Actually, I had no idea what "Mein Zei" could mean, it sounds slightly Asian to my German ear. Then Google suggested "Mein(e) Zei(t)", which I found plausible, but no music connected to it. Still completely lost of what you were asking me, I googled for the correct German title of the linked image and found something equally schmaltzy to the cover you suggested. But now that I know that you meant "Mein(e) Zwei" (both "Zeit" and "Zwei" are feminine in German), the most adequate translation of the title is probably: there was she. :)
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:47 AM, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]>wrote: > I thought instantly of "mein zwei", which can start a conversation all on > its own... :D > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 6:42 PM, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Uuuugh, Chris, what's that? A Cher album cover with the writing "Die gab's >> nur einmal" on it. I'm not sure if this the title of the album or EP. But I >> found another, even more beautiful, "Die gab's nur einmal" (she was unique/ >> she existed only once): >> http://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/james_last/die_gabs_nur_einmal__as_hans_last_/ >> >> Now tell what "Mein Zei" is and what it sounds like! >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Chris Jenkins < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I was hearing "Mein Zei", which a quick search of revealed this: >>> >>> >>> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_e-XkgWgKsc8/TPWZp-qQcQI/AAAAAAAAHtU/cmRoxuAftl4/s1600/Die+Gab%2527s+Nur+Einmal+2.jpg >>> >>> Was ist das, Gabs? >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 5:11 PM, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I am hearing "Minds Eye", or maybe not. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 5:29 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Loads of stugg comes up on googling images related to the term 'Mind's >>>>> Eye' - not surprisingly a lot of the stuff has an eye in it. I tend >>>>> to run the 'eye' bit out in my pondering on what a mind's eye might >>>>> be. Some former science colleagues better at maths than me used to >>>>> try and describe 'visualisation' - how they could manipulate images of >>>>> geometry involving complex shapes and transformations. I could never >>>>> do this and even have trouble working out what happens to, say, door >>>>> hinges if you turn the door upside down and round-a-bout. I could >>>>> often 'guess' how a complex system of transformations would end up, >>>>> but could never 'see the process' as some claimed. This was something >>>>> of a handicap in some stochastic work with molecule shape. >>>>> >>>>> I'm watching an old Oliver film and have no sympathy with Oliver - all >>>>> with the other kids and the brilliantly played evil roles. I often >>>>> have a lot of difficulty 'seeing' what others are being suckered by in >>>>> propaganda directly and instead a form of critique of the stuff >>>>> arises. I really dislike, say, Huckleberry Finn being played by the >>>>> rich director's all too clean kid. I have a cinematic daydreaming >>>>> imagination, but no imaging comes from words when someone says 'table' >>>>> - my sister 'sees' gargoyles if you say the word. >>>>> >>>>> I'm struck there is no 'eye' in mind's eye even though I might as well >>>>> be in a cinema when daydreaming. Though one might ask if what I see >>>>> 'in cinema' relies on past sight - though again I'm not usually >>>>> 'seeing' recalled events. I find the artist's attempts at 'mind's >>>>> eye' disappointing. >>>>> >>>>> I'm unsure how I notice so strongly that "economics" (a subject I >>>>> teach with no enthusiasm) is just a 'smell of words' around and >>>>> obvious failure in human cooperation always leading to a very small >>>>> number amassing riches. It's like a gas keeping he truth-seeker at >>>>> bay. We are as far from the double-helix in this as the tribe that >>>>> denies paternity through sex, investing it instead in ghosts with the >>>>> 'father role' played by maternal uncles. >>>>> >>>>> It's been my view for many years that argument fails except in very >>>>> special circumstances. The Greeks knew this because equally powerful >>>>> argument could be adduced for many different views. They invented a >>>>> kind of "mind's eye" (see Pyhrronism) in which competing arguments >>>>> could be assessed. This is rather too expert for me. I suspect that >>>>> what we can't do is strip argument of its propaganda, and suspect >>>>> again this is a matter of fear of violence in challenging 'deeply' >>>>> held views - and further that these views are ill-considered dross. >>>>> One can feel another danger here of the zealot and know-all. In my >>>>> mind's eye argument comes with smells, emotions, incredulity, >>>>> doubt,probability ... and the coldest, most lying voice of all is the >>>>> disinfected smell of the objective voice. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
