Papers by Martin Nicolaus
TDR, 1967
With a few admittedly great exceptions, writers of drama criticism and aesthetic theory are up ag... more With a few admittedly great exceptions, writers of drama criticism and aesthetic theory are up against a mystery when they deal with Brecht. The solution cannot be found within the confines of the aesthetic or the academic, but so abhorrent is any venture outside this realm to those who inhabit it that they have devised a special method: mystification. Whatever is an enigma for the theorists must be inherently enigmatic. Decisive questions fly back and forth in the Olympian heights, where the air is thin: Is the enigma of Brecht on the right or on the left? Is Brecht more mysterious as a Communist or as a Man? Can people in Leipzig or Munich better understand the meaning of all the things Brecht did not write? Where are the acrostic punctuation marks which Brecht used to tell us what he really meant? Is the late Brecht more Brecht or less Brecht than the early Brecht? Is Brecht really Brecht at all or was he his own double? Should you read Brecht's own writings to understand him? Did Brecht identify with Mack the Knife or Galileo?
Beacon Press eBooks, 1967
No portion of this work may be reproduced in whole or in part in any medium without the express w... more No portion of this work may be reproduced in whole or in part in any medium without the express written permission of the publisher, except for the inclu-sion of brief extracts in a review. All names of persons cited in anecdotes in the text are fictitious and the anec-dotes may be composites of several different events. Nothing in this text is in-tended as medical advice. LifeRing Press publications represent the opinion of the author(s) and the au-thor(s) ' best estimate of the consensus of the organization. Only publications approved by the LifeRing Congress and endorsed as Congress-approved docu-ments represent the official position of LifeRing Secular Recovery. For additional copies of this publication, contact: LifeRing Press
T he last essay in this column noted the growing diversity in religious, spiritual and secular fr... more T he last essay in this column noted the growing diversity in religious, spiritual and secular frameworks of recovery and sketched the history of religious approaches to addiction recovery. This essay reviews the history and growing varieties of secular recovery and the implications of such diversity for the addictions professional.
When he assessed his intellectual career in 1859, Karl Marx condemned to deserved obscurity all o... more When he assessed his intellectual career in 1859, Karl Marx condemned to deserved obscurity all of his previous works but four. The Poverty of Philosophy (1847) first set forth the decisive points of his scientific views, although in polemical form, he wrote; and he implied that the same description applied to the Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), a Speech on Free Trade of the same year, and an unfinished series of newspaper articles entitled Wage-Labour and Capital, published in 1849. He made no mention of the Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts (1844), The Holy Family and the Theses on Feuerbach (1845), and he referred to the manuscript of The German Ideology (1846) without naming its title as a work which he and Engels gladly abandoned to the mice. 1 Three years before his death, when he received inquiries regarding the eventual publication of his complete works, he is reported to have answered dryly, 'They would first have to be written.' 2 Marx, then, viewed most of the early works which have so aroused the enthusiasm of contemporary interpreters with scepticism bordering on rejection, and was painfully conscious toward the end of his life that the works which he had presented or was ready to present to the public were mere fragments. Only once in his life did he speak with a tone of achievement and a sense of accomplishment about one of his works. Only once did he announce that he had written something which not only encompassed the whole of his views, but also presented them in a scientific manner. That occasion was in the Preface to the Critique of Political Economy (1859), a work which also remained merely a fragment, due to difficulties with its publisher. Only two chapters of the Critique reached the public, but their content, while of importance, hardly justified the claims implicitly made for them in their Preface. The Preface outlines a whole world-view, a set of scientific doctrines which explains the movement of history in its sociological, political and economic dimensions, and demonstrates how and why the present organization of society must collapse from the strain of its internal conflicts, to be replaced by a higher order of civilization. The published chapters, however, demonstrate no such breadth, nor is the ultimate emergence of a new order clearly derivable from their content. They deal, rather, with fairly technical economic questions, and promise a long, arduous road with no clearly visible goal. What, then, was Marx talking about in the Preface? Was he making claims for theories he had not yet constructed, for ideas he had not yet written down? Until 1939, this question remained largely a mystery. The bold generalizations made in the Preface could be traced back to equally bold but equally general statements in The Poverty of Philosophy and in the Manifesto; the volumes of Capital contain some echoes, again polemical and general. But it was difficult, if not impossible, to derive from the extant portions of Capital the answers to the most important question which the Preface announces as theoretically solved, namely the question of how and why the capitalist social order will break down. Thus Rosa Luxemburg wrote her Accumulation of Capital (1912) precisely for the purpose of filling this most important gap in Marx's unfinished writings, 3 thereby throwing gasoline on a fiery intra-party dispute which still flickers today. Why the manuscript on the basis of which Marx wrote the Preface of 1859 remained buried until the outbreak of World War Two remains a mystery still; but in any case, in 1939 the Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute in Moscow brought out of its files and 1 Cf. the Preface of the Critique of Political Economy. With one exception, I have used the Werke edition of Marx's and Engels' writings, published by Dietz, Berlin, from 1962 to 1967; but I have quoted the English titles and supplied my own translations.
Journal of Groups in Addiction & Recovery, 2012
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or s... more This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1973
Http Www Libreriasaulamedica Com, 2008
Uploads
Papers by Martin Nicolaus