Ideas and Aesthetics: An Analysis of the Concept and Presentation of Evil in Certain Great Novels of the Nineteenth Century

As the title of this paper indicates, I assume the existence of an important relationship between the idea and the aesthetic expression of it. I believe that this relationship takes shape as an influence of content upon form. Certainly this is not a new hypothesis, but I have not yet seen a careful examination of it in connection with the novel. Nor is there, so far as I know, any general agreement upon the extent of this influence. I have chosen to examine content in the light of its concept of evil. This is not a completely arbitrary choice...I found this especially true of the novel, a form of literature which, in its greater manifestations, might in one sense be termed a vision of evil...These attitudes comprised, at least of the novel, the matter of content. It seemed certain that they must somehow have ramifications into form

The \u27Visual World\u27 Program at the University of Northern Iowa, U.S.A.

Since the 1950\u27s several psychologists have studied the subject of human selective attention [1, 2]. It has been called the \u27cocktail party problem\u27 because a good example of the exercise of selective attention occurs when a large convivial group of people come together and it is still possible for an individual to isolate from the high noise level of conversation what a particular speaker says. Thus, the psychological question is: How do humans select what they consider significant information from the vast amount of information provided to the senses by the external environment? It is known that the amount of information input to the senses by far exceeds the processing capabilities of the brain and, therefore, a means exists to filter from the input what a human considers as essential at any particular moment. In the case of vision, one must ignore most of what can be seen. Selective attention is clearly important to artists scientists and technologists, for the sense of sight plays a large role in their work. However, the kind of visual information selected and how it is used may differ greatly in these three domains. Readers of Leonardo are acquainted with the discussions of the possible differences presented by various authors

Beyond words: Aesthetic knowledge and knowing in design

Aesthetic knowledge comes from practitioners understanding the look, feel, smell, taste and sound of things. It is vital to work in many organizational contexts. In this paper, we explore aesthetic knowledge and knowing in organizations through detailed observation of design work in the architectural practice Edward Cullinan Architects. Through our research, we explore aesthetic knowledge in the context of architectural work, we unpack what it is, how it is generated, and how it is applied in design projects, shared between practitioners and developed at the level of the organization. Our analysis suggests that aesthetic knowledge plays an important part in organizational practice, not only as the symbolic context for work, but as an integral part of the work that people do. It suggests that aesthetic reflexivity, which involves an opening up and questioning of what is known, is experienced as part of practice as well as a `time out' from practice

Differences in the carcinogenic evaluation of glyphosate between the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs Programme identifies chemicals, drugs, mixtures, occupational exposures, lifestyles and personal habits, and physical and biological agents that cause cancer in humans and has evaluated about 1000 agents since 1971. Monographs are written by ad hoc Working Groups (WGs) of international scientific experts over a period of about 12 months ending in an eight-day meeting. The WG evaluates all of the publicly available scientific information on each substance and, through a transparent and rigorous process,1 decides on the degree to which the scientific evidence supports that substance's potential to cause or not cause cancer in humans. For Monograph 112,2 17 expert scientists evaluated the carcinogenic hazard for four insecticides and the herbicide glyphosate.3 The WG concluded that the data for glyphosate meet the criteria for classification as a probable human carcinogen. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is the primary agency of the European Union for risk assessments regarding food safety. In October 2015, EFSA reported4 on their evaluation of the Renewal Assessment Report5 (RAR) for glyphosate that was prepared by the Rapporteur Member State, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR). EFSA concluded that ?glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans and the evidence does not support classification with regard to its carcinogenic potential?. Addendum 1 (the BfR Addendum) of the RAR5 discusses the scientific rationale for differing from the IARC WG conclusion. Serious flaws in the scientific evaluation in the RAR incorrectly characterise the potential for a carcinogenic hazard from exposure to glyphosate. Since the RAR is the basis for the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) conclusion,4 it is critical that these shortcomings are corrected