You might want to consider Hardt and Negri's Empire. Their Empire is a global one in which the US and some other Western countries are obviously privileged but which lacks a geographical center such as the older empires had. (Generally, although even with the older empires the center sometimes shifted.) To the extent that the Empire is ruled, it is ruled by a global elite scattered around the Globe. I have not read the entire book myself (I have read the sequel, titled Multitude), but I'd be wiling to read it if there is interest in discussing it. O.K. On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Well, is it argued that the US is by itself an empire, or rather that it > is the center of an empire ? On the analogy of Rome or Britain, I would > think that it is probably the second. (Although the first might also be > considered.) > > O.K. > > > On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Redacted sender Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx for > DMARC <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> As opposed to 'up'? >> >> Fall >> >> of Rome, etc. >> >> In a message dated 5/1/2014 9:50:16 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, >> lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes of 'fall': >> >> "[...] it has been often written, probably before Gibbon, that empires >> "rise and fall"; so in that sense Rome did eventually fall. Even if the >> city >> remained and Odoacer was king of Rome, the Roman Empire had fallen. >> Of course one could argue that bits of Roman power existed in >> Constantinople, Trieste and elsewhere, but if they are considered to >> comprise Roman >> empirical continuity then the definition of "empire" is being strained. >> On the other hand, the straining of that term seems a modern enterprise: >> many writers attempt to fit the U.S. into the Roman or British mold. I >> think of Niall Ferguson arguing that the U.S. is an empire, just not a >> very >> good one since it doesn't do any of the things that earlier empires did >> -- >> but, not to worry. The world has changed; so empires need to do things >> differently nowadays." >> >> Indeed. >> >> But I was thinking more along, er, Griceian lines. >> >> We do fall a verb, 'to fall'. >> >> What goes up must come down. Sort of thing. >> >> It is an Anglo-Saxon verb. The Roman term, when used to apply to Rome, is >> 'caduta' (the fall). >> >> It may be argued that we should examine more closely the etymology of >> 'fall'. >> >> INTERLUDE on etymology of 'fall' from >> >> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fall&allowed_in_frame=0 >> >> Old English feallan (class VII strong verb; past tense feoll, past >> participle feallen) "to fall; fail, decay, die," from Proto-Germanic >> *fallanan >> (cognates: Old Frisian falla, Old Saxon fallan, Dutch vallen, Old Norse >> falla, >> Old High German fallan, German fallen), from PIE root *pol- "to fall" >> (cognates: Armenian p'ul "downfall," Lithuanian puola "to fall," Old >> Prussian >> aupallai "finds," literally "falls upon"). Most of the figurative senses >> had >> developed in Middle English. Meaning "to be reduced" (as temperature) is >> from 1650s. To fall in love is attested from 1520s; to fall asleep is >> late >> 14c. Fall through "come to naught" is from 1781. To fall for something is >> from 1903. >> >> --- END OF INTERLUDE. >> >> Now, Grice, in unpublications, wants to stick with Occam's razor, which he >> formulates, "Do not multiply SENSES of words beyond necessity." So there >> is >> ONE sense of 'fall'. >> >> Should it apply to PHYSICAL events? >> >> I think Grice considers examples like >> >> "Tom is above Jerry" >> >> Or >> >> "Tom is between Jerry and Joe." >> >> Grice wants to say that, whether a merely PHYSICAL or non-physical >> (figurative, in terms, say, of moral esteem) is meant, or regardless of >> whether >> this or that use is meant, the word 'above' (or 'between') are NOT >> polysemous. >> >> The idea that the MATERIAL, PHYSICAL 'sense' is the original one was, I >> think, fashionable back in the day when Metaphor was a hot topic among >> philosophers. I think I learned about that from Lands volume in Longman >> Linguistics Library: "The concept of form". >> >> A similar point I found at >> >> >> http://biblehub.com/library/barrows/companion_to_the_bible/chapter_xxxv_the_ >> figurative_language.htm<http://biblehub.com/library/barrows/companion_to_the_bible/chapter_xxxv_the_figurative_language.htm> >> >> The author writes: >> >> "A large proportion of the words in all languages, in truth all that >> express intellectual and moral ideas, were originally FIGURATIVE, the >> universal >> law being to represent immaterial by material objects. Examples are the >> words exist, existence, emotion,affliction, anguish, etc." >> >> "But in these, and innumerable other words, >> >> THE PRIMITIVE PHYSICAL MEANING >> >> has become obsolete, and thus the secondary spiritual meaning is to us >> literal." >> >> But it shouldn't, of course. As in 'fall' -- Adam's fall, Satan's fall -- >> Satan's fall is literal. Adam not so much so. >> >> Fall of Rome, figurative. >> >> The author goes on: >> >> The fall of the statue of Nero -- the Colossus -- literal. >> >> The fall of the Colossus of Rhodes, literal. >> >> The fall of Constantinople, figurative. >> >> The author goes on: >> >> "Or, what often happens, while the original physical signification is >> retained, a secondary figurative meaning of the word has become so common >> that >> its use hardly recalls the physical meaning, and it may therefore be >> regarded as literal." >> >> But again it shouldn't. Grice calls figures of speech (such as metaphor, >> or >> to use I think a favourite with L. Helm, synecdoche, or I think a >> favourite with Omar K, metonymy, or metaphtonymy) are IMPLICATURES. It's >> something >> the utterer IMPLIES (and can thus cancel) rather than EXPLICATE or >> express >> in EXPLICIT terms. >> >> The author finishes the paragraph: >> >> "As in the words "hard", "harsh", "rough", when applied to character." >> >> Or 'fall' as applied to Rome. >> >> "In the first of the above examples: "It is hard for thee to kick against >> the pricks," the transfer of the word "hard" from what is physically hard >> to >> what is painful or difficult, is so common that it can hardly be regarded >> as figurative". >> >> But hardly a Griceian will agree! >> >> "But the expression that follows is figurative in the fullest sense of the >> word." >> >> Only that it's best not to multiply senses beyond necessity! >> >> Cheers, >> >> Speranza >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, >> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html >> > >