In 1961 Bob Dylan played his first major gig in New York City opening for John Lee Hooker.

Who knows how many other young men arrived in New York City in the winter of 1961 looking like James Dean and talking like Jack Kerouac? It would have been difficult to pick Bob Dylan out of the crowd at first, considering how much he had in common with the other Bohemian kids kicking around Greenwich Village. Artistic ambition? Check. Antipathy toward mainstream culture? Yes. A desire to put his middle-class identity behind him? Definitely. But the singular creative vision that would separate Dylan from the rest of his peers and change the face of popular music wasn’t really in evidence yet. What Bob Dylan did have, though, in addition to his guitar and harmonica, was a unique stage presence and a vast library of American folk songs in his repertoire. On April 11, 1961, he got his first real chance to put those on display with his first major gig in New York City, opening for bluesman John Lee Hooker at Gerde’s Folk City.

Bob Dylan had just arrived in town a few months earlier, but as the prominent producer/talent scout John Hammond would write in the liner notes of his debut album one year later, “The young man from the provinces began to make friends very quickly in New York, all the while continuing, as he has since he was ten, to assimilate musical ideas from everyone he met, every record he heard.” Dylan befriended not only his idol Woody Guthrie—whose hospitalization in New Jersey had been the initial impetus for Dylan to come east from Minnesota—but also some of the significant figures on the burgeoning Downtown folk scene, like Jack Elliot and Dave Van Ronk. Dylan would write about this period in “Talkin’ New York” (1962), which included a verse about his breakthrough gig at Gerde’s:

After weeks and weeks of hanging around
I finally got a job in New York town
In a bigger place, bigger money 
Even joined the Union and paid my dues.

Gerde’s was probably the most important folk-music venue in New York City at the time—the club that every folk act with a national profile played when they were in town. Dylan had previously joined other unknowns like himself onstage at Gerde’s during the club’s Monday “Hootenanny Night,” but the invitation to appear on a regular bill presented a bit of an administrative problem. At just 19 years old, Bob Dylan was too young to obtain the necessary union card and cabaret license. One of the clubs owners, Mike Porco, was interested enough in getting the young man on the bill, though, that he signed on as Dylan’s guardian—”the Sicilian father I never knew I had,” as Dylan put it.

A number of major developments in the year that followed would set Bob Dylan on his road toward stardom, but the very first of those was his appearance at Gerde’s Folk City on this day in 1961.

In 1961 Bob Dylan played his first major gig in New York City

bitcoin

Meme Monday - Best Bitcoin Meme Gets 25,000 Sats

![Spot the Bitcoiner.jpeg](https://m.stacker.news/26722)

In 1792, Goya, at 47 already one of Europe's foremost artists, suffered a devastating illness which was to leave him almost deaf. During a long convalescence he read widely on the social and political issues of his day, particularly the French Revolution and the philosophy which inspired it. When he returned to full-time work later in the decade, he was a changed man -- more bitter, more pessimistic about humankind's future, less tolerant of its foibles -- and he prepared to embark upon an artistic mission which would make him not only the artist of his own age but also one for the ages, and, arguably, the father of modern art.

Los Caprichos

The eighty "Los Caprichos" aquatint plates of 1799 were his first foray in this new direction. Satirical graphic art certainly existed before him (Hogarth comes to mind) but never before had anyone dared such a scathing and uncompromising critique of social manners and hypocrisy. The eighty plates, roughly 12 1/2 by 8 3/4 inches in their uncut state, were published in book form at the moderate price of 320 reales at a shop across from Goya's own house in Madrid's "Calle del Desengano" (Street of Disillusion). Not surprisingly, despite Goya's cautious and often ambiguous captions, it was not popular in certain circles, and he was forced to suspend sales, after only 23 copies had been bought. In 1803, facing heat from the political right and liable for prosecution by the Inquisition, Goya was finally rescued by King Carlos IV. The king, who liked Goya personally and was probably too obtuse to recognize that he had painted him as a bumbling idiot, ordered all unsold sets and the original copper plates to be rendered to the Crown, stating publicly that Goya had acted on his orders, thus saving him from the Inquisitors.
![5.jpeg](https://m.stacker.news/26624)
Image: The sleep of reason produces monsters (El sueño del la razon produce monstruos)

Several sets of short commentaries on each plate were written in the years following publication, some possibly by Goya himself. Given the brevity of the captions and the viewer's probable unfamiliarity with the social milieu depicted, I have included one of these -- the so-called "Prado" Manuscript commentary. Take these for what they're worth, a contemporary's interpretation: only the titles are Goya's and the pictures speak for themselves. 


"The Disasters of War" (Los Desastres de la Guerra) are a series of 82 prints created between 1810 and 1820 by Goya. Although he did not make known his intention when creating the plates, art historians view them as a visual protest against the violence of the 1808 Dos de Mayo Uprising, the subsequent Peninsular War of 1808–14 and the setbacks to the liberal cause following the restoration of the Bourbon monarchy in 1814. During the conflicts between Napoleon's French Empire and Spain, Goya retained his position as first court painter to the Spanish crown and continued to produce portraits of the Spanish and French rulers. Although deeply affected by the war, he kept private his thoughts on the art he produced in response to the conflict and its aftermath. He was in poor health and almost deaf when, at 62, he began work on the prints. They were not published until 1863, 35 years after his death. It is likely that only then was it considered politically safe to distribute a sequence of artworks criticising both the French and restored Bourbons.
![6.jpeg](https://m.stacker.news/26625)
Image: They say yes and give their hand to the first one who comes along. (El si pronuncian y la mano alargan Al primero que llega)

The first 47 focus on incidents from the war and show the consequences of the conflict on individual soldiers and civilians. The middle series (plates 48 to 64) record the effects of the famine that hit Madrid in 1811–12, before the city was liberated from the French. The final 17 reflect the bitter disappointment of liberals when the restored Bourbon monarchy, encouraged by the Catholic hierarchy, rejected the Spanish Constitution of 1812 and opposed both state and religious reform. Since their first publication, Goya's scenes of atrocities, starvation, degradation and humiliation have been described as the "prodigious flowering of rage" as well as the "work of a memory that knew no forgiveness." The serial nature in which the plates unfold has led some to see the images as similar in nature to photography.
Los Disparates & La Tauromaquia

Besides "Los Caprichos" and "Los Desastres de la Guerra" Goya did two other series of engraved plates, "La Tauromaquia," published as a volume in 1816, and "Los Disparates" ("Follies" or "Extravagances"), done between 1817 and 1819, but never published in his lifetime.
![7.jpeg](https://m.stacker.news/26626)
Image: Tit for Tat [One like the other] (Tal para qual)

After the upheaval of the Penisular War against French troops occupying Spain, Goya was seriously strapped for cash. He thus decided to execute a series of aquatint engravings chronicling the history of Spain's most popular sport -- bullfighting. The project must have been somewhat of a relief for him after the years depicting the contemporary horrors of the "Disasters of War" -- a nostalgic return to the memories and enthusiasms of his own youth. The volume, however, did not sell as well as he had hoped, the Spanish book-buying public presumably preferring a less-expensive text-only historical account. Modern audiences, nevertheless, will find it a most pleasurable and convenient way of learning about the history and art of bullfighting. The original Spanish captions are provided, along with an English translation, in the comments. Several other engravings and lithographs by Goya dealing with bullfighting are appended to the set.

Why Goya chose to execute the "Los Disparates" series is unclear. He had just finished the last section of engravings for the "Disasters of War" series in 1816 -- the ones dealing not with the war, but with the evils of the reactionary regime that took power after Napoleon's troops departed -- yet he did not publish them for fear of reprisals. It would appear that the eighteen prints that originally comprised the series (four more were added later by publishers) were intended to satirize the current regime. The imagery is certainly as ghastly and provocative as anything Goya produced, but, over-cautious as a result of his experience with "Los Caprichos," he buries their political message under layers of esoteric reference and symbolism. When they saw the light of day after his death, the publishers decided to give them some context by associating a Spanish proverb with each picture. These appear in the comments, along with my translation into English.
![8.jpeg](https://m.stacker.news/26627)
Image: Nobody knows himself (Nadie se conoce)

Los Caprichos  - Goya

BooksAndArticles

Sixteen-year-old Karl Rossmann is exiled to America due to a scandalous accusation. He finds himself on a ship, with nothing but a letter from a distant uncle promising a fresh start in the land of opportunity. He finds himself adrift on a ship, with nothing but a letter from a distant uncle promising a fresh start in the land of opportunity.

Upon arriving in New York Harbor, Karl is greeted by a jarring spectacle: the Statue of Liberty, a beacon of freedom, clutches a sword instead of a torch, hinting at the bureaucratic battles to come. Reunited with his uncle, a powerful senator, Karl enters a world of luxury far removed from his modest past. However, a twist of fate casts him out once more, shattering this fragile dream.

Thrust into the underbelly of American society, Karl meets a cast of unforgettable characters, including Delamarche, a hotelier perpetually on the edge of financial ruin, who exploits Karl's naivety for personal gain. Robinson, a charismatic yet inept businessperson, takes Karl on a fruitless journey across the country, offering exciting escapades that never come to fruition.

Throughout his trials, Karl maintains an unwavering belief in the American dream. He throws himself into every task, from scrubbing floors to working as a lift boy, convinced that hard work and good intentions will pave the way to success. However, the system appears to be rigged against him. Authority figures are distant and uncaring, and his attempts to explain his situation fall on deaf ears.

Just as despair threatens to engulf him, Karl encounters a glimmer of hope. He is attracted to a travelling theatre company, a world of movement and creativity that ignites his imagination. Perhaps, amidst the chaos, this unconventional path holds the key to finding his place in America.

However, the novel ends abruptly, leaving Karl's fate hanging in the balance. 

Did he find solace and purpose with the theatre troupe? Or did the relentless bureaucracy crush his spirit once more? 

Kafka, the master of creating unsettling narratives, prompts readers to contemplate the immigrant experience, the elusive nature of the American dream, and the struggle for identity in a world that appears determined to keep one off balance.

![4.jpeg](https://m.stacker.news/26175)


Amerika: The Missing Person by Franz Kafka

ideasfromtheedge

I must say a word about fear. It is life's only true opponent. 
Only fear can defeat life. It is a clever, treacherous adversary, how well I know. 

It has no decency, respects no law or convention, and shows no mercy. It goes for your weakest spot, which it finds with unnerving ease. 

It begins in your mind, always ... so you must fight hard to express it. 

You must fight hard to shine the light of words upon it. 
Because if you don't, if your fear becomes a wordless darkness that you avoid, perhaps even manage to forget, you open yourself to further attacks of fear because you never truly fought the opponent who defeated you. 

Only fear can defeat life by Yann Martel 

If you could sit on this bench 

![3.jpeg](https://m.stacker.news/26102)


and talk for one hour with anyone from the past or present about Bitcoin, 

![4.jpeg](https://m.stacker.news/26103)

who would it be and what would you discuss? 

if you could talk with anyone about Bitcoin, what would you discuss about?

FiresidePhilosophy


The expression "Killing two birds with one stone" sounds trite and cruel to me. It implies that killing one bird is not enough and that the stone must continue on its way to kill another. Without a doubt, the expression simply means solving two tasks at the same time or with one single action. But again, it doesn't seem kind to me.

When was the last time you thought about killing a bird, especially using a stone?

My memory takes me back to childhood when children killed birds, but not only. The children also killed other animals, such as ants and beetles in the grass. None of these creatures posed a threat to the children's lives. However, the children saw themselves as superior to these creatures, and they were killing them. 

Nowadays, many children may not have the opportunity to interact with nature as they did in the past, and therefore may not engage in such activities, such as killing birds, ants, beetles, butterflies...  However, the desire to kill may still exist.  Nowadays, children find it easier and more enjoyable to kill aliens, dragons, and zombies in video games – _one click, two dragons!_ _Double the number of kills! Two for the price of one!_

But, the question remains: why do children (human beings) have the desire to kill?

This is a difficult question to answer. Perhaps children kill because it is a way for them to communicate with the world and make a place for themselves in it by force. Who knows! 

However, I don't know if it is possible literally to "kill two birds with one stone", but I do know that one can kill way more "birds" with a hand grenade, and even more with drones, rockets, and other similar weapons.

The history of the twentieth century is a clear testimony: Millions of people were killed with weapons of mass destruction...

"Killing two birds with one stone" - Reflections on the 'philosophy of killing'

>There is so much reading material available that one lifetime is not enough to read it.

When I read this statement for the first time, I said "Yes, man, that's true! I Don't have that much time to read everything it is written". And I was reading a lot at that time. 

As I grew older, a question arose: Why should all written content be read? 

Why should someone feel bad for not being able to read everything during his entire life? 

I have the impression that the desire to read everything that is written may seem like an egotistical desire. It suggests that you are not interested in learning about a topic deeply and becoming an expert on it or in acquiring a new skill and mastering it every day to become better and better. Instead, you simply want to read as many books as possible so that you can boast to others about the large number of books you have read. 

Well, great job! You read a large number of books, but what have you gained from reading all these books, apart from the fact that you have read many books? Do you have an in-depth knowledge of a particular field, topic, or skill? 

Most likely, no. You may have acquired a general knowledge of many fields and subjects, but you have not become an expert in any of them. It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that it makes more sense to choose one or two topics that you like and to delve into them as deeply as possible. However, even here, it is not necessary to read everything that has been written on the subject, but you can wisely choose the most relevant books.

There's so much to read that one life is not enough to read it (Reflections)

The mind can justify things that the heart cannot. In the cold deliberation of an armchair, we might logically justify all manner of things. And yet, there’s a difference between rationalising something and actually doing it. There’s often a kind of block that comes on — a visceral rejection of an action that’s utterly reasonable yet somehow utterly undoable.

This is one of the great themes of Dostoyevsky’s “Crime and Punishment.”.

The novel features a young man, Raskolnikov, who seems to know his philosophy. He knows well the utilitarian theories that say that an action is good if it creates the greatest outcome. Raskolnikov sees himself as some strong and powerful leader — a new Napoleon-type figure who’ll do whatever is in the interests of the greater good.

And so, Raskolnikov justifies murder. He identifies an elderly lady who he’ll kill and steal from, at least in part to help support his family. He views this person as entirely evil and cruel. She’s a parasite on society, and the world would be better off without her there. Much of the first part of the book is spent building up to this act. It’s Raskolnikov rationalising to himself the utilitarian merits of taking a life.

Of course, things do not go as planned. The murder is botched, brutal, and bloody, and he ends up killing the old lady’s younger, pregnant sister. The rest of the novel depicts Raskolnikov’s descent into madness. He’s overcome by a sense of guilt and paranoia. Everything seems cramped, squalid, and clogged, and there’s a feverish hue to things.

Crime and Punishment forces us to examine that bit of ourselves we have to live with. There’s a part of each of us — call it the psyche, conscience, or even soul — that guides and commits us to things. When we act against this or ignore its pull, it can have profound, scarring, and traumatic effects.

No matter how much we hate someone, we ache to see them sad. No matter how much we know someone’s a bad influence, we feel we can’t cut them out of our lives. And, even if we justify a killing, we can’t bring ourselves to pull the trigger. Dostoyevsky knew that we might all think or say one thing, but our being often won’t follow along.

©Mini Philosophy

The mind can justify things that the heart cannot...

health

Relationships never provide you with everything. 
They provide you with some things. 
You take all the things you want from a person - sexual chemistry, let's say, or good conversation, or financial support, or intellectual compatibility, or niceness, or loyalty - and you get to pick three of those things. 
The rest you have to look for elsewhere. 
It's only in the movies that you find someone who gives you all those things. 
But this isn't the movie. In the real world, you have to identify which three qualities you want to spend the rest of your life with, and then you look for those qualities in another person. 
That's real life. Don't you see it's a trap? 
If you keep trying to find everything, you'll wind up with nothing. 

Hanya Yanagihara

Relationships never provide you with everything

You’re at a party, happily chatting with a stranger who’s easy-going, funny, and intelligent. You’re having a great time. In passing, you make an off-the-cuff joke about Marxism. Suddenly, the entire mood shifts. The stranger frowns and tenses up.

“Why would you say that?”, he says. You laugh nervously.

“Do you think this is funny?", he splutters.

Congratulations! You’ve just met a “Serious Man”. They’re everywhere; they live amongst us, and they are all, according to de Beauvoir, living an inauthentic life.

A Serious Man is someone who sees one area of life as so unimaginably serious that no one can, or ought to, question it. And it should definitely *never* be mocked. It might be “a father, a boss, a Christian, a Communist”, or anyone really. In each case, some topic is raised up to the “stature of an idol”. Everyone must take this idol seriously. There is no greater thing than this!

De Beauvoir noted, with irony, how easily the Serious Man mocks others’ idols. The atheist scoffs at the believer. The Marxist rolls his eyes at the capitalist. The old cynic laughs at the young romantic. It’s quite okay to ridicule others’ seriousness, but never one’s own.

The issue comes in how much of oneself the Serious Man invests in these idols. When he “puts all his eggs into one basket”, he develops a dependency on it. His identity is tied to it. And so he “falls into a state of preoccupation”. Everything is seen as a threat to his idol. He tilts at windmills and takes to the barricades. The whole universe is a potential challenge, and he sees insults and slights everywhere.

The Serious Man is a dangerous man. He’ll not hesitate to sacrifice anything — everything — to his idol. He ignores the value of other people because he sees his idol as the only “unconditional value”. Everything must bow before this god. Everything lives insofar as it serves the object of his seriousness.

Churchill once said, “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”. What better way to describe De Beauvoir’s Serious Man? At best, they can be a dull and broken record. At worst, they have the homicidal fanaticism that only unbending ideology can give us. 

You’ve just met a “Serious Man”. They’re everywhere; they live amongst us...

conspiracy


Oklahoma National Guard will be present for the Eclipse. This is getting wild!

What will happen on April 8th with the Solar Eclipse?

The emotionally intelligent person knows that love is a skill, not a feeling, and will require trust, vulnerability, generosity, humor, sexual understanding, and selective resignation. 

The emotionally intelligent person awards themselves the time to determine what gives their working life meaning and has the confidence and tenacity to try to find an accommodation between their inner priorities and the demands of the world. 

The emotionally intelligent person knows how to hope and be grateful, while remaining steadfast before the essentially tragic structure of existence. 

The emotionally intelligent person knows that they will only ever be mentally healthy in a few areas and at certain moments, but is committed to fathoming their inadequacies and warning others of them in good time, with apology and charm. 

There are few catastrophes, in our own lives or in those of nations, that do not ultimately have their origins in emotional ignorance. 

Alain de Botton

The emotionally intelligent person

Do not live half a life
and do not die a half death.
If you choose silence, then be silent.
When you speak, do so until you are finished.
If you accept, then express it bluntly.
Do not mask it.
If you refuse then be clear about it
for an ambiguous refusal is but a weak acceptance.
Do not accept half a solution.
Do not believe half truths.
Do not dream half a dream.
Do not fantasize about half hopes.
Half the way will get you no where.
You are a whole that exists to live a life
not half a life.

![1233.webp](https://m.stacker.news/24778)

--Khalil Gibran 

You are a whole that exists to live a life, not half a life...

alter_native

There are a lot of web browsers on the market, but what would you suggest to me as the best alternative to Google Chrome? 

Best Alternative to Google Chrome?

I adore this poem, guys. Hope you will enjoy it as well. 

A great reading by Bijan Daneshmand
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqk-kVToYks

Go placidly amid the noise and haste,
and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible without surrender
be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly;
and listen to others,
even the dull and the ignorant;
they too have their story.

Avoid loud and aggressive persons,
they are vexations to the spirit.
If you compare yourself with others,
you may become vain and bitter;
for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.

Keep interested in your own career, however humble;
it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.
Exercise caution in your business affairs;
for the world is full of trickery.
But let this not blind you to what virtue there is;
many persons strive for high ideals;
and everywhere life is full of heroism.

Be yourself.
Especially, do not feign affection.
Neither be cynical about love;
for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment
it is as perennial as the grass.

Take kindly the counsel of the years,
gracefully surrendering the things of youth.
Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune.
But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings.
Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.
Beyond a wholesome discipline,
be gentle with yourself.

You are a child of the universe,
no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God,
whatever you conceive Him to be,
and whatever your labors and aspirations,
in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams,
it is still a beautiful world.
Be cheerful.
Strive to be happy.

Desiderata - Words for Life || Max Ehrmann

I came across an interesting meme on the internet the other day: 

![IMG_5645.jpeg](https://m.stacker.news/23885)

>Bitcoin is the most important innovation to money in 1000 years. 

I could not disagree with this statement. It’s more than true. 

In my humble opinion, it is not just “the most important innovation to money in 1000 years, but it is gonna be “the most important innovation to money” for many freaking years, because it’s just perfect. 

Do you agree or disagree with the meme and my humble opinion? 

Bitcoin is the most important innovation to money in 1000 years

I have a young friend who dreams of becoming a novelist, but he never seems to be able to complete his work. According to him, his job keeps him too busy, and he can never find enough time to write novels, and that's why he can't complete work and enter it for writing awards. But is that the real reason? No! It's actually that he wants to leave the possibility of "I can do it if I try" open, by not committing to anything. 

He doesn't want to expose his work to criticism, and he certainly doesn't want to face the reality that he might produce an inferior piece of writing and face rejection. He wants to live inside that realm of possibilities, where he can say that he could do it if he only had the time, or that he could write if he just had the proper environment, and that he really does have the talent for it. In another five or ten years, he will probably start using another excuses like "I'm not young anymore" or "I've got a family to think about now."

He should just enter his writing for an award, and if he gets rejected, so be it. If he did, he might grow, or discover that he should pursue something different. Either way, he would be able to move on. That is what changing your current lifestyle is about. He won't get anywhere by not submitting anything. 

The Courage to Be Disliked by Ichiro Kishimi

A question for English Native Speakers 

Given the relatively small number of speakers of Albanian, it is important to learn English as a second language. Nowadays, young children are learning English and  Albanian simultaneously. And I think that's happening in every small country.

Thoughts on Thomas Nagel’s _MORAL LUCK_

Most of us are untested. Each of us has a certain set of traits, beliefs, and moral values. Some are patient, generous, and brave. Some are vengeful, miserly, and cowardly. But, most of the time, we don’t know which we are. We cruise through life with no real opportunity to be good and no opportunity to be bad. Two examples:

Norma dislikes her husband. She thinks nothing of hurting him and thinks she deserves better. She’s ready to be unfaithful, but she is never in a situation when she can be. Norma is never away on a work trip. She’s never alone in a bar. An attractive stranger never gives her the eye. Norma never cheats on her husband because she never has the opportunity to.

Fritz is a gentle, softly spoken history graduate from Freiberg. He’s a kind son and has never done anything wrong. When the Nazis come to power in the 1930s, he finds himself tumbling through the system. He gets an easy job; Fritz hates to rock the boat. By 1941, he’s a guard at Auschwitz. He’s party to one of the evillest moments in human history. Fritz was tested by 1930s Germany, and he failed.

There are Normas and Fritzs all over the world, and the reason we say Norma is a good, faithful wife while Fritz is a fascist monster is because of moral luck. Norma had it. Fritz didn’t.

In his essay on moral luck, Thomas Nagel argued that we should give more attention to how far moral success or failure is determined by factors beyond our control. A young man driving recklessly through a red light is immoral. But if a pedestrian is walking across the road, gets hit and is killed, then the man's crime is of a different order.

A parent who “runs to get a towel” while leaving the baby in the bath is foolish. If the baby drowns in those moments, the parent is a monster.

Nagel points out that when you focus in on these uncontrollable factors, you realise how far “genuine agency and moral judgement seem to shrink.” Your moral values are either genetic or cultural – either way, not within your power. Your moral actions will either be very good or very bad based upon the luck of the universe – not within your power.

Mini Philosophy

![IMG_5631.jpeg](https://m.stacker.news/23511)



The question Thomas Nagel asks is: What power do we have over our morality? 

Good for you! Best way to be fluent in a language is to live in an English-speaking country. Never had this opportunity in my life. 

My native language is Albanian. 