Pear Related Quotes

Time’s relativity is considered and abandoned, for the more revelatory experiences of starlight in strands, and pearly floors that span as far as absolute compassion...

Perhaps we ought to feel with more imagination. As today the sky 70 degrees above zero with lines falling The way September moves a lace curtain to be near a pear, The oddest device can't be usual. And that is where The pejorative sense of fear moves axles. In the stars There is no longer any peace, emptied like a cup of coffee Between the blinding rain that interviews. You were my quintuplets when I decided to leave you Opening a picture book the pictures were all of grass Slowly the book was on fire, you the reader Sitting with specs full of smoke exclaimed How it was a rhyme for "brick" or "redder." The next chapter told all about a brook. You were beginning to see the relation when a tidal wave Arrived with sinking ships that spelled out "Aladdin." I thought about the Arab boy in his cave But the thoughts came faster than advice. If you knew that snow was a still toboggan in space The print could rhyme with "fallen star.

Various exhortations, or relations of experience, followed, and intermingled with the singing. One old gray-headed woman, long past work, but much revered as a sort of chronicle of the past, rose, and leaning on her staff, said—"Well, chil'en! Well, I'm mighty glad to hear ye all and see ye all once more, 'cause I don't know when I'll be gone to glory; but I've done got ready, chil'en; 'pears like I'd got my little bundle all tied up, and my bonnet on, jest a waitin' for the stage to come along and take me home; sometimes, in the night, I think I hear the wheels a rattlin', and I'm lookin' out all the time; now, you jest be ready too, for I tell ye all, chil'en," she said striking her staff hard on the floor, "dat ar glory is a mighty thing! It's a mighty thing, chil'en,—you don'no nothing about it,—it's wonderful." And the old creature sat down, with streaming tears, as wholly overcome, while the whole circle struck up—

When I was little, I didn’t understand that you could change a few sounds in a name or a phrase and have it mean something entirely different. When I told teachers my name was Benna and they said, “Donna who?” I would say, “Donna Gilbert.” I thought close was good enough, that sloppiness was generally built into the language. I thought Bing Crosby and Bill Crosby were the same person. That Buddy Holly and Billie Holiday were the same person. That Leon Trotsky and Leo Tolstoy were the same person. It was a shock for me quite late in life to discover that Jean Cocteau and Jacques Cousteau were not even related. Meaning, if it existed at all, was unstable and could not survive the slightest reshuffling of letters. One gust of wind and Santa became Satan. A slip of the pen and pears turned into pearls. A little interior decorating and the world became her twold, an ungrammatical and unkind assessment of an aging aunt in a singles bar. Add a d to poor, you got droop. It was that way in biology, too. Add a chromosome, get a criminal. Subtract one, get an idiot or a chipmunk. That was the way with things.

The rosé was dry and crisp and perfect. The baguette was ambrosia: crispy on the outside, chewy on the inside. What was it about bread in France? Like the French version of butter, it seemed to bear little relation to the item of the same name back home. Genevieve sliced a wedge of pâté, topped it with a cornichon, and made a little sandwich. Another glass of wine, a bit of cheese: P’tit Basque, tangy Roquefort, a stinky and delicious washed-rind Brie. Even the pear seemed better than the ones she was used to: the perfect combination of tangy and sweet, the juice running down her arm as she ate. Sated,

Every year Grandma Ann (not blood related but our grandmother all the same) made extravagant paper hats out of recycled material; the mesh netting of pears, colored comics, indigo feathers, origami flowers. She sold them at street fairs and donated the proceeds to local organizations, including Grateful Garments, which provided clothes for survivors of sexual violence. Had this organization not existed, I would have left the hospital wearing nothing but a flimsy gown and boots. Which meant all the hours spent cutting and taping hats at the dinner table, selling them at a little booth in the sun, had gifted me a gentle suit of armor. Grandma Ann wrapped herself around me, told me I was ready.

I refer, of course, to the theory that Plato in his Symposium puts into the mouth of Aristophanes and which deals not only with the origin of the sexual instinct but also with its most important variations in relation to the object. Human nature was once quite other than now. Originally there were three sexes, three and not as to-day two: besides the male and the female there existed a third sex which had an equal share in the two first . . . . In these beings everything was double: thus, they had four hands and four feet, two faces, two genital parts, and so on. Then Zeus allowed himself to be persuaded to cut these beings in two, as one divides pears to stew them. . . . When all nature was divided in this way, to each human being came the longing for his own other half, and the two halves embraced and entwined their bodies and desired to grow together again.‘36 Are we to follow the clue of the poet-philosopher and make the daring assumption that living substance was at the time of its animation rent into small particles, which since that time strive for reunion by means of the sexual instincts? That these instincts—in which the chemical affinity of inanimate matter is continued—passing through the realm of the protozoa gradually overcome all hindrances set to their striving by an environment charged with stimuli dangerous to life, and are impelled by it to form a protecting covering layer? And that these dispersed fragments of living substance thus achieve a multicellular organisation, and finally transfer to the germ-cells in a highly concentrated form the instinct for reunion? I think this is the point at which to break off.

I refer, of course, to the theory that Plato in his Symposium puts into the mouth of Aristophanes and which deals not only with the origin of the sexual instinct but also with its most important variations in relation to the object. Human nature was once quite other than now. Originally there were three sexes, three and not as to-day two: besides the male and the female there existed a third sex which had an equal share in the two first . . . . In these beings everything was double: thus, they had four hands and four feet, two faces, two genital parts, and so on. Then Zeus allowed himself to be persuaded to cut these beings in two, as one divides pears to stew them. . . . When all nature was divided in this way, to each human being came the longing for his own other half, and the two halves embraced and entwined their bodies and desired to grow together again.‘36 Are we to follow the clue of the poet-philosopher and make the daring assumption that living substance was at the time of its animation rent into small particles, which since that time strive for reunion by means of the sexual instincts? That these instincts—in which the chemical affinity of inanimate matter is continued—passing through the realm of the protozoa gradually overcome all hindrances set to their striving by an environment charged with stimuli dangerous to life, and are impelled by it to form a protecting covering layer? And that these dispersed fragments of living substance thus achieve a multicellular organisation, and finally transfer to the germ-cells in a highly concentrated form the instinct for reunion? I think this is the point at which to break off.

Taking into account the findings of many scholars, Seligman offers the happiness formula: H = S + C + V, where H stands for happiness, S for a set range, C for the circumstances and V for the factors under voluntary control. S is a genetically determined level of happiness, which remains relatively stable throughout the lifespan and returns to its original level soon after the majority of significant life events. It determines happiness up to about 50 per cent. C is the circumstances we’ve already considered (and accounts for about 10 per cent). So, if you want to be happy, get married, join a church but don’t bother about making more money, staying healthy, getting educated or moving to a sunnier climate. Finally, factors under voluntary control (V) refer to intentional and effortful practices a person can choose to engage in (which account for about 40 per cent) (Seligman, 2002). Of course, this formula is far from perfect. Genes and marriage are hardly the same fruit, and are more like apples and pears that cannot be added up. Nevertheless, the formula gives an indication of possibility and the room to manoeuvre (the 40 per cent).

Allison had once taken stock of every description she could think of for large bodies, and they were pretty much all food-related: pear-shaped, apple-shaped, juicy bottom, big melons, etc. It was disgusting. So, until everyone started referring to thin people as ‘asparagus-shaped,’ Allison would be curvy or plus-sized, or if she really wanted to watch people have a shock, fat.

I saw new Worlds beneath the Water ly, New Peeple; yea, another Sky And Sun, which seen by Day Might things more clear display. Just such another Of late my Brother Did in his Travel see, & saw by Night, A much more strange & wondrous Sight: Nor could the World exhibit such another, So Great a Sight, but in a Brother. Adventure strange! No such in Story we New or old, tru or feigned, see. On Earth he seem'd to mov Yet Heven went abov; Up in the Skies His Body flies In open, visible, yet Magick, sort: As he along the Way did sport, Over the Flood he takes his nimble Cours Without the help of feigned Horse. As he went tripping o'r the King's high-way, A little pearly River lay O'r which, without a Wing Or Oar, he dar'd to swim, Swim throu the Air On Body fair; He would not use nor trust Icarian Wings Lest they should prov deceitful things; For had he faln, it had been wondrous high, Not from, but from abov, the Sky: He might hav dropt throu that thin Element Into a fathomless Descent; Unto the nether Sky That did beneath him ly, And there might tell What Wonders dwell On Earth abov. Yet doth he briskly run, And bold the Danger overcom; Who, as he leapt, with Joy related soon How happy he o'r-leapt the Moon.

I followed them in every foreign land where they work hard, and suffer, where they sigh and if in trenches they as soldiers stand. Once they have met me they can’t say goodbye. Because the way I talk, they like to swear, brings smells of home: pistachio nuts, a hint of shelled, dry almonds, rows of prickly pears, of orange blossoms and of calamint; of our green sea where tuna boats stand ready, of relatives, of lovers, and of wives, Mount Etna, the Red Mountain, Mumpileri, and our night sky when it is clear and bright... I bring them all the passions, so they say, Sicilians harbor in their fiery hearts, those hearts that seem incapable of joy because they constantly torment themselves. For someone like myself, to the wheel tied, mean mother, is it not enough, I say, that I roam round the world without a guide and earn without much art your weekly pay? The Author Forgive me, dear Centona, I apologize! My senses were impaired when I began; What you keep giving me is a great prize I value more than some relationships with man.

Through Time and Space The Evidence for Remote Viewing Stephan A. Schwartz Beginning in the late 1960s, and continuing down to the late 1990s, for three decades there was an explosion of interest in nonlocal perception, the ability of an individual to acquire information that should not be accessible because of shielding by space, time, or both. It centered on two distinct but related protocols: Remote viewing and Ganzfeld. Although there were a number of single studies done,1,2,3,4,5,6,7 three major laboratories, SRI (later SAIC, and later still LFR), the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR, later ICRL) lab, and Mobius emerged. The labs arose concurrently, led the way, and maintained continuous systematic research on this aspect of consciousness throughout those

Women with consumption were believed to become more beautiful, ethereal, and wondrously pure. As Charlotte Brontë put it in a letter she wrote as her sister was dying of the disease, “Consumption, I am aware, is a flattering malady.” Patients with active tuberculosis typically become pale and thin with rosy cheeks and wide sunken eyes due to the low blood oxygenation and fevers that often accompany the disease, and these all became signals of beauty and value in Europe and the United States. Henry David Thoreau wrote in his journal, “Disease and decay are often beautiful—like the pearly tear of the shellfish or the hectic glow of consumption.” Phthisis was deeply associated with feminine beauty in Northern Europe. Small, waifish bodies can now seem so associated with beauty (and health!) that it can feel innate or instinctual to find smaller bodies more attractive than larger ones. But that’s not inherent to humanity (and indeed was not a significant bias of humanity until relatively recently). That said, it’s important to note that the idealization of the small body did not mean the end of consumptive stigmatization. Once again, we see the commingling of romance and stigma in the way women’s bodies are imagined, sometimes within a single sentence, as when one eighteenth-century magazine extolled the virtues of a consumptive body type: “The beauty of women is greatly owing to their delicacy, or weakness.” One romantic word to describe the beauty standard—delicacy—followed by a stigmatizing one—weakness.