The formation of time con epts and the making of time I measurements, i.e. the production of devices as well as their use and social function, become for him a problem of social knowledge and its formation. It is couched in the long-term perspective of evolution of human societies. Knowledge about time is not knowledge about an invariant part or object of nature. Time is not a quality inherent in things, nor invariant across human societies.

It may well be, as Edmond Wright has pointed out (personal communi-cation) that by leaving sui generis time to the physicists, i.e. by leaving it out of social theory altogether, there is the risk of losing sight of the 'real' temporal continuum which serves as standard reference for all other forms of times. It also impedes coming to terms with 'time embedded' in natural objects and technical artifacts, as Hagerstrand (1974, 1975, 1988) repeatedly emphasized.

he third strategy is the unen-cumbered embracing of pluritemporalism. With or without awareness that the concept of an absolute (Newtonian) physical time broke down irrevocably at the turn of this century and that a different kind of plurit-emporalism has also been spreading in the physical sciences (Prigogine and Stengers, 1988; Hawking, 1988; Adam, 1990), social theory is free to posit the existence of a plurality of times, including a plurality of social times. In most cases this amounts to a kind of 'theoretical agnosti-cism' with regard to physical time. Pluritemporalism allows for asserting the existence of social time next to physical ( or biological) time without going into differences of emergence, constitution or epistemological

Another strategy in dealing with sui generis time consists in juxtaposing clock time to the various forms of 'social time' and considers the latter as the more 'natural' ones, i.e. closer to subjective perceptions of time, or to the temporality that results from adaptations to seasons or other kinds of natural (biological, environmental) rhythm. This strategy, often couched also in terms of an opposition between 'linear' clock time and 'cyclical' time of natural and social rhythms devalues, or at least ques-tions, the temporality of formal organizations which rely heavily on clock time in fulfilling their coordinative and integrative and controlling functions (Young, 1988; Elchardus, 1988).

Searching to reconcile Darwinian evolutionary theory with Einsteinian relativity theory and, especially, its reconceptualization of simultaneity, Mead followed Whitehead's lead in locating the origins of all structuration of time in the notion of the 'event': without the interruption of the flow of time by events, no temporal experience would be possible (Joas, 1980, 1989)

Related to this encounter of the first kind, in which social theory meets the concept of time, is the question of the relationship between time in social systems with other forms of (physical, biological, 'natural') time or, as Elchardus calls it, 'sui generis time' (Elchardus, 1988).

By clarifying the concept of time as a conceptual symbol of evolving complex relationships between continua of changes of various kinds, Elias opens the way for grounding the concept of time again in social terms. The power of choosing the symbols, of selecting which continua are to be used, be it by priests or scientists, also beconies amenable to social analysis. The social matrix becomes ready once more to house the natural world or our conception of it in terms of its own, symbol-creating and continuously evolving capacity. The question of human agency is solved in Norbert Elias's case by referring to the process of human evolution through which men and women are enabled to devise symbols of increasing power of abstraction which are 'more adequate to reality'.

Unless one learns to perceive human societies, living in a world of symbols of their own making, as emerging and developing within the larger non-human universe, one is unable to attack one of the most crucial aspects of the problem of time. For Elias it consists, stated very briefly, in how to reconcile the highly abstract nature of the concept of time with the strong compulsion its social use as a regulatory device exerts upon us in daily life. His answer: time is not a thing, but a relationship. For him the word time is a symbol for a relationship which a group of beings endowed with the capacity for memory and synthesis establishes between two or more continua of changes, one of which is used by them as a frame of reference or standard of measurement for the other.

Digital rhetoric in many ways erodes the distance between rhetor and reader, producer and user.

Fighting between Thai and Cambodian forces result in deaths among both the Thai and Cambodian military forces. Civilian deaths were also reported. As of mid-day on February 5, firm numbers of dead and wounded are not available, as both sides report widely divergent numbers. It appears that total deaths hover around ten.

an environment unlike anything they will encounter outside of school

This has much in common with a customer relationship management system and facilitates the workflow around interventions as well as various visualisations.  It’s unclear how the at risk metric is calculated but a more sophisticated predictive analytics engine might help in this regard.

that economic rela- tionships are also social relationships in that they presuppose a definite social, political, cultural and legal con

'economic activity' always includes work or labour as a set of social relationship

To stage 3, that sounds cold and distant, but for stage 4, it means seeing the other person for who they really are. Emotions are just something people have, from time to time. Those need to be dealt with, but should not be taken too seriously. Relating to the other person’s principles, projects, and commitments means supporting what they most care about in the longer run. A romantic relationship between systematic people not only tolerates, but respects, and actively supports, their differing values and projects. That is what it means (for stage 4) to be actually in a relationship with another person, rather than losing both your selves in a warm bath of shared feelings.

to be happy and to have meaning in the world, you must concentrate on developing Knowledge and allow it to contribute itself where it knows it can be of the greatest benefit. This will fulfill your need for relationship and community.

to America or the Colonies

The personal sense of things becomes a sieve through which is run our experiences of our “others” and even our experience of the world. This causes a highly unnatural misalignment of our perception of them. You could compare it to intense inbreeding of animals, in which the breed becomes so refined as to no longer have a broad enough base to support it. It becomes weak and idiotic. This is why relationships based on a personal sense cannot stand, or withstand, the normal dynamics of Life. Having been so finely misaligned by having been put through the sieve of egotism and self-righteousness, the downfall of such personal relationships does not occur comfortably. They come apart only with great distress being experienced on the part of the one indulging in that personal sense.

The only solution which can actually resolve a relationship problem is for the one experiencing discomfort to drop the personal sense of involvement, thus resolving it actually back into the normal Universal Harmonies that constitute the existence of the individualities involved. This is a phrase which you have heard many times before, but it has been unclear to you how to do it. Trying to lay down a personal sense is like trying to lay down a piece of flypaper. The more you attempt to put it down, the more firmly it sticks! The only way to lay down a personal sense of things is to go within to that Place of quietness and attentiveness, and listen for the influx of your Being as It sees Itself from Its infinite standpoint. This can be achieved through meditation, if one is a beginner. Here, you not only see things as they are, but you experience them as they are. In that experience you cannot find a trace of that personal sense of things from which you had been suffering.

If we insist on leaving the position of seeing out from Mind, and choose to view it the way it appears, we set ourselves up for sharp jabs. This is because “personal” relationships are, in themselves, unkind and harsh misperceptions of our Wholeness. This is why personal relationships are perhaps the most unsatisfying experiences we can endure.

Boreades

Be very wise, and do not bother to waste your time trying to accommodate the three-dimensional viewpoints of those around you. Do not allow yourself to give authority to anything outside of your own demonstrated conscious experience of Reality, of Fourth-dimensional Being, under any circumstances.

This means that, rather than trying to figure out what you can do which will be best for your family, you can abide in that Place of observing with understanding that Being is unfolding Itself perfectly as each specific identity in your family. This perfect unfoldment is, because of Its infinity, occurring in a way which appears to be harmonious for all concerned. I say “appears” because, no matter how many It appears to be, It is still One infinite Event.

As things seem to take on some definition in our life, I want you to beware of the idea that the form which is taking shape is in any way connected with You as a product of your intellect, or your good sense, or you, yourself, in any way. You must remain clear in the fact that form is fluid and not fixed, that it serves to identify what your Being is being. You must remember that if the form became “fixed,” that your Being would become fixed, static, immovable, and unmoving. And, thus, it would cease to be Being.

You are afraid that if you let go and stop “doing,” everything will fall apart. This is because you are still caught in the belief that what you have “done” in the past has succeeded in getting you where you are. This is foolishness, and you are beginning to see this. You haven’t gotten anywhere, because Infinity has no place to go. Nevertheless, Infinity—your Being—has unfolded Itself in spite of what you thought you were “doing,” and where you thought you were getting to.

There is only one infinite Life/Principle, one infinite Identity, infinitely expressed and seen as all that exists. It is what constitutes the center and circumference of Being—Your Self as you experience It, Susan’s Self as she experiences It, and my Self as I experience It. Its omnipotence or strength is constituted of Its absolute omnipresent Integrity, which is Its Intelligent Nature. it is not thrilling or exciting when contemplated from an egotistical standpoint. But It is satisfying in ways that are so meaningful that they cannot compare to the “thrills” of the ego. It also has this benefit: The satisfaction is eternal and unchanging.

Zeus

Zeus

Eileithyiae

Hephaestus

Hebe

Ares

Poseidon

Horae

Acraea

Prosymna

Euboea

Temenus

Thetys

Oceanus

Cronos

Paul, it is impossible for your world to become integrated if you do not understand what the Substance of that Totality is. This is why we are discussing this point this morning. The only Substance there is throughout the Universe—and throughout all dimensions—is Light. This Light, in Its various aspects, is Life, Truth, Principle, Mind, Soul, and Spirit. It is also Intelligence and Substance. In everything you do, I want you to begin to be conscious of this idea that all there is to you—and all there is to everything—is this Light of Living Love. There are not two things going on. This Light is eternally living Itself as the intelligent expression of Conscious Experience, universally and specifically.

Paul, all energy is Light, and Light is the omnipresent energy that constitutes all life forms, all ideas, and all of every aspect of Conscious Being. it is the pure Light that is Love. It is the pure Light that constitutes Substance. It is the pure Light which differentiates Itself according to Intelligence as all that appears and all that is.

Now, I will respond to your question. Relationships are constituted of the harmonies and interchanges of the one infinite One—Your Self from your point of view, Susan’s Self from her point of view, your mother’s Self from her point of view. As I have said before, if you could clearly see what is happening from a Fourth-dimensional standpoint, you would see that the apparent three-dimensional relationship is totally Harmonious. What we see “out there” is a finite view of the Total Oneness and Harmony of our Being.

Aeneas

Another began to examine built forms as metaphors for complex social and symbolic relationships: the Irish country- men's "west room" (21) or the French peasant "parlour" (393).

Another key area of research has focused on the relationship between individual or group identity and housing

And as I grew in age, I began to discover that the old teachers who spoke of the need to, “Forgive seventy times seven,” knew something quite profound that had even become lost within the tradition, the Jewish and Essene traditions, of my day. For, you see, to forgive means “to choose to release another from the perceptions that you’ve been projecting upon them.” It is, therefore, an act of forgiving one’s self of one’s projections. And as we begin to forgive, even unto seventy times seven times, each time you forgive you take yourself deeper into the purity of your own consciousness. You begin to see how profoundly you have been coloring, and therefore affecting, all of your relationships, through the simple act of not being aware of the power of projection.

Aetolus

Adrastus

Identify the relationship/status of the parties (Note: Do not merely refer to the parties as the plai ntiff/defendant or appellant/appellee; be sure to also include more descr iptive generic terms to identify the relationship/status at issue, e.g., buyer/seller, employer/employee, landlord/tenant, etc.)