Sentences with phrase «lorne gunter»

But Gunter wasn't the only troop to die in that last hour of World War I.

Dr. Gunter wrote on her blog that because jade is a porous material, it could harbor bacteria and lead to bacterial vaginosis or toxic shock syndrome.

Vaginas are self - cleaning, gynecologist Dr. Jen Gunter explained on her blog, and they don't need any assistance from herbal steam to do their job.

Instead, Gunter writes, women should use evidence - backed Kegel exercises, either with a less expensive vaginal weight, a tampon, a finger, or nothing at all — equipment is not required.

(Gynecologist Dr. Jen Gunter once called it «the biggest load of garbage I have read on your site» in an open letter to Paltrow.)

It's not totally clear how new this product is, but it was spotted on Monday by gynecologist and vocal Goop critic Dr. Jen Gunter.

Another physician, Jennifer Gunter, an obstetrician - gynecologist and «sexologist,» made similar observations recently in an article for The Huffington Post titled «I'm A Doctor.

Digital marketing strategist James Gunter presented «Hummingbird for Content Strategists» at Confab Central.

In the March 2011 version of his paper entitled «Tower Building and Stock Market Returns», Gunter Löffler relates construction of record - breaking skyscrapers to future stock market returns.

Lorne Gunter, writing in the Edmonton Journal, says Stephen Harper has nothing to lose in the Sept. 8 by - elections and Stéphane Dion has everything, first and foremost his job.

Canadian and Alberta voters need to understand that every time you get annoyed at Justin Trudeau and the way he manages the country all you need to do is listen to the radio and Charles Adler rant about him or read articles by Lorne Gunter and Rick Bell from the Edmonton Sun (who formerly worked at the Alberta Report, and helped Ted Byfield run the Alberta Report into the ditch, or read anything written by Colby Cosh or Ezra Levant and soon you will realize the propaganda and hate these clowns spread about their own political / religious views trying to scare the general population to their side or views.

Hot air It was «widely reported» that the UK broadcasting regulator had deemed Channel 4's The Great Global Warming Swindle «unfair, biased and totally misleading,» Lorne Gunter argues in the National Post, but in fact it ruled that the documentary did «not materially mislead» viewers.

Title Alberta leads in many fields: [Final Edition] Author Gunter, Lorne Publication title Leader Post Publication date Mar 21, 2001

Every time I get annoyed at Justin Trudeau and the way he manages the country all I do is listen to the radio and Charles Adler rant about him or read articles by Lorne Gunter and Rick Bell from the Edmonton Sun (who formerly worked at the Alberta Report, and helped Ted Byfield run the Alberta Report into the ditch, or read anything written by Colby Cosh or Ezra Levant and soon I realize the propaganda and hate these clowns try and spread about their own political / religious views I revert back to supporting the more liberal viewpoint).

by P. A. Y. Gunter (The University of Tennessee Press, 1971), pp. 275 - 94.

Sibley, Jack R., and Gunter, Peter A.Y., eds., Process Philosophy: Basic Writings (Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1978).

by Lorne Gunter, National Post, August 28, 1999 and «The Precarious Triumph of Human Rights» by David Rieff, New York Times Magazine, August 8, 1999.

UN observer Lorne Gunter comments: «Rather than the People's Assembly being comprised of members or deputies from around the world, elected by and accountable to the people they represent [as is at least theoretically the case with the General Assembly], it would likely be made up of the heads of civil society NGOs, and, under most scenarios, only those NGOs accredited by the UN.

For example, in 1984, Hausman said in print that he holds something like the very view that Gunter is seeking to revise or eradicate.

The author presents a dialogue with Bergson involving Gunter and Hausman with occasional comments by Auxier and Stark.

It will be clear from an examination of the following how Professor Hausman has modified his view of Bergson and now has greater sympathy for him than before, largely if not entirely due to the persuasiveness of Gunter's case.

Gunter: No, the processes are not spatialized.

Hausman had taken a more standard line on Bergson, although in the dialogue below it will be clear that Hausman is pondering in a preliminary way the very questions he has answered above.1 It must be clear to anyone who has read Hausman's paper above that his view regarding Bergson has now changed, and I think greatly to his credit, and to Gunter's.

Gunter: Yes, but there are intuitive concepts, and then there is their projection in the realm of quantity.

Much of the value of this dialogue for process philosophers lies in following along precisely the sorts of things that Hausman and I said, for these are the sorts of things nearly all process philosophers say about Bergson, even those such as Hausman and I, who are very sympathetic to Bergson and try to study him closely (although admittedly, Hausman is really more a Peircean and I am more a Whiteheadian, and Gunter is really Bergson's true apologist).

Gunter: Oh no, he is not going to have that.

And indeed, my article above also reflects a shift in my interpretation of Bergson in the direction Gunter argued.

Aside from what Gunter has suggested in his essay, I should point out that Deleuze, in his study Bergsonism (13 - 35) devoted a chapter to outlining some of the key principles of «Intuition as Method.»

5 I would then like to show how Gunter's interpretation makes a difference to our usual way of approaching the relationship between the two thinkers.

Taylor at this point takes himself to be disagreeing with Bergson, but as Gunter has shown, he is making a point Bergson well appreciates and has addressed in his method itself.

Along the way it will be necessary to gore a familiar ox or two; however, since my analysis points to the conclusion that Victor Lowe and those who follow him have understood the questions surrounding Whitehead and Bergson in terms too narrow to accommodate the whole truth in this matter, including Gunter's thesis.

A general review of the endnotes from Gunter's paper reveals a fair number of sources who will corroborate the claim that Bergson's scientific views are nor only not outdated, but go very» much to the heart of current scientific methods and insights, but particularly, see A. C. Papanicolaou and Pete A. N. Gunter, eds., Bergson in Modern Thought Towards a Unified Science (New York: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1987), and for important background on how Bergson came to be seen as dated when he was not, see also, Milic Capek, Bergson and Modern Physics, (cited above) and The Philosophical Impact of Contemporary Physics (Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand, 1961), and the volume edited by Gunter, Bergson and the Evolution of Physics (cited above).

Bergson had in fact won the prize in mathematics (and in English, Latin, Greek and philosophy») at the Lycee Condorcet in Paris, and as Gunter reports:

«59 If that may pass as analogous to an actual entity; Gunter has supplied us earlier with the quotation which answers the remainder of Lowe's rhetorical inquiry.

«39 Since few people read Lowe's entire 1949 article in which the details of his argument are really presented, I will select a few of the key contrasts Lowe reprinted in Understanding Whitehead, which contains an abridgement of the 1949 article, in an effort to show that Gunter has really answered them already rendering Whitehead not so much Bergson's mathematical alter ego, 40 as something more approaching his philosophical blood brother 41 According to Lowe, however, «it is fatal to the understanding of Whitehead's constructive metaphysical effort to define it in Bergsonian terms.

Whitehead thinks that Bergson believes spatialization is a really bad thing, which is wrong; an understandable conclusion, perhaps, but not accurate, as Gunter and Hausman argue, and I will further demonstrate below.

If the reader will indulge me for a few pages more, I would like to offer some insights I have come upon as a result of this opportunity to ponder the thoughts of Gunter and Hausman, and to look with some systematicity at the relation of Bergson and Whitehead to science and mathematics.

The result of metaphysical division is a derivative (in the sense of Gunter's calculus) of the actual entity, which is its inverse.

And I take it as established that Hausman has shown a means whereby we can understand Bergson's approach as both metaphorical and rational2 As I am certain the reader does, I have questions I would like answered in light of their important insights and these interpretations of Bergson, but the issue I will examine presently is how Gunter's thesis and Hausman's elaboration might affect our understanding of Bergson's influence on Whitehead.3 The view of Bergson Gunter seeks to supplant is very widely held, and indeed was held, (if not really defended) until recently even by Professor Hausman (see the «Dialogue» below).

Therefore, in light of this and Gunter's arguments, I see no irreconcilable, or even significant difference between Whitehead and Bergson on the point raised by Northrop regarding spatialization and distortion.

Gunter is also correct, I think, is holding that what Bergson meant by «intuition» includes both qualitative and quantitative aspects.

Gunter spent his energy attempting to counter the charge that Bergson is hostile to the Many and is a mere apologist for the Eleatic One.

I remind the reader of Gunter's point above: «Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries matter had been conceived as comprised of passive, simply - located particles whose most fundamental character is their imperviousness to change.

In many way's the crux of what Gunter, Hausman and I have all been discussing boils down to what is to follow.

Gunter says:

It is clear from Gunter's essay in this focus section, and from Bergson's work in Duration and Simultaneity that Bergson never underestimated the value of mathematical rigor in demonstration, in philosophic method, and in the achievement of knowledge (indeed, it was Spencer's lack of mathematical rigor that inspired Bergson to attack him, see Gunter, Bergson and the Evolution of Physics, 6).

As Gunter says:

All that Bergson really says is that we can not know disorder without making it into an order of some sort first, and points out that the relation between the «two directions of order» is really a continuum that we distinguish on the basis of its extremes (completely free activity and geometrical mechanism, or integration and differentiation, to use the terms Gunter recommends) for the purposes of talking about this issue.

This was Gunter's own suggestion to me and it has proved a fruitful one, for which I offer him thanks.

We now begin to see something of the true complexity of this issue, and the unstated implications of Gunter's view.