Anthropology and parallelism: The individual as a universal--论文代写范文精选

对于并行性的概念,介绍了概念的增加和调整，首先在研究角度考虑，提高悖论的存在,因为他们反映在思维和科学的应用，对调查进行了讨论。社会研究人类的受苦与自我有关的悖论的定义。下面的paper代写范文进行叙述。

Abstract
It is difficult to define perspective within sets that are self belonging. For example in the study of mankind, anthropology, both men and their studies fall into the same category that contains the topic outline. This situation entails a universal quality of uniqueness, an instance of it, to the topic of anthropology that may be viewed in parallel with the topic of nature as the set of unique particulars. Yet one might assent to the notion in the inclusive study of man, anthropology, that nothing in its’ content should conceivably be construed to exceed it, though in approaches to the topic, reference to the topic of nature, unavoided, refer to the scientific topic of nature in which contemporary notions, when contrasted, exceed the perceptual experience of nature. In this presentation problems in approaches and in the application of available tools for analysis to the study of man will be discussed. Framed with respect to a concept of parallelism, notions and stimuli are introduced to augment and reorient towards a more creative perspective with respect to the organization of first perspective considerations in studies. The theories of relativity, the idea of mathematical relations for simultaneous events, the presence of artifactual paradoxes as they are reflected in thinking and the scientific tools applied towards investigations are discussed and hopefully highlighted so that they may hopefully be perceived distinctly form realities involved in the pursuit of studies. 
Key words: Logical positivism, theory of relativity, universals and constants, parallelism, mechanization.

INTRODUCTION 
Social studies of mankind suffer with paradoxes related to self definition, the external and appropriate footing with which to establish level and valid perspective. Scientific approaches are historically new and themselves both reflect and effect changes in history; approaches from the perspective of the social sciences lack the analytical rigors acquired by the natural sciences. In attempting to bridge the social and natural sciences difficulties are confronted that reflect civilization old paradoxes of mind and matter, ensuing courses in pursuits have evolved to lean on the success of approach of the natural sciences with respect to its’ predictiveness, explanatory power, accord found between theory and measurement. 

Researches in anthropology are potentially seduced by the products of abstraction in the sciences in an age of mechanization, susceptible to a short view entailed by its’ short life time with respect to that of the topic of its’ study, the period in history that lends its’ perspective. A focus on interpretation that assumes perspective in discussion with respect to the quality of ‘path’ is presented; universal to all pursuits and activities it is an aspect of the content of abstractions in the sciences that does not assume it as a quality, but as a path possessed to its’ own discourses of the same, potentially overlapping with it if interpretation is added that attributes some of its’ abstracted content to physically existing particulars. The theory of relativity is discussed as a representative example of the products of science investigation in this light (excuse the pun); it does not consider the path of the light of its’ own discourses attained from within a grander path of history. A perspective for research pursuits is proposed that is focused on the individual, individualinterpretation and creativity, heightened awareness of the individual as a universal parallel to topics of study in either the social or natural sciences, to nature; it possesses no exclusions with respect to the definition of perspective.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 
If it is wished to divulge in the abstractions of Einstein (Stachel, 1987), he alludes himself to desires for a mathematically ordered world in which nothing escapes the rigid relations of mathematics. Simultaneity, that is “It was years passed by over here, while occupying only a small fraction of an arc from my view, as I from yours, there were fewer moments involved; application leads to the inclusion of an abstracted statistical particular as a universal rather than a descriptive universal attributed to all particulars. Though it may be the case that a particular universal exists, the opposite, mathematics of non particulars evidenced in the more abstracted treatments of nature seems to occupy an inherent line in modern reasoning. 

If it is accepted that all knowledge is acquired from the perception of differences between entities there can be no license given to the physical existence of a class of non particulars. Yet statistical summation, which yields a net path from a looking back perspective is pursued as an alternative in the sense of an “or”, between two alter-natives rather than a universal “and”, in the light of a wish for certainty amidst accelerating problems to the unknowable forwards path to the future, yields a net consequence of fewer total moments - the A bomb is evidence, that matter possesses a near endless amount of mass and that man can reduce apparent and obvious form to the needs of scientific invention and advanced technology with the hovering, now unchallengeable, fact that large amounts of energy are invested within the existence of tangible form. Simultaneity has within its principles, two witness coordinates, one of a particular nature and the other of a statistical everywhere that is embodied by location-less space. Though this is proposed to be mathematically workable (Arntzeni, 2004), philosophically, massless space cannot be applied to the distal end of the same ruler that originates within the tangible realities of existence. This endeavor has more appeal in science fiction. 

If associations are made in a corresponding (excuse the pun) (correspondence is the manner in which statistical summations are found), analogy, the notion of a separate nature to each species, but one nature, a concept of an always open nature to life experience held as an intuitive criterion for validity in science, that is, “it makes sense in that it resembles life”,, we are left with the parallel of one nature with many natures to a concept of the openness of life/nature to the openness of scientific invention. This entails to the scientific the status of a separate (open like life) species. It is the intention of this essay, as discussion in anthropology is a discussion of mankind and the species, to expose and remind, to refer study to the notion that the physical as well as conceptual tools of science employed in investigations and interpretations are but one of the many species that personal incentives, interests, intellectual rigors must encompass.

the topic of parallel evolution or cultural identity, or the specifics of the distinct immunology of individuals, or of the various polygenic or monogenetic cultural myths (Ravenscroft, 1997), but might also reflect the concepts of relativity and simultaneity as an exemplary trend in modern thought in search for a perspective with which to pursue studies in anthropology. It is obvious that almost any of the tools of science, science theory- that is genetics, evolution, geology, physics etc. - tools with which to conquer, create understanding, understanding of behavior, of change and emergence are delivered to the hands of users in a state that is inundated with the misconception of a common abstracted parallel that exists to all parallels, explanation in the form of the existence of non particulars (pointless, non unique space) (Arfiat et al., 2009 http://philsciarchive.pitt.edu/archive/00004450/01/Inertia.pdf) that in some manner is supposed tp render, as a subset of things, the material world under study. 

Abstracted concepts that mimic observed nature, both inherently, apriorily bear the same paradoxes related to concepttions, birth, the open and infinite, are applied, yet in our pursuit of an understanding of the human being itself, using the abstracted products of our own hands we might damage our evidences, ourselves in a greedy pursuit of our goals. The same openness of life experience, the intuitions that form our judgments, though, are not necessarily obligated to the rigorous logics of existing scientific pursuits. Instrumentations and extended concepts, abstractions that have come to comprise the sextant of navigations in the blind and totally uncharted waters towards a theoretically projected landing mass, in abstractions reduce to massless space and may come to represent , in future retrospections, only a search for identity that has acquired a null “identityless” as the conceptual grounding anchor and is employed to find its’ complement, to “locate” it within these same artifactual gears (Gilmore, 2006). 

Inherently it may be assumed that abstracted locations with respect to the distant stars bear less meaning than the location of the self to the proximal elements of life experiences, especially life experiences held in common. It is at this juncture of the elements of experience, and elements of experience held in common that a fog clouding the potential facts of human identity emerges from the political and economic nature and needs of endeavors. Subsequently an ultimately abstracted rather than physical concept ” earth” is tangibly applied as the exactly „ alien end of a ruler. We can ultimately arrive at no location, identity within this scheme but of ourselves as a species in relation to an artifactual species we have created with our own hands. Absent mindedly, applied notions in the lab and field that are inherent in the large body of accumulated data and theory lend, in actuality, no point of reference at all and a need to find a way to locate the home, earth, from a separate, scientifically made, self conceived species; ultimately to arise at need to make real of invention.

Invention, invention of contrivances, arising and gaining popularity at the beginning of the last century proceed from a course of noted commentary on a growing weakness and ineffectuality of men. Nietzsche (1967) in the 1800’s noted a weakening identity in the form of a communicated feeling that “man had conquered himself” and that the conquering of man, as it maybe well be, is his whole struggle; Nietzsche had great hopes on the resources of science to conquer what he diagnosed as a medical disease. Arising in the 1900’s was the philosophy of logical positivism (Karnap, 1956) that logically construed scientific renditions of nature, logic and abstracttion, abstracted mathematics,, mathematical logic should be confined to fit the empirical in tests for validity. In acknowledgement of a broader latitude for logic in abstraction than could suitably fit the real world the creators of logical positivism hoped it would afford a route to the solution of the social and natural problems of mankind. Modern science seems to struggle from the era of logical positivism, adhering to, in a forwards progression towards a construed viable open that is possessed within a threshold of evolved abstraction, that is, the same fitting of abstracted logic put to test on nature. Consumed in an attempted approach to accommodate the empirical with the abstracted ideology of logical positivism is no more, though, than the attempted unifi-cation of a cognitively found, by association and intuition, continuous linear path of natural emergence raised to awareness by new discovery-the phenomenon of ‘path,’ necessary to all that is known cannot in reality as logical positivism dictates, be divided strictly into the empirical and the conceptual for scientific purposes, test and comparison.(论文代写)

51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。
更多论文代写范文欢迎访问我们主页 www.51due.com 当然有论文代写需求可以和我们24小时在线客服 QQ:800020041 联系交流。-X(论文代写)