There are impossible things that sometimes you achieve without knowing how…
The miracle of having someone next to us is just that, a miracle.
How many people do we know that stay all their life next to someone without really knowing him/her? Social conventions, the fact that we get used to someone like we get used to an object, the loneliness within most people fear of, in short, the solitude.
Isn’t it more precarious to be with someone and not to be able to speak the true words? I went yesterday to see Eat, Pray and Love, the latest of Julia Roberts’ film. It’s not an iconic one, accepted; however, for those who don’t mind taking a step aside of the vulgarity and tediousness social pre-conceptions tie us, it will have sense.
We’re all in a journey most of us call life: it starts alone; it ends alone. In the meantime it seems we need to get someone to get hold of, to fasten ourselves to his/her belt and not let them go.
When children, we all dreamt of flying. What do we do with our wings when we grow up? Do we loose strength? Do our strengths change into weakness? Why do we seek for someone to complete us? And the happily ever after?
We can’t complete anyone if we’re not complete ourselves first. Do we need a trip to Bali to have the balance? Go to Bali, but enjoy the view and its people, the smells and fragrances, the beauty of being simple. The more you seek for balance, the less you’ll find it. Life is to be lived (mistakes included). Him/her who doesn’t dare to challenge destiny or faith in any way deserves to be called mediocre. And I don’t imply mediocre has a negative aura. It only has a neutral one.
Life is to be lived in full colours, high definition if possible. Black and white images are smart, look neat and go well in a still frame. I don’t want that. Do you? Try something spicy, try something different, try something risky, try something others say it’s stupid, be childish, let you be yourself; be unpredictable not to others, but to yourself.
What are you going to wait for? Your next life? Your next journey? Unfortunately, theories and religions apart, I have only one life that almost lost when I was a child. Since then and till now I live. I do make mistakes, sure; it may hurt, absolutely… so? I’m alive, are you?
Have the highest dreams you can possibly have, dare to dream and create a vision; risk and go for the vision. Scared? Obviously, you’re human, you may fail. So? Fail one and twenty times. Your life will be rich in experiences. After all, those are the things you’ll remember. As Garcia Marquez said, “vivir para contarla” so live and tell your story. If no-one listen, who cares, it’s your only and unique story and you’re the main character, executive producer, writer and director. You decide when, who, how, what; you stop and start; you choose.
Seek for love, seek for adventure, seek for passion, seek for taste, seek for simplicity. Don’t harm anyone, that’s the only limit. If it does happen, ask for an apology, we all can be wrong. Don’t be stubborn but be confident, don’t be excessively proud but don’t let others walk over you.
Eat plenty, tasty and big; pray for those who love and care for you; love till it hurts. Live to enjoy so much living you may choose to live again.
Monday, 27 September 2010
Monday, 13 September 2010
Manchester Posgraduate Research Conference 2010
The University of Manchester
School of Law
POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH CONFERENCE 2010
Alan Turing Building, Friday 17 September 2010
ABSTRACTS
SESSION 2: 11.30am – 1.00pm
Panel: Issues of national sovereignty
Jorge Nunez
Shared sovereignty: Falklands
From Chaucer women’s sovereignty through Bodin’s modern notion and to Nietzsche’s sovereign individual, the word sovereignty has had several meanings. In this investigation I aim to examine only one of them: State sovereignty. The paradigm I propose, although using the same elements from classical notions, twists their reciprocal relation. Many names or labels can be given to the model I intend to accomplish: bi-polar, shared, dual, double sovereignty. It is a necessary requirement then for the proposed model to have at least two sovereign States that somehow have (or intend to have) at the same time the same legal prerogatives over the same population and territory. We are used to seeing and accepting as a fact that in one territory there is one population governed by a single ultimate authority with a common legal bond or system of norms. What would it happen if that same territory and population had two ultimate and equal (legally speaking) sovereigns and two valid set of norms? There are several actual examples within the real context that show this is both a theoretical and a practical dilemma. Would it be possible, for example, that Israel and Palestine had sovereign authority at the same time over Jerusalem? Would it be plausible that Argentina and the United Kingdom could be at one time sovereign over the territory and population of the Falkland/Malvinas islands? If the answer were positive, what would be the consequences in terms of territory, population and law?
School of Law
POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH CONFERENCE 2010
Alan Turing Building, Friday 17 September 2010
ABSTRACTS
SESSION 2: 11.30am – 1.00pm
Panel: Issues of national sovereignty
Jorge Nunez
Shared sovereignty: Falklands
From Chaucer women’s sovereignty through Bodin’s modern notion and to Nietzsche’s sovereign individual, the word sovereignty has had several meanings. In this investigation I aim to examine only one of them: State sovereignty. The paradigm I propose, although using the same elements from classical notions, twists their reciprocal relation. Many names or labels can be given to the model I intend to accomplish: bi-polar, shared, dual, double sovereignty. It is a necessary requirement then for the proposed model to have at least two sovereign States that somehow have (or intend to have) at the same time the same legal prerogatives over the same population and territory. We are used to seeing and accepting as a fact that in one territory there is one population governed by a single ultimate authority with a common legal bond or system of norms. What would it happen if that same territory and population had two ultimate and equal (legally speaking) sovereigns and two valid set of norms? There are several actual examples within the real context that show this is both a theoretical and a practical dilemma. Would it be possible, for example, that Israel and Palestine had sovereign authority at the same time over Jerusalem? Would it be plausible that Argentina and the United Kingdom could be at one time sovereign over the territory and population of the Falkland/Malvinas islands? If the answer were positive, what would be the consequences in terms of territory, population and law?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)