Dirk Vekemans
Since 2005
Works in Kessel-Lo Belgium

ARTBASE (1)
PORTFOLIO (1)
BIO
born in 1962 in Lier, Belgium.
studied filology at Louvain, Belgium.

worked a lot in bars and restaurants before i became obsessivly addicted to producing stuff on computers.

i once won a design contest of cgi-magazine and they let me go to New York for four days, that was nice.

i think in terms of writing mostly (or programming, but those are very similar processes for me)

painting is a very different process and i'm very bad at it but i do it anyway because i like the differences it produces and i like the freshness of amateurism, i guess.

what i produce new media-wise is also very much influenced by my daily practice of webdesign and programming with its concerns of usability and the pragmatic approach it implies.

Discussions (292) Opportunities (0) Events (1) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: Commissions


as it is anyone is required to spent a considerable amount of time in preparing there candidature which is fine by me cause you don't expect an organisation to throw money at you because you ask for it on some lazy sunday

however the point Michael made was about those with a talent for making suffecient poo's & phaa's about their work/intentions are in the advantage while "real" talent might go quasi unnoticed

making previous work the ultimate criterium of choice would be more of a guarantee both about the seriousness of the worker in question as about her ability to do "it" again

blabla is for sale
work can only be shown

so work bar yes, word bar no

so i'd raise the work-bar by some way of gaining credit a a candidate through a more sustained voting principle, it could bring the workload down for those involved in the jurying/organisational process as well cause these things can be automated with a more or less steady user basis

please note i'm not referring to/ advocating principles concerning my own work in any way here,it just seems more logical to me

dv

-----Original message-----
From: Lee Wells lee@leewells.org
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:42:55 +0200
To: dv@vilt.net
Subject: Re: Commissions

> Please explain
>
> On 4/26/06 9:40 AM, "dv@vilt.net" <dv@vilt.net> wrote:
>
> > work bar yes word bar no
> > dv
> > -----Original message-----
> > From: Lee Wells lee@leewells.org
> > Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:24:34 +0200
> > To: dv@vilt.net
> > Subject: Commissions
> >
> >> Hi Michael:
> >>
> >> I agree with you in part but some of the proposals that were submitted had
> >> almost no care put into them at all. To me, it looked more like a sign of
> >> laziness and not following instructions than anything else. It didn't seem
> >> like many put much time into flushing out their ideas before submitting.
> >>
> >> All grant reviews are tedious no matter what the level of the submissions
> >> are. We are lucky that there are not 500 to have to go through.
> >>
> >> In the long run the bar should be raised not lowered.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/26/06 6:15 AM, "dv@" <dv@vilt.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> i don't know how to put it but i think i second this i mean i'm not in the
> >>> business of making art objects so i couldn't possibly ever find a way to use
> >>> the form to send anything (words, promises, projections) that wouldn't be
> >>> cheating either to the voters or to myself so that i could compete for the
> >>> commissions in a respectable manner & that's kinda sth of a pity cause
> >>> asmuchas i wouldn't dream of getting any i still think it would have been
> >>> more
> >>> fair to my family to do so cause heck i'm spending so much time on all these
> >>> things so i kinda owe it to them to at least try to get some money for what
> >>> i'm doing whatever that may be oh but ofcourse that's me and how i see
> >>> things
> >>> so it's my problem & i hope the best may win untsoweiter but anyway i
> >>> thought
> >>> it 'd be better if i just mailed this if only to show that Michael here's no
> >>> way unique although of course his point is not exactly the same as mine only
> >>> somewhat similar thank you dv
> >>>
> >>> -----Original message-----
> >>> From: Michael Szpakowski szpako@yahoo.com
> >>> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:52:13 +0200
> >>> To: rhizome list@rhizome.org
> >>> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I know metadata is what's hot, but talking
> >>> commissions
> >>> again..
> >>>
> >>>> HI Lauren, all
> >>>> I wanted to make a very simple suggestion about the
> >>>> commissions process for next year.
> >>>> I don't know whether other folk feel this way but I
> >>>> find one of the great irritations in life is
> >>>> constantly having to write proposals which spell out
> >>>> in very specific terms what one intends do for
> >>>> projects, especially as, for me at least (and I don't
> >>>> think I'm unique by any means here), chance & the
> >>>> unconscious play such a large part in determining the
> >>>> *actual* course of the way work develops.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm prompted to write this by peoples' evident
> >>>> fatigue, expressed here on RAW, at working their way
> >>>> through so much (with all due respect, not meant to be
> >>>> a comment on the content) verbiage, & not really
> >>>> feeling *that* much the wiser in a lot of cases. Of
> >>>> course one could be *super* conscientious & follow up
> >>>> *every* proposal back to its site but I think that is
> >>>> totally unrealistic, for those of us with any sort of
> >>>> a life anyway :)
> >>>>
> >>>> Further I'm convinced that out of the 12 or so (that
> >>>> magic number apparently) I voted for, some are the
> >>>> work of the silver tongued only, & would be crap in
> >>>> practice, and that out of the many I said 'no' to,
> >>>> some would make wonderful work, but that their
> >>>> proposers can't write an interesting or readable
> >>>> proposal. What I'm asserting is that well written
> >>>> proposal doesn't necessarily equal good eventual work
> >>>> & that there is probably not even a statistically
> >>>> significant connection between the two things.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd like to propose that submissions for next year's
> >>>> commissions consist simply of the artist's name &
> >>>> links to two contrasting works (or documentation of
> >>>> such if there is an offline component) made in the
> >>>> previous year.
> >>>> This would level the playing field considerably but
> >>>> also it would cut out bullshitting - the bottom line
> >>>> is that having made *some* work one is proud of,
> >>>> independently of funding, is surely a sine qua non of
> >>>> being serious as an artist.
> >>>> It also means that for young &/or new artists they
> >>>> would compete on the most *concrete* of terms with
> >>>> "names" -is the work any good?
> >>>> For those unable to make a judgement without bios,
> >>>> artists' statements &c. well you'll have the artists
> >>>> name so these can always be Googled up ...
> >>>>
> >>>> The two contrasting works requirement would by its
> >>>> nature give both an indication of an artist's range &
> >>>> ambition & also how we might expect a commissioned
> >>>> piece to develop.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think this idea would alleviate lots of tedium,
> >>>> enhance community participation both in submissions &
> >>>> voting, no longer as a duty but as a pleasure, & be
> >>>> much more artist friendly.
> >>>> Who knows - it might even catch on elsewhere & how
> >>>> much all our lives would be improved thereby!
> >>>> best
> >>>> michael
> >>>>
> >>>> +
> >>>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> >>>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> >>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> >>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >>>> +
> >>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> >>>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >>>>
> >>> +
> >>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> >>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> >>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> >>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >>> +
> >>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> >>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >>
> >> --
> >> Lee Wells
> >> Brooklyn, NY 11222
> >>
> >> http://www.leewells.org
> >> http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
> >> 917 723 2524
> >>
> >>
>
> --
> Lee Wells
> Brooklyn, NY 11222
>
> http://www.leewells.org
> http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
> 917 723 2524
>
>

DISCUSSION

Re: Commissions


> Perhaps the jury should make an initial run through proposals and
> weed out the incomplete and the obviously out-of-place.
>
> Pall

that would contradict the rest of the set-up
dv

> On 26.4.2006, at 09:24, Lee Wells wrote:
>
> > Hi Michael:
> >
> > I agree with you in part but some of the proposals that were
> > submitted had
> > almost no care put into them at all. To me, it looked more like a
> > sign of
> > laziness and not following instructions than anything else. It
> > didn't seem
> > like many put much time into flushing out their ideas before
> > submitting.
> >
> > All grant reviews are tedious no matter what the level of the
> > submissions
> > are. We are lucky that there are not 500 to have to go through.
> >
> > In the long run the bar should be raised not lowered.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/26/06 6:15 AM, "dv@" <dv@vilt.net> wrote:
> >
> >> i don't know how to put it but i think i second this i mean i'm
> >> not in the
> >> business of making art objects so i couldn't possibly ever find a
> >> way to use
> >> the form to send anything (words, promises, projections) that
> >> wouldn't be
> >> cheating either to the voters or to myself so that i could compete
> >> for the
> >> commissions in a respectable manner & that's kinda sth of a pity
> >> cause
> >> asmuchas i wouldn't dream of getting any i still think it would
> >> have been more
> >> fair to my family to do so cause heck i'm spending so much time on
> >> all these
> >> things so i kinda owe it to them to at least try to get some money
> >> for what
> >> i'm doing whatever that may be oh but ofcourse that's me and how i
> >> see things
> >> so it's my problem & i hope the best may win untsoweiter but
> >> anyway i thought
> >> it 'd be better if i just mailed this if only to show that Michael
> >> here's no
> >> way unique although of course his point is not exactly the same as
> >> mine only
> >> somewhat similar thank you dv
> >>
> >> -----Original message-----
> >> From: Michael Szpakowski szpako@yahoo.com
> >> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:52:13 +0200
> >> To: rhizome list@rhizome.org
> >> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I know metadata is what's hot, but talking
> >> commissions
> >> again..
> >>
> >>> HI Lauren, all
> >>> I wanted to make a very simple suggestion about the
> >>> commissions process for next year.
> >>> I don't know whether other folk feel this way but I
> >>> find one of the great irritations in life is
> >>> constantly having to write proposals which spell out
> >>> in very specific terms what one intends do for
> >>> projects, especially as, for me at least (and I don't
> >>> think I'm unique by any means here), chance & the
> >>> unconscious play such a large part in determining the
> >>> *actual* course of the way work develops.
> >>>
> >>> I'm prompted to write this by peoples' evident
> >>> fatigue, expressed here on RAW, at working their way
> >>> through so much (with all due respect, not meant to be
> >>> a comment on the content) verbiage, & not really
> >>> feeling *that* much the wiser in a lot of cases. Of
> >>> course one could be *super* conscientious & follow up
> >>> *every* proposal back to its site but I think that is
> >>> totally unrealistic, for those of us with any sort of
> >>> a life anyway :)
> >>>
> >>> Further I'm convinced that out of the 12 or so (that
> >>> magic number apparently) I voted for, some are the
> >>> work of the silver tongued only, & would be crap in
> >>> practice, and that out of the many I said 'no' to,
> >>> some would make wonderful work, but that their
> >>> proposers can't write an interesting or readable
> >>> proposal. What I'm asserting is that well written
> >>> proposal doesn't necessarily equal good eventual work
> >>> & that there is probably not even a statistically
> >>> significant connection between the two things.
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to propose that submissions for next year's
> >>> commissions consist simply of the artist's name &
> >>> links to two contrasting works (or documentation of
> >>> such if there is an offline component) made in the
> >>> previous year.
> >>> This would level the playing field considerably but
> >>> also it would cut out bullshitting - the bottom line
> >>> is that having made *some* work one is proud of,
> >>> independently of funding, is surely a sine qua non of
> >>> being serious as an artist.
> >>> It also means that for young &/or new artists they
> >>> would compete on the most *concrete* of terms with
> >>> "names" -is the work any good?
> >>> For those unable to make a judgement without bios,
> >>> artists' statements &c. well you'll have the artists
> >>> name so these can always be Googled up ...
> >>>
> >>> The two contrasting works requirement would by its
> >>> nature give both an indication of an artist's range &
> >>> ambition & also how we might expect a commissioned
> >>> piece to develop.
> >>>
> >>> I think this idea would alleviate lots of tedium,
> >>> enhance community participation both in submissions &
> >>> voting, no longer as a duty but as a pleasure, & be
> >>> much more artist friendly.
> >>> Who knows - it might even catch on elsewhere & how
> >>> much all our lives would be improved thereby!
> >>> best
> >>> michael
> >>>
> >>> +
> >>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> >>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> >>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> >>> subscribe.rhiz
> >>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >>> +
> >>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> >>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
> >>> 29.php
> >>>
> >> +
> >> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> >> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> >> subscribe.rhiz
> >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >> +
> >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> >> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
> >> 29.php
> >
> > --
> > Lee Wells
> > Brooklyn, NY 11222
> >
> > http://www.leewells.org
> > http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
> > 917 723 2524
> >
> > +
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> > subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
> > 29.php
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Pall Thayer
> p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
> http://www.this.is/pallit
>
>
>
>
>

DISCUSSION

Re: Commissions


work bar yes word bar no
dv
-----Original message-----
From: Lee Wells lee@leewells.org
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:24:34 +0200
To: dv@vilt.net
Subject: Commissions

> Hi Michael:
>
> I agree with you in part but some of the proposals that were submitted had
> almost no care put into them at all. To me, it looked more like a sign of
> laziness and not following instructions than anything else. It didn't seem
> like many put much time into flushing out their ideas before submitting.
>
> All grant reviews are tedious no matter what the level of the submissions
> are. We are lucky that there are not 500 to have to go through.
>
> In the long run the bar should be raised not lowered.
>
>
>
> On 4/26/06 6:15 AM, "dv@" <dv@vilt.net> wrote:
>
> > i don't know how to put it but i think i second this i mean i'm not in the
> > business of making art objects so i couldn't possibly ever find a way to use
> > the form to send anything (words, promises, projections) that wouldn't be
> > cheating either to the voters or to myself so that i could compete for the
> > commissions in a respectable manner & that's kinda sth of a pity cause
> > asmuchas i wouldn't dream of getting any i still think it would have been more
> > fair to my family to do so cause heck i'm spending so much time on all these
> > things so i kinda owe it to them to at least try to get some money for what
> > i'm doing whatever that may be oh but ofcourse that's me and how i see things
> > so it's my problem & i hope the best may win untsoweiter but anyway i thought
> > it 'd be better if i just mailed this if only to show that Michael here's no
> > way unique although of course his point is not exactly the same as mine only
> > somewhat similar thank you dv
> >
> > -----Original message-----
> > From: Michael Szpakowski szpako@yahoo.com
> > Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:52:13 +0200
> > To: rhizome list@rhizome.org
> > Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I know metadata is what's hot, but talking commissions
> > again..
> >
> >> HI Lauren, all
> >> I wanted to make a very simple suggestion about the
> >> commissions process for next year.
> >> I don't know whether other folk feel this way but I
> >> find one of the great irritations in life is
> >> constantly having to write proposals which spell out
> >> in very specific terms what one intends do for
> >> projects, especially as, for me at least (and I don't
> >> think I'm unique by any means here), chance & the
> >> unconscious play such a large part in determining the
> >> *actual* course of the way work develops.
> >>
> >> I'm prompted to write this by peoples' evident
> >> fatigue, expressed here on RAW, at working their way
> >> through so much (with all due respect, not meant to be
> >> a comment on the content) verbiage, & not really
> >> feeling *that* much the wiser in a lot of cases. Of
> >> course one could be *super* conscientious & follow up
> >> *every* proposal back to its site but I think that is
> >> totally unrealistic, for those of us with any sort of
> >> a life anyway :)
> >>
> >> Further I'm convinced that out of the 12 or so (that
> >> magic number apparently) I voted for, some are the
> >> work of the silver tongued only, & would be crap in
> >> practice, and that out of the many I said 'no' to,
> >> some would make wonderful work, but that their
> >> proposers can't write an interesting or readable
> >> proposal. What I'm asserting is that well written
> >> proposal doesn't necessarily equal good eventual work
> >> & that there is probably not even a statistically
> >> significant connection between the two things.
> >>
> >> I'd like to propose that submissions for next year's
> >> commissions consist simply of the artist's name &
> >> links to two contrasting works (or documentation of
> >> such if there is an offline component) made in the
> >> previous year.
> >> This would level the playing field considerably but
> >> also it would cut out bullshitting - the bottom line
> >> is that having made *some* work one is proud of,
> >> independently of funding, is surely a sine qua non of
> >> being serious as an artist.
> >> It also means that for young &/or new artists they
> >> would compete on the most *concrete* of terms with
> >> "names" -is the work any good?
> >> For those unable to make a judgement without bios,
> >> artists' statements &c. well you'll have the artists
> >> name so these can always be Googled up ...
> >>
> >> The two contrasting works requirement would by its
> >> nature give both an indication of an artist's range &
> >> ambition & also how we might expect a commissioned
> >> piece to develop.
> >>
> >> I think this idea would alleviate lots of tedium,
> >> enhance community participation both in submissions &
> >> voting, no longer as a duty but as a pleasure, & be
> >> much more artist friendly.
> >> Who knows - it might even catch on elsewhere & how
> >> much all our lives would be improved thereby!
> >> best
> >> michael
> >>
> >> +
> >> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> >> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >> +
> >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> >> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >>
> > +
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
> --
> Lee Wells
> Brooklyn, NY 11222
>
> http://www.leewells.org
> http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
> 917 723 2524
>
>

DISCUSSION

Re: I know metadata is what's hot, but talking commissions again..


i don't know how to put it but i think i second this i mean i'm not in the business of making art objects so i couldn't possibly ever find a way to use the form to send anything (words, promises, projections) that wouldn't be cheating either to the voters or to myself so that i could compete for the commissions in a respectable manner & that's kinda sth of a pity cause asmuchas i wouldn't dream of getting any i still think it would have been more fair to my family to do so cause heck i'm spending so much time on all these things so i kinda owe it to them to at least try to get some money for what i'm doing whatever that may be oh but ofcourse that's me and how i see things so it's my problem & i hope the best may win untsoweiter but anyway i thought it 'd be better if i just mailed this if only to show that Michael here's no way unique although of course his point is not exactly the same as mine only somewhat similar thank you dv

-----Original message-----
From: Michael Szpakowski szpako@yahoo.com
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:52:13 +0200
To: rhizome list@rhizome.org
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I know metadata is what's hot, but talking commissions again..

> HI Lauren, all
> I wanted to make a very simple suggestion about the
> commissions process for next year.
> I don't know whether other folk feel this way but I
> find one of the great irritations in life is
> constantly having to write proposals which spell out
> in very specific terms what one intends do for
> projects, especially as, for me at least (and I don't
> think I'm unique by any means here), chance & the
> unconscious play such a large part in determining the
> *actual* course of the way work develops.
>
> I'm prompted to write this by peoples' evident
> fatigue, expressed here on RAW, at working their way
> through so much (with all due respect, not meant to be
> a comment on the content) verbiage, & not really
> feeling *that* much the wiser in a lot of cases. Of
> course one could be *super* conscientious & follow up
> *every* proposal back to its site but I think that is
> totally unrealistic, for those of us with any sort of
> a life anyway :)
>
> Further I'm convinced that out of the 12 or so (that
> magic number apparently) I voted for, some are the
> work of the silver tongued only, & would be crap in
> practice, and that out of the many I said 'no' to,
> some would make wonderful work, but that their
> proposers can't write an interesting or readable
> proposal. What I'm asserting is that well written
> proposal doesn't necessarily equal good eventual work
> & that there is probably not even a statistically
> significant connection between the two things.
>
> I'd like to propose that submissions for next year's
> commissions consist simply of the artist's name &
> links to two contrasting works (or documentation of
> such if there is an offline component) made in the
> previous year.
> This would level the playing field considerably but
> also it would cut out bullshitting - the bottom line
> is that having made *some* work one is proud of,
> independently of funding, is surely a sine qua non of
> being serious as an artist.
> It also means that for young &/or new artists they
> would compete on the most *concrete* of terms with
> "names" -is the work any good?
> For those unable to make a judgement without bios,
> artists' statements &c. well you'll have the artists
> name so these can always be Googled up ...
>
> The two contrasting works requirement would by its
> nature give both an indication of an artist's range &
> ambition & also how we might expect a commissioned
> piece to develop.
>
> I think this idea would alleviate lots of tedium,
> enhance community participation both in submissions &
> voting, no longer as a duty but as a pleasure, & be
> much more artist friendly.
> Who knows - it might even catch on elsewhere & how
> much all our lives would be improved thereby!
> best
> michael
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

DISCUSSION

la wiki source : 37 heraclitan fragments in latin


1. Quapropter rem omnibus communem sequi oportet : quamvis autem ratio sit
communis, vulgus tamen vivit quasi propria quadam intelligentia praeditum
sit.

2. Quapropter etiam Heraclitus dixit, si omnia quae sunt in fumum abirent,
fore ut nares ea dignoscerent.

3. Alia enim equi voluptas est, alia canis, alia hominis, quemadmodum
Heraclitus ait asino culmos et paleas auro optabiliores esse : jucundus enim
asinis est pabulum quam aurum.

4. Namque omne animal humi repens terram depascitur ac possidet, ut ait
Heraclitus.

5. Etenim nisi Dionyso pompam celebrarent canerentque carmen in pudentia
conditum, impudentissimi in factis essent, inquit Heraclitus. Idem vero
Orcus ac Dionysus cujus amore furunt et bacchantur.

6. Non enim ita sentiunt multi eorum qui incidunt in illa, neque edocti
sciunt, sed sibi videntur scire, ut ait praeclarus ille Heraclitus.

7. Hoc oraculum Heraclitus Ephesius explicatius et copiosus elocutus dixit :
< Nisi speratis, insperatum non invenientis, quum inveniri non possit atque
inaccessum sit. >

8. Homines quosdam non satis certos castigans Heraclitus ait : < hi neque
audire sciunt neque loqui, > nimirum a Salomone adjutus.

9. Nam qui aurum quaerunt, inquit Heraclitus, multum agri suffodiunt nec
nisi aliquantum metalli inveniunt.

10. Namque in bello, inquit, caesos dii honorant atque homines.

11. Homo noctu sibi ipsi lumen accendit : at mortuus exstinctus est. Vivus
autem dormiens mortuum necessitudine ita attingit, ut caecus vigilans ad
dormientis similitudinem accedit.

12. Homines mortuos manent quae neque sperant neque credunt.

13. Mundum eundem omnium neque deorum quisquam neque hominum procreavit, sed
fuit semper atque est et erit ignis immortalis, accensus mensura et
exstinctus.

14. Ignis mutatur primum in mare, mare autem dimidia ex parte in terram,
dimidia ex parte in presterem. Mare diffunditur ejusque mensura agitur pro
eadem portione quae prius fuit quam terra esset.

15. Scio equidem etiam Platonem astipulati Heraclito scribenti : < Quod unum
sapiens est solum Jovis nomine appellari potest et non potest. >

16. Les et consilium est uni obedire.

17. Sed enim prorsus, opinor, conveniunt in istos qui vobis similiter
obloquuntur Heracliti Ephesii verba : < Imperiti auscultatores surdis
comparandi sunt ; his dictum illud veritatis testimonium dat, etiam
praesentes abesse. >

18. Ac difficilis ille Heraclitus maxime eum collaudavit his verbis : < Apud
Prienensesnatus est Bias, Tentami filius, cujus illustrior fama est quam
caeterorum. >

19. Magna variaque eruditio mentem non docet. Hesiodum enim docuisset et
Pythagoram, rursusque Xenophanem atque Hecataeum.

20. Contumeliam citius quam incendium exstingui oportet.

21. Populum pro lege non secus ac pro muro pugnare oportet.

22. Hic arrogantem de se persuasionem sacrum morbum appellabat.

23. Arcus nomen vita, opus mors est.

24. In eosdem fluvios descendimus ac non descendimus ; sumus ac non sumus.

25. Non me, sed rationem audientes concedere decet ex uno omnia fieri.
Ignorant concordam esse discordiam : est enim mutabilis concentus ut arcus
et lyrae.

26.Quae videntur, audiuntur et discuntur, haec ego caeteris antepono.

27. Id est his ejus verbis facile intelligitur : Errarunt, inquit, homines
in rerum illustrium cognitione similiter atque Homerus qui reliquis Graecis
sapientior fuit. Illum enim pueri qui pediculos interficiebant his verbis
decepere : < Quae vidimus cepimusque, ea omnia reliquimus ; quae vero neque
vidimus neque cepimus, ea gestamus

28. At plurimarum rerum magister Hesiodus est : hunc permutta tenuisse
putant, qui diem et noctem non noverat ; est enim unum idemque.

29. Bonum item et malum eodem redit. Medici quidem, inquit Heraclitus,
secantes urentesque et usquequaque aegrorum corpora male vexantes mercedem
qua digni non sunt ab aegrotis exigunt, quum hanc etiam morbis medicinam
faciant.

30. Rectum, inquit, et tortuosum idem est. Stilo, inquit, via recta et
curva, ideoque accedit ad similitudinem instrumenti quod cochleae nomine
afficitur. Nam stili circumversio resta et curva est, siquidem a scribente
simulsursum atque in orbem flectitur. Una est, inquit et eadem via : et
sursum ac deorsum unum est idem ; via sursum ac deorsum una atque eadem est.

31. Via sursum et deorsum una.

32. Aqua marina purissima et corruptissima est, piscibus quidem potabilis et
slubris, hominibus vero minime potabilis atque adeo pestilens.

33. Dii mortales hominesque immortales, viventes illorum mortem, morientes
illorum vitam.

34. Omnia vero fulmen gubernat.

35. Deus dies, nox ; hiems, aestas ; bellum, pax ; satietas, fames. Variatur
autem, ut quum odoramenta alia aliis commiscentur, appellaturque ut cuique
libet.

36. Humanum enim ingenium non habet prudentiam, divinum vero habet.

37. At Sibylla furente ore, ut ait Heraclitus, risus, ornatus et fuci
expertia sonans dei beneficio vocem ad mille annos continuat.

http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Fragmenta_%28Heraclitus%29

greetings,

dv @ Neue kathedrale des erotischen Elends
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee