The Catastrophic History of You And Me Catastrophic Disaster Planning and Response The Paradox of Countertransference: You and Me, Here and Now. Unofficial mirror of ovmorandacess.ga ovmorandacess.ga In her debut novel, Rothenberg supplies readers with an imaginative and intriguing vision of what might happen after death." "The funniest, sweetest, most heartfeld, sigh-worth and oh-so romantic story I’ve ever read. Your browser does not currently recognize any of the video.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Portuguese|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Register to download]|
The Catastrophic History of You and Me book. Read reviews from the world's largest community for readers. Dying of a broken heart is just the begin. Read and Download The Catastrophic History of You and. Me by Jess Rothenberg in PDF, EPUB format free. Here description and cover image of book The. can anyone give me some information on this book? i'm finding it very hard to find out I'd be curious to know if the pdf version really is free or if you have to join.
Email Alerts: Downloaded from sac. In his lecture, Baudrillard talked around his now famous book America published in French in and in English in in which he argued that the fascination and catastrophe of America is its hyperreality, which allows the idea and paradox that there utopia has been achieved. Question from the audience Q: You referred to Biosphere II1 as being hyperreal. I would like to know why Biosphere II is any more hyperreal or any less real than America?
And also, what is the real America? Yes, what is the real America?
I cannot say that. Who knows? But what I would say is that between the real America and the hyper- real America, there is virtually no possible distinction, and that an example of that is the potential confusion between Biosphere II and the everyday life of America around it. I am grateful to Mike Gane, who aided and abetted the transcription of these questions. It seems to me that life in America can be considered as a film, a movie, and you can- not distinguish between a movie and America.
You cannot experience things be- yond this hyperreality of films, signs, and so on and get to its core, its reality. It is impossible, but it would be a very bad experience if there was still a nostalgia for reality. We experience very nostalgically and very unfortunately the distortion be- tween reality and imaginary as Europeans.
For us Europeans, the distortion is a very unfortunate one, but for Americans, or when we are in America, the distinc- tion vanishes, and then it is no more the imaginary of a real but of a lost object. It functions, but we must take cognisance, and then it is a hyperreality.
There is no more real, no more imaginary, but hyperreality, another experience, a very original one I would say. I do not believe that. Of course we are invaded by all this hypermodern, hyperreal means of communication and so on, and everyday life, thanks to thought by anal- ogy, by exports, tends to become the same way as the American way of life.
But I have to speak as French.
I do not know if it is the same for the English. I have the impression that we will never become modern. Maybe we have hypermodern, hy- perreal features; we assume that. But we have not become really modern.
This new hyperspace, we do not experience it because we have no space for that. And we must assume our historical past, and we must manage with that, and the whole thing is very complicated. America, it has no history; they do not need to metabo- lize time, history relatively of course , they do not need that, because it started from a zero point. We will never conquer this point—it is impossible; it is too late. The originality, that expanse has become monstrous and at the same time very wonderful is an outcome that will never become part of our history.
I prefer to as- sume things as different, as radically different, as antagonistic rather than as evolu- tionistic, virtually the same. We become Americans? I do not think that. But that is not a compliment.
I prefer to experience this new world as an exoticism, as very exotic. I do not think things will converge in a mondial. You portray America as a country in which it is impossible to perceive reality be- hind the ways in which the country represents itself to itself by way of all sorts of imagery. Now I wonder if that is not what you would say in looking at the middle classes in America? What I find missing from your account is what it must look like for those who can see pretty clearly that a lot of what America promises is false in their lives.
Who coming up against what is not provided by just the sorts of imagery that you portray and which certainly does deliver for a certain class of people. But that is a lot of America that is missing in your account? Yes, I do not contend that. I take no account of all the political aspects of America, etcetera. I cannot do that. I do not say anyway that America is an ideal country where all classes are very happy even in the imaginary.
My point of view is Euro- pean. I said that at the beginning. It is a fiction. I try to look at America through the spectrum of what America invented as the imaginary, as a self-fiction. And maybe the Americans themselves are very deceived by this distortion between fic- tion and real life, which is very great. But I consider that from another point of view Downloaded from sac. I am not American. I cannot experience this country from inside; I am outside of that. My only defence is that I take the challenge of being contested by the reality because reality will never assume the other of hyperreality.
But I cannot live as a real American. As a European, I am a fictional American. Maybe the reverse is equally true, as a real American can never experience Europe as another way. I cannot, and I will not, excuse this challenge.
It may be contested in all ways, especially if you speak politically or economically and so on. This creates a sort of basis common to all Americans that changes in some way their own perception of their own lives. Just a small point of clarification. I heard you say that the world has no centre. I was wondering if whether you mean that it no longer has any one centre or that there are no centres?
I am not so sure what that means if you say there is no centre then you are actually saying that there are no other positions or no other possibilities for people to hang on to and everything just becomes a kind of flux of electromagnetic messages going around about without a way of condensing them around something. No resistance, no other cultures, no other traditions that can re- sist that.
Or are you saying that now we are in a position that, what used to be say since the last 40 or 50 years, the centre is no longer that quite a powerful a centre anymore? By definition, if there is no centre anymore, there are no centres.
I mean the world has become eccentric. There are not several centres; it is eccentric. And these po- larities function otherwise than a centre. There are singularities, different models, they do not converge in a centrality, a mondiality, a totality of the world.
There are singularities but they function antagonistically, against one another. And this is no more a potentially unified world than it was in the universal system of values of the Western culture. It is something else we can no longer think of centre.
Before it was a kind of Weltanschauung, a mondial point of view where everything converged through gravity towards the centre. And maybe this gravitation has had to reverse itself.
And now things do not converge any more to a centre. On the contrary, it would be a dissemination into the void. Not only is this not only one centre, but the concept of gravitation itself has reversed—it is the antigravitation of this new world. There cannot be any centre any more.
The very problem is that even gravi- tation has disappeared, and in its place there is a very different virtuality, of escap- ing, of disseminating in the void of space. Also, I would say America is interesting in this sense too, that it is an America in anticipation of this state of things. It was a centre, but this centre was never the centre. From the beginning, it was always po- tentially dissemination of the centre, potentially antigravitation.
That I found fascinating.
Are you saying that the experience of the hyperreal cuts across all class, ethnic, and racial lines? Or are you saying that it is just your experience of the United States as a European?
I am not quite clear on that, I must confess. If it were my own exclusive experience, I would not speak. I think that it has a reality, not verification though. It makes sense or I would not speak, but I would say that this experience, just because it is mine, I can extrapolate it, a fiction maybe, to all people. I would not call it a political or economic analy- sis.
As hypothetical, it is valuable for all people, all classes, all places, and all parts of the third world, and so on.
But just because it is my experi- ence and singular, its singularity, its specificity allows me to extend this in an ex- trapolation. Because I do not insist on reality, I do not contend my representation is true, and if it is not true, I can extend it to all reality. It will be fiction; it will never conform to verification or truth—that is the principle. I do not pretend to be sub- ject to verification and so on. At the same time, it is very singular, very passionate, specific, and potentially extrapolatable to all reality or hyperreality.
Beyond that, I would say if we relate it as transpolitically, I would say that the very reality it is very contradictory to say that, but the very stubborn reality of the cultural world is not the reality of the classical world, of classes and historical contradiction, of the third world and so on, not this but the irruption of the fourth world, a sort of unidenti- fiable other world, other transpolitical world, not political in the traditional sense.
Not geographical, it is no longer geographical, but it is in the core of the system it- self. It is in the very logic of the system itself. That is real, actual. And this new world, not exactly underground, rather viral, fractal, eccentric, and so on—a new reality that coincides with my hyperreality. I would like to come back to something you said about the real past and nostalgia.
There has to be an experience in order to be nostalgic about it? You said we must have experienced something to be nostalgic about it.
Yes, I get the point. The American world is not nostalgic. We are nostalgic because we have a history, we have an origin and we have finalities, we must be nostalgic now because these values, these finalities, are disappearing more or less. The American world is not nostalgic in this sense. Americans are not nostalgic. I can get out of this complex nostalgic feedback of our culture—the possible revival of history that we experience here in Europe.
I would say not nostalgia in this sense, but maybe an- other nuance, another meaning of melancholy, not the absence of another system, not nostalgia because of a lost object, but the melancholy of things would be con- nected with the dissemination of things, with its immediacy, singularity, the in- stantaneity of materialization. Maybe behind that it is a sort of illusion, optical il- lusion, an illusion of perception, a self-deception.
This may always happen, all is possible, that generates a world with a certain melancholy, but not nostalgia. Q continued: Sorry, I cannot help being critical of this concept of nostalgia because for one, we have to be critical of nostalgia about really old values, why these are spe- cific to certain social groups like women.
I mean in a world where utopia and nostalgia are connected, one in the past and the other in the future, utopia and nostalgia are properties, tonalities of our culture.
Then she refinanced her house. At 69, her cancer therapy was steadily impoverishing her. Holt felt she had no choice but to stick with the pills. Revlimid was working. Unlike Medicare Part A and Part B — the hospital and doctor programs, where supplemental plans can be downloadd to cap costs — no such option exists for Part D , which covers drugs.
Although Medicare Advantage plans are required to have an out-of-pocket cap for services covered under Parts A and B, even they do not provide a cap on out-of-pocket spending for prescription drugs covered under Part D.
Medicare Part D spending on pricey specialty drugs has tripled People with lower incomes can qualify for Part D subsidies — 2. But Holt and other middle class seniors, particularly those with chronic conditions, face high and growing out-of-pocket spending on prescription drugs year after year. The catastrophic phase of Part D is frequently an afterthought in discussions of Medicare because the co-insurance seems so modest.
But in a study we recently published in the journal Health Affairs, we found that rapidly increasing list prices for drugs helped drive the catastrophic proportion of total Part D spending including federal and insurer contributions from 18 percent in to 38 percent in