is, at best, a very grand convention. The past has passed, and it’s not anymore. The future can only be yet to be, and it is also not. The present is a unit that tends to zero. But we know that zero is identical to infinity. From the point of view of infinity, there is neither a past nor a future. To be more precise, all is one. Everything always is and is in everything. History is a myth. According to A. F. Losev, the myth is an “open magical name”; he also held that “myth is miracle” without a human origin. history.” What does this mean? What battle could we be speaking of, if history is the past and, as we are told, we cannot return any further?

The concept of chaos is very profound and demand the whole lecture. I am studying in Ancient culture and in contemporaneous interpretation. Chaos is the world in the state that precedes the Order. That is essential. Such chaos is the possibility of new creation. The moderns understand by chaos the confusion that follows the destruction of the order. It is the case of actual chaos. It is not chaotic in the Greek sense, that is the dead chaos, that has no life inside of it. I am pessimistic as to status qua. If the things go the same way they are going now it will bring total destruction of the humanity. May be we deserve that. More we acquire more we are doomed. But before being totally replaced by Artificial Intelligence what globalists and progressists want to do, we can decide otherwise.