Arquivo para a ‘Noosfera’ Categoria
Powers and the Other
There is something beyond the will to power, yes there is a non-being, which does not depersonalize or imply a loss of identity, but in dialogue with the Other, with the one who is not my mirror.
The affirmation, the empowerment of people and groups in logical closings of identity, are neither original in the sense of preserving the dialogue with cultural traditions, nor are they in fact power because it implies submitting the Other that is one to some identity that is not his.
Thus, the true ontological identity, contrary to the logic that is individualistic or closed in groups, we often criticize the individualism of the Other because we do not admit its original identity (that which comes from races, cultures and traditions) and ultimately we do not admit the your Being, and to admit it you need a non-Being, that is, to see the Other as he is.
The powers in modernity have grown because of the impositions that the laws of the State, the rules of conduct and what has historically been called “Contract” which is nothing but making the right to conscience something that is subject to the rules and laws of the State. It is not about anarchy, rules of social coexistence that existed since the primitive man who was already known originally lived in groups: in caves, nomads or established in territories.
What leads to violence is to always submit the Other to our own will, our cultures, looking at the Other as less, less cultured, less “evolved” or another justification for not understanding and respecting different cultures, beliefs and ethnicities, so violence arrives.
The cult of the State, Hegel went so far as to say that it was eternal and it is not, many have changed throughout history from the Greek City-State to modern democratic societies, now in a new turmoil.
The biblical passage that the “devil” offers Jesus earthly powers and he rejects is this (Mark 4: 8-10): “again the devil took Jesus to a very high mountain. He showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, and said to him, “I would give you all this, if you kneel before me, to worship me.” Jesus said to him, “Go away, Satan, because it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and you will worship Him alone´”.
The supper of ashes
That defines how or man is by nature also understands or is a nature, or a substance proposed in an infinite number. and an initial structure in the philosophy of Nature and in the 1584 work (*Supper of Ashes) of Giordano Bruno, linked to Copernican theory, which creates an infinite universe with an omnipresent divider, an eternal matter and a permanent mutation.
Bruno declared himself a “realist” Copernican in 1582 in Paris, and when he arrived in London a year later, he placed himself on a non-cosmological level with extravagant ideals for the time, epoch or universe in which he lived and at the time of his living rooms. class. they are suspended, dedicated both to the theological radicalism of its Protestant public and to “atheistic” Aristotelianism.
A curious aspect of Bruno, like Leibniz and Spinoza or produced, is named his protagonist of Theophilus present in the Bible and what is meant by “son of God”, or that he too will separate himself from his Catholic religion or thought that Philosophy should to be independent of religion, through the passage through the Copernican heliocentrism through an infinite universe that we owe to Bruno.
According to his policy and / or being able to involve this infinite movement, he stated: “What ingenuity to ask to burn, to be able to move or to be able”, that was or its package with the donations of the power of religion and the nascent academy.
In his book “The supper of ashes” he made an extraordinary statement for the time: “The earth and the stars … how they dispense life and food from things, restoring all material that entrepreneurship, are themselves endowed with life, to a much greater extent, and to be alive, and in a voluntary, orderly and natural way, the second intrinsic principle, that they will move towards the Spanish and Spanish spaces with which I agree ”, he said, a universe of Copernicus.
t is important not to be true of Bruno, who also has controversial works on the Eucharist and the Virgin Mary, more or more important for our time and restoring a lost dialogue of old data, and for which the inquisitors continue. apostates Giordano Bruno took a big step in science and wanted a philosophy to be independent because of power and religious not inculturation, even if it leafs through and needs to overcoming fundamentalism and establish the Dialogue.
*Bruno, G. (1995) The Ash Wednesday Supper. Lawrence s. Lerner ¨Edward A. Gosselin (editors), University of Toronto Press.
An incomplete ontology: the affirmation of Being
The Wheel of Fortune is chance because the logic of laissez faire, chance brought to the economy, is also the logic of the affirmation of Being, in the classic sense; Being is and Non-Being is not, there is no becoming.
Non-Being is also Being, the affirmation, the will to Power, takes with it the logic of war, dualism, Manichaeism and its destiny is war, the difficulty of understanding the Other, the dialogue made as a form of hypocrisy , because in the end, it is the negation of the Other and the affirmation of Being, in the logic “we have the truth”, even if it is said in a religious way, it is its negation.
The impossibility of coexistence, from where physical violence arises, even psychological and moral violence, the unconscious desire to demoralize and undermine the Other, which is in this non-Being logic, and thus the moment that passes is lived in a false way, as fleeting and with the sense of maximum affirmation of the Being.
It seems crazy to say that non-Being is also, but it is precisely in its exercise that we deny war, we deny conflict as necessary, we make dualism become sincere dialogue and we can enter the logic of the Other and discover a complement of Being, while not-Being.
To affirm that the Non-Being is destroys the logic of power, exclusion, conflict, because it allows the Other to exist, denies psychopolitics because there is no need for the “psychic” oppression of the Other, to affirm the Same, the mirror, even which exercised collectively, is a selfish knot and tied exclusively to its own power and pleasure.
So say contemporary speeches about philosophy, which fill audiences and praise philosophers and eloquent religious: “you came to win, assert yourself, say you are the best”, etc.
The complete ontology is also opposed to religious fundamentalism and the Pharisaic, because it is also exercised as a non-Being, says the evangelist Mateus on the Master’s teaching to his disciples (Mt 5.38): “You have heard what has been said (yet the it is in our day): I look for another and tooth for tooth !, But I say to you: “do not face that it is evil” On the contrary, if someone slaps you on the right face, it also offers you the left! ”, here it is the “hidden” logic of non-Being.
Joy or happiness, gaudio and euphoria
Joy and happiness are not the same thing, although one can lead to the other and vice versa, joy is a feeling of satisfaction, of completeness or even fullness in its extreme, what I call gaudio, while happiness is the greatest good desired by the human being, so stated Aristotle, and although it may have nuances of values it is the best definition.
In this sense, happiness is to live the moment well, even media and mystical philosophers agree, but the “virtuous” effort that makes conquest one of these moments, but it is clear that each one of this virtuous path can be lived with greatness and effort.
That struggle for which every moment can be lived with dignity and even joy, but the joy and true happiness is conquered with effort, virtuous exercise of a dignified path, while euphoria can be won in a fleeting moment, the joy and true happiness do not.
Joy is therefore an exercise beyond the obstacle and everyday problems, happiness is the possible achievement after a long journey in which reaching the summit depends on the last and decisive steps, often without breath and without clarity that the summit can be reached.
The Greeks said that “eudemonia” (“good”-eu from “spirit”-daimon) was conquered by arete, which can be seen both as “virtue” (the repeated practice of the virtuos, the virtual) as “excellence”.
It is also not fortune, in the Greek sense of the word it is not just money, but chance or luck, the goddess Fortuna became an iconographic image from the illuminations of medieval manuscripts to the stained glass windows of the churches (photo *), it was like that a luck cast at random, but it would be determined predestined.
Joy is joy when achieved by small daily efforts and it is not fleeting, while euphoria is not only escapes but can become deep sadness or even depression, for elaborate speeches living the moment that is wise, can be lived with joy or euphoria.
* The blindfolded goddess Fortuna, called the “wheel of Fortuna” was painted by Tadeuz Kuntze in 1754, oil on canvas in National Museum of Warsaw.
Between fantasy and imaginary
The imaginary is part of popular culture and tradition, countless cultures express themselves, seem myths and fantasies were from reality, but it differs from this in having an original source, that is, being part of a culture and expression of desires and perspectives cultural aspects of a people.
What Droysen, Heidegger and Gadamer speculated about romantic historicism, which Dilthey elaborated, is nothing but fantasy historicism, the future as a pure unrealizable dream while the future to come is part of the cultural tradition and that is why dialogue with tradition is necessary.
Fantasy is initially an attempt to escape, the absence of dialogue not in the prosaic sense of listening to the Other, of accepting difference, but of truly understanding and dialoguing by entering into the concepts and perspectives present in tradition, without understanding it, we listen and not the dialogue, the dialogue that Martin Buber, Paulo Freire and even Bakhtin spoke about.
The fantasies represent delusions of the soul, uncontrollable compulsive desires, and which often reach pathologies, it is not a childish fantasy of fairy tales or superheroes, these belong to the imaginary because the child still sees the future world as a possibility. The epic imaginary, both as historicism and as literature, highlights the deeds and glories, where the present appears as a result of a mythical past, but which is projected into the future, expresses the factual exaltation of memorable or extraordinary events.
The romantic imaginary is that of a lonely hero displaced in time, Don Quixote is a good expression of this imaginary, it represents a reaction to the philosophical saturation of determinism and rationalism, but he is stuck with the empirical sensory or the metaphors of the real.
These fantasies in general appeal to creativity, but say little about reality
Tradition and the truth of becoming
Much of what is preached and lived in our day is tradition, here not seen as the thought that built the history of humanity, but only repetitive and apparently “stable” customs and habits that time has taken charge of changing.
This is how the religion that should build a true asceticism of becoming, or becoming, builds prejudiced and traditionalist ties that hinder the progress of humanity.
It is not by chance that they fought Giordano Bruno and Galileu Galilei, their works represented a change in the worldview, in this case a cosmological view, but the world view means, above all, a broad view of the phenomena and of life.
The world does not change because thinkers who should aim for the future show only their fears, their arrogance fixed in concepts of tradition and their lack of creativity.
In a passage where Jesus and his disciples ate spikes with their hands and traditionalists demanded compliance with the law of washing hands, the Master shows that the words of these men did not match their attitudes.
Jesus says in Mark’s biblical passage (Mark 7: 6-8): “Isaiah prophesied about you, hypocrites, as it is written:‘ This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. There is no use in the worship they give me, because the doctrines they teach are human precepts. You abandon the commandment of God to follow the tradition of men ”.
It is in this sense that the following paragraph says (Mk 6, 9): “They know very well how to change the commandments to follow the tradition”, and this is also the sense that the evangelist Matthew says (Mt 5, 20) : “If your righteousness is no greater than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the king of heaven”, this is the essence of Christian morality that is well observed is universal.
Make the difference
Making a difference does not and therefore lose identity, only the idealistic concept of self-identity sees it that way, that is why we created a world of sameness in which everything is very similar, before being an element of culture it was an element of thought, the imperative Kantian categorical: “act in such a way as to be a model for others”.
Then the cultural industry, the mass media radio and television developed this, created standards of beauty, consumption and even morality, the morality of the state before being an individual morality, it is a “collective” morality of values and customs, that do not mean an ethics and a “solid” identity, this includes the love of homeland symbols and patrimonial values.
Making a difference does mean having an identity with an ethical and moral principle, which includes beliefs and even behavior (see previous post), but which allows dialogue and cultural customs different from ours, so that you can indicate to others a behavior and an action capable of including them and showing human and social dignity thus influencing culturally by showing the “difference” of true and eternal values that benefit the whole society.
True cultures and philosophies must encourage this, they must make a difference not in order to impose opinions and customs, but in a way that includes the Other, that is why it never accompanies the superior air, arrogance and the idea that what is different is wrong, this is Manichaeism and never love.
The Bible idea that the culture of Love should make a difference, that is to say “salt and yeast”, brings together the idea that to make a difference it takes little, but the salt and yeast cannot be spoiled because the effect on the food will not be noticed.
The true Christian culture establishes in Matthew (Mt 5:13): “You are the salt of the earth. Now, if the salt becomes tasteless, how will we salt it? It will serve no more than to be trampled on by men and to be thrown away. ”
Identity as self-assertion, as arrogance is nothing but tasteless salt
Identity and making a difference
Identity and difference seem contradictory, we have already stated that the problem is not logical, but onto-logical, this relative to Being, and in modern ontology the contradiction is possible and therefore non-Being can also be, and this gives rise to Becoming , breaking static barriers.
The capacity and integrity of the Being means that we know ourselves as we are, we understand our worldview and the limitations it has, even the most advanced science has limits, absolute knowledge is possible with a true spirituality, where the soul is.
We improperly say that where the heart is, our desires, desires and projections about who we are, most illnesses, especially psychological ones, come from these projections when they are false, unreal or real experiences that hurt us.
The non-Being means that we understand what we are and are prepared to not be, to receive the Other, the different and the cultural and political diversity of the world, the radicalism of defending one’s own identity and being too attached to the worldview , we have already said it is not identity, but self-identity, many who criticize individualism worship self-identity.
Not being is the openness to the other to dialogue, from where the becoming comes from necessarily passes through a non-Being, much of the extremism of the current world, with bad reflexes in politics is the exercise of the cult of “identity” collectively, false collectives and false “Nodes” that are closed and authoritarian structures.
Within this radicalism there is a seed of the Other, of the acceptance of difference and true spirituality, it is necessary that this “exacerbated” identity is open to the different, or contradictory and mainly changes its form of “thought”, and its closed “culture”.
From thinking, two tendencies emerge: simplism, which reinforces self-identity and complexity, as proposed by Edgar Morin, which facilitates and expands the vision of the world and of Being
Still identity
Philosophy conceptualized the question of identity using only the logical principle, A must be A and cannot be non-A, but the very question of “being” has a metaphysical and ontological basis because what it means to be A or not to be, while Being this logical identity is only self-identity.
So cultural and religious groups that seek their own identity can only define themselves as being if they are in relation to non-A, this second principle is the difference, even Hegel says that it is this negativity that can allow what reflection to be A can have in itself.
Heidegger after explaining this principle of logical identity A = A, stating that “each A is himself the same; she says before herself is each A himself the same. In each identity resides the relationship ‘with’, therefore, a mediation, a connection, a synthesis, the union in a unity ”(Heidegger, 2006, p. 39), let us explain better using Heidegger himself.
He immediately explains that in Western history, contrary to what is imagined and said, identity “appears, through the history of Western thought with the character of unity” (idem), and it is not a “tasteless emptiness of that that, in itself devoid of relations, persists in monotonous uniformity ”(idem), that is, it is diverse, there is and the difference persists.
Since then this idea of identity of the same, of us closed in groups, of false collectivity and diversity persisted, the reasons are equally historical, as Heidegger states: “only the philosophy of speculative idealism, prepared by Leibniz and Kant, founds, through Fichte, Schelling and Hegel, a place for the essence in itself synthetic of identity ”(ibidem, p. 39).
Thus, explains Heidegger: “it remains forbidden to think of representing the unity of identity as monotonous uniformity and abstract from the mediation that prevails in Unity” and concludes: “Where this happens, identity is represented only abstractly” (ibidem).
This of course is not without an ontological negativity, as the being is obliged to demand his difference, his negativity and often does so in a radically challenging way, because there is an absence of mediation, what is done in the abstract is to speak of the diverse, of the different, but in the concrete it ignores it, expels it as soon as it manifests itself as an Other.
Heidegger, M. (2006) O que é isto filosofia – identidade e diferença (What is this – philosophy – Identity and difference). RJ, Petrópolis: Editora Vozes.
The cultural and spiritual crisis
A modernity divided into objective and subjective questions that no man is inseparable, the first because he must have concrete relations with the same objects that are intangible, or object of a form of thought that is also subjective, as or thought about a concrete object, being thought is subjective.
The fundamental problem is that every form of thinking must clearly define or think about that object and is accepted as established knowledge, an epistle and not an opinion anymore (the doxa of games) and what is possible to think again, that is , epicenter of the current crisis.
It does not know what is right or what is the established thought about a given object, or if it is an epistemic tradition about it, nor is it known what is the fact of new possibilities of thinking about it, it is a crisis in general , like any attempt at a spiritual or meditative tone on a subject, appears only as an escape from reality and there is nothing new.
Change as a basis for thought or voluntary attitude, we will change because it is not good, neither the attitude or dox, creating a word for the epistemic dialogue that must be one or the other episteme, this is a relationship with tradition, but that allows change, finally the new.
No spiritual aspect means knowing what you have done until today, as a religion and relationship with what is natural, or super-natural and what contemporary reality exists, a concrete relationship (erroneously called exposure, as it is spiritual) with needs and contemporary thought itself with threats of change.
There is nothing new, nor realistic pragmatism, nor spiritual escape, it produces neither true action nor contemplation.