Arquivo para a ‘Information Science’ Categoria
Number of covid grows in Brazil and vaccines
14
Sep
The number of data has returned to grow, if we look at the valley
of September 7, national holiday in Brazil, we see the valley of decrease with 10 thousand cases, in this short-term evaluation is better the number of infected, because the number of deaths will only be affected from 7 to 14 days, which in this period also returned to grow.
It was a scandal and commented throughout the country the descent of São Paulo to the coastal beaches, coincidence or not, is a real and scientific data, the number of cases has returned to grow and the number of deaths has returned to close to a thousand daily.
While the vaccine does not come, we will have to live with this reality, the period of a possible lockdown passed the virus is in every country and the only isolation that works is the social to prevent infection among people close, starting precisely from the idea that everyone can be carriers of the virus now and all care is necessary.
Now we are waiting for the vaccine, and the case of a side effect of a woman in London of the Oxford vaccine, which uses the viral vector principle, the effect was a transverse myelitis that causes a neurological problem and high blood pressure, being possible that the cause was an external factor the formula, the woman passes well, there is evaluation of the case by a committee that is independent (see how complex and serious the tests should be) , and the resumption of testing has already been authorised, there are 6 more in testing phase.
It is important to note that the problem was the side effect and not the infection, the vaccine from Oxford and the Laboratory Astrazeneca, which has participation of the laboratory of Brazilian Fiocruz, has no possibility of infection, it does not replicate the virus, so it is considered safe, but side effect exist in any medicines and vaccines and should prescribe cases, such as those we found in the leaflets , of type, children or adults cannot take, etc.
The case was important for all of us to be aware of the seriousness and slowness of the tests, which are necessary.
Other vaccines go up in the “quote”, the Pfizer vaccine. which follows the nucleic acid (RNA) principle, and with good quotation in the medical area, but this is also subject to testing and without the evaluation of “contraindications” should not be rushed its use, therefore, the delay is necessary and this phase cannot be dispensed with.
Socially what we expect, after a period of help (it should go until the end of the year, but that is already there), we must already start thinking about the economic, social and educational consequences, they will be strong and will require the effort of all and one should think not as a weight, but as a social need that certain groups have protection.
This is the case of the elderly, children and socially marginalized groups, if society and public policies do not embrace these people, the social consequences that are already serious, could go to the field of out of control and it would be a tragedy.
Forgiveness, utopias and change
11
Sep
Not only personally, but mainly socially, forgiveness can move
history in the opposite direction of hatred, war and oppression, this is no different in many religions, after all the “golden rule”, does not make the other here who would not like it was done to you, it is present in the great contemporary religions and cultures.
There are several texts and speeches about forgiveness that are not connected with reality, for example, those who forgive do not always forget, forgiveness must repair the damage, but it does not mean that this is proportional, often it is not.
Each repeated offense should not be forgiven, let us remember Jesus’ teaching: “seventy times seven” (Mt 18, 21), just to say many times, and if we understand that the error is more common than we imagine (see several posts in this week) one can better understand the prayer given by Jesus himself: “forgive our offenses, just as we forgive those who have offended us”, this is the possible way of Love in many dimensions.
I remember that this passage comes right after the passage that Jesus asks for the unity of the people (they don’t need to be Christians, but be “in his name”), “where there are two or three in my name, there I am in their midst” (Mt 18 , 20), so there are no owners of this “presence”, even it may not be among people who are religious.
Karl Jaspers (1883, 1969), who influenced many of the modern thinkers like Hannah Arendt and Heidegger, in their book Introduction to Philosophical Thinking, asked about the path that we had trodden many years ago:
“We irritate each other. Deep psychology appears as an all-obscure refuge. Scientific superstition leads us to resort to pseudosciences for the search for salvation. And they tell us: when all fictions and ideologies have disappeared, man, until now sick and alienated (in etymological sense), will recover health. And health is happiness, the ultimate end ”(Jaspers, 1965, p. 30).
It is clear that there is true science that is not pseudoscience, and that happiness that has no bull or formula, can and should be desired, but the recovery of emotional health depends on reviewing history and then moving forward.
Where does anger lead and where does forgiveness lead
10
Sep
One can consider the first idea of Western political wrath, from
the 8th century BC, Homer’s Iliad the one that raises the first voice about wrath, already in the first sentence: “sing, O muse (Muse) the wrath (mènin) of Achilles”.
It seems that this is the current voice of the West from Zizek to Sloterdijk everyone seems to agree with this, except Edgar Morin and of course some pacifists, but who are embarrassed in the face of such contempt by conservative leaders.
But there are very few chronicles that speak of the success of these leaders, and it seems that the pandemic has helped them, fearing the idea of a strong government that takes care of the weak is stronger than the voice of insurrection and liquidity.
The idea of forgiveness is ironic and revenge and anger seem to be the potential for change, but the feeling of compassion and forgiveness is inherent in human ethics, however confused it may be with the ethics of the state, which often dispense with morals, it is the only hope that the cholera situation can be reversed, of course with regret from the oppressors, but the current discourse is that this is impossible and that people would never change, and with the pandemic!
It is clear that forgiveness without repentance and without reparation is not acceptable, and it is not true that it is enough to confess and show repentance that you are “saved”, there are social effects and punishments that can lead the oppressor to his reparation, even though this may be very less than the damage done, but there is no way to change the route, the course, without forgiveness.
What we need to understand is that offenses when they spring up around a polarization they can rarely favor those who dont have a defense, social, political or ideological, and this favors the strong, fear punishes the weak and never the cruel, accustomed to doing with him a game of risk and sadistic pleasure.
Edgar Morin clarifies that: “Understanding neither excuses nor accuses, asks that we avoid the peremptory condemnation, irremediable as if we ourselves had never known the weakness or made mistakes. If we know how to understand before condemning, we will be on the path of humanizing human relations ”, and it is the other way around at the moment, which favors authoritarian leaders and those who want hate to grow.
To be in solidarity with the Other, who is not our mirror, we have to “become aware of the uncertainty of the future and of its common destiny”, the pandemic can also make us aware that we must take care of the Other.
Forgiveness does not change events, but it can change the feeling towards them, it does not change the course of history, but the destiny of personal and / or collective stories when the problem is faced head on, overcoming anger and resentment.
If we are honest in the mirror, if we are capable of self-criticism, as we posted earlier, as stated by Popper: “Self-criticism is the best criticism”, it is from her that a criticism with positive consequences can be born.
Error, cholera and thymós
09
Sep
Just as scientific error is assumed to be part of scientific research,
errors in human and social relationships should not lead to disruption and the return to connection between people or groups will inevitably involve some type of forgiveness.
It is often possible that the error is not assumed, but implied, this is because, we justify the path we take and make considerations about our lack and end up not assuming it, but the return should always be tried once forgiveness sana, and allows the dialogue to move forward.
Peter Sloterdijk wrote about the “timotic” situation of our time, Thymós is at the base of Plato’s theory to designate the “organs” from which the impulses, the excitations, the most inflamed affections are born, it seems something present in our time and so its book Ira e Tempo (Cholera and Time, in Portuguese translation by the publisher Relógio d´Água).
The preferred subject could not be anything other than politics, it is undoubtedly the pole of catalyzing hatreds and grudges, where forgiveness and dialogue seem to be increasingly a distant point that will never be reached, and the reverse of this is …
These impulses cross not only social networks, they pass through political journalism and polarize between parties, people and social groups, what Sloterdijk does in the form of “analysis” is that there is a state of proliferation (attention, it’s not what Byung Chul Han will call it psychopolitics, or the old “mass politics”), we have already drawn attention to Karl Kraus, who in his time between wars, drew attention to the discourse of the press and intellectuals.
In one of his comedies, “Walpurgis’ third night”, he said that “about Hitler nothing comes to my mind”, it is logical that he did not ignore the danger of that speech, but he warned journalists and writers who insisted on just mocking and he said that the media seemed to like the indignant but impotent citizen, so it has the opposite effect of the desired one.
An analytical look at the psychopolitics that Chul Han does is not dispensable, even though we are equipped with little knowledge on this matter, it would verify that the state of high tymotic tension, established by the media to guarantee the success of individuals who are charged with “ thymós ”, leads us to an endless (apparent) civil war.
It is as if all anger finds its “political economy” only in what Sloterdijk calls “rational” cynicism, a kind of “world bank of anger” that catalyzes, not by chance, opposite sides of the current polarization. Just look at politicians of different trends to see how attached they are to this trend, so resentment and legitimation of crimes make popular indignation impotent, claiming appetite and becoming a blank slate for any conversation, even if it comes from one. liberating feeling that should point to the new.
The absence of forgiveness or at least tolerance, makes violence and false radicalism visible and hides impotence.
SLOTERDIJK, P. (2012) Rage and Time – A Psychopolitical Investigation. USA: Columbia University Press.
Error and better world
08
Sep
Karl Popper was concerned with science, with nature but mainly
with ethics and error, and established twelve principles to be observed in his book “In search of a better world” (Popper, 1995), we only comment here some:
The first is to understand that our knowledge is conjectural, that is, “it always goes beyond what an individual manages to master, therefore there is no authority. This is equally valid when it comes to specializations ”, as authors warn about Transdisciplinarity, specialized knowledge can become a new type of obscurantism, say Edgar Morin, Barsarab Nicolescu and Lima de Freitas in the Arrábida Transdisciplinarity Letter.
A second principle that we highlight is that it is ‘impossible to avoid all mistakes or even all mistakes in themselves avoidable”, idealism and perfectionism lead people to disappointment because they do not consider this essential aspect of human nature.
The third principle states that one must try to avoid mistakes, even if creative scientists who follow intuition can and should avoid mistakes, but it is almost inevitable that they will make it.
Even the most confirmed theories, those that may seem perfect hide errors, this should be thought of for those who live in “bubbles”.
This should lead us to what Popper proposes as an “ethical-practical” reform that leads to a way of thinking that it is impossible to avoid all errors, which changes the old notion that it is possible to avoid errors by “scientific criteria”.
The sixth principle is that the “new basic principle is that in order to learn how to avoid mistakes as much as possible, we have to learn precisely from them”.
So it is healthier to look for mistakes, and the attitude of self-criticism and sincerity are consequences of this duty.
So accepting to understand and accept mistakes, even thanking others to warn us about them, Popper recalls that the greatest scientists made mistakes, and always bear in mind that we make mistakes, that is, not neglecting our vigilance, proposing the author.
We have to understand that we need others (and the rest of us) to be able to understand our mistakes, in particular those that have added with different ideas, but in different environments, which means increasing tolerance. Self-criticism is the best criticism, but criticism through others is the most necessary, according to Popper, as useful as self-criticism.
Here comes the crucial end point of Popperian ethics-practice, rational criticism must always be specific, it must indicate specific reasons why certain statements, certain hypotheses appear to be false and certain arguments cannot seem valid, rational criticism provides an approximation to the truth objective, in this sense it is impersonal, and although Popper does not say, it must be above beliefs and ideologies to be the basis of some ethical truth.
POPPER, Karl (1995). In Search of a Better World: Lectures and Essays from Thirty Years. NY: Routeledge.
Hatred, disdain and reflection
07
Sep
It is not by chance that the brain region of structures such as the
medial frontal cortex, whose capacity to argue and therefore to dialogue is there, has as its core the putamen, the pre-motor cortex and the insular cortex, whose structures also participate in the perception of disdain and disgust, that is, the activation of hatred is physically in the brain close to those associated with judgment and reasoning, so you can both activate one as the other, there are both options.
Those who want to justify hate are full of arguments, are capable of even deep reasoning to act against the hated, but if the premise is dialogue, the same reasoning can be used to understand, care for and divert the violence of the other, as some martial arts teach, bypassing the “body”.
Hate will not disappear in the hope that external circumstances change, in general it does not happen, it is not a magic, to cure it, it is necessary to recognize diversity, its problems, as Gadamer would have to be aware of preconceptions, that is, of the fundamentals that start a disagreement or a type of credit, to recognize the Other in its bubble and to recognize ours, both as having preconceptions.
If we actually activate the reasoning, thinking part and put the disagreements on this level, we mitigate the hate part a little, but it is essential to ask and a part of our hatred would come down to reflecting in this way: “Why do I hate? What do I intend to achieve with this? What do I gain and lose from my hatred? ”.
I do not know of a situation that has been resolved in this case, in general it has led to a greater conflict, to a greater mutual hatred, if the objective is war we will probably get there, but I believe that for most people it is not, so what remains is to reflect , analyze the origins of such “evil” in its deepest bases.
Hate must be combated with the understanding and mainly that it leads to a new type of action, which implies to recognize in the first place that it exists and it is fostering on two sides and not by only one, in the manifestations of people and in their advertisements, denunciations are recurrent to say the whole truth is on this side and on the other just a lie, it is necessary to explain the consequences and that in fact those who benefit are those whose reason for existing and thinking is really “hatred”.
Wise people of various shades such as Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela or Mother Teresa of Calcutta with wisdom and intelligence in the face of enormous and absurd conflicts have been able to show that kindness and generosity, creativity and respect for others can lead to seeking a larger collective good and although a little longer will have more lasting fruits, with less violence and deaths, but because even in serious groups hatred persists, the answer is very simple. Encouraged by leaders and groups that live in political, ideological or religious bubbles, the main resource is the demonization of the adversary, identified with some disgusting aspect of evil: death, corruption, sexual, racial or gender violence, weakening of values or something of the like.
And once united in a group the fear disappears and this reduces the inhibition of those who hate to act in other ways not that of argumentation and exposure of facts, but violence against violence.
The leaders who incite this hatred, say they can no longer control it, but deep down they wanted it, develop this part of the reasoning that we say at the beginning near the part of the brain of the putamen, and released the hatred will be executed by the people who use the other part with less reasoning and more visceral, so the hate “explodes”.
What we should think about in face of unworthy facts, and at this moment there should be none greater than the pandemic, is that the feeling of fear and exhaustion by confinement is exploited not in achieving ways of relaxation and anti-stress, but in releasing it in violent ways, what are the consequences? and who are they favoring?
I think of the hateful ones, and not the loving ones who in fact have love for humanity and the most fragile appreciation. It seems like a path of no return, in the midst of a pandemic and with two tense elections approaching, the United States national and municipal elections in Brazil, I see little or no discussion about the pandemic and about those who die every day, bereaved families and compassion for them, neither on one side nor on the other. Fortunately, mortality levels have decreased, but the long weekend promises crowds, the village of cars to the beach was huge, and the pandemic?
The unit and the included third
04
Sep
Polarization, dualism and binary ontology (being is and non-being is not)
are so present in the human relations of the present that it is difficult to think of a third hypothesis, but quantum physics has already described it and more than its effect ghostly (Einstein, Podolski and Rosen called it and this effect was then known as EPR), there is an effect in real life, quantum computers are coming, and it would be good for philosophy to wake up from its rational sleep (which has no liquid) or solid), and awakened to a new reality.
The classic Aristotelian logic justifies the exclusion of a third term and it prevailed until recently it is it that is at the base of fundamentalist, racist and scientist philosophies, which also underlie the principle of the excluded third that separates “good” from “evil” (the manichaeism) according to this logic:
- Axiom of Identity: “A is A”
- Axiom of Non-Contradiction: “A is not non-A”
- Axiom of the Excluded Third: “there is no third term T that is both A and non-A”.
The logic of physics and also of scientism (it is not true science) establishes this, however the contradiction between identity and non-identity is observed by quantum physics, being called the principle of quantum superposition, whose effect was studied within physics called “Tunneling” observing particles that transpose the classically prohibited state.
The logic of the excluded third was first enunciated by the philosopher Stéphane Lupascu (1900-1988), where there is a third term T that is both A and non-A, its axiomatic formalism predicts that it coexists with the dynamics of heterogeneity (to which it belongs living matter and the complex universe), with that of homogeneity (which governs macroscopic physical matter), and thus there are different “levels of reality”, of course all scientism is in check.
This new logic (level Q) does not abolish the Aristotelian logic of “yes” and “no” (level C), since only two terms are not considered, but in addition to these a third (T) (see figure). The first to establish the different levels of reality was Barsarab Nicolescu (1942-), he described a change from one level of reality to another with laws, new logics and concepts specific to each level, and thus established the concept of transdisciplinarity, which also encompasses complexity.
This logic admits three pillars for transdisciplinarity:
- Different Levels of Reality
- Third Term Logic Included 6.
- Complexity
So it must be admitted, for example, that between two people there is a third level of reality in which none of the personal logics are subjected and can and must have sufficient openness to a new reality, from which a new horizon and a new perception emerges. of the truth.
It is not a matter of relativism where the truth does not exist, but rather a state of rigorous equilibrium, accepting that between the poles of a contradiction, there is a semi-actualization and an equal semi-potentialization for both poles, this is state T.
In the pleasure of the text there is a dialogue
02
Sep
In the previous post there are Barthes’ expressions on
literature, writing and text, and we have already conceptualized the idea of inscription which is supposed to be supported, writing and the cognitive aspect and in the text the linguistic, artistic and “installation” aspect, and it is this is where his book “The pleasure of the text” is analyzed.
The book despite theoretical aspects is in fact a pleasure to be read, there is dialogue and mainly pleasant surprises, such as, for example, a semiological space, a kind of place between two margins: “an obedient margin, according to, plagiarism (…) the canonical state of the tongue and another movable, empty (…) these two margins wax, are necessary ”(page 40).
It yields more classic literature: “by Zola, by Balzac, by Dickens, by Tolstoy) it carries with it a kind of weakened mimesis: we do not read everything with the same intensity of reading; a rhythm is established, leisurely, with little respect for the integrity of the text ”(page 17)
Proust, Balzac and Tostói deals in a single line of ruptures, “the very rhythm of what is read and what is not read that produces the pleasure of great stories: Proust, Balzac, Guerra e Paz will sometimes have been read , word by word? (Proust’s happiness: from one reading to the next, we never skip the same passages) ”(page 18).
He recommends how to do the real reading: “Read slowly, read everything, from a Zola novel, the book will fall from your hands; read quickly, in fragments, a modern text, that text becomes opaque, timely for our pleasure: you want something to happen, and nothing happens; because what happens to language doesn’t happen to speech: what “happens” *, what “goes away”, the gap in both margins .. “(page 19).
Contrast the text with the theater or the cinema: “In the text scene there is no limelight: there is no one active behind the text (the writer) nor before anyone passive (the reader); there is no subject and object. The text prescribes grammatical attitudes: it is the undifferentiated eye that an excessive author (Angelus Silesius) speaks: ‘The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which he sees me.” (pag.52).
It reveals the secret of another book of his: “Old, very old tradition: hedonism has been repelled by almost all philosophies; only the hedonistic claim is found among the outcasts, Sade, Fourier; for Nietzsche himself, hedonism is pessimism ”(page 74), the book quoted in the previous post that goes far beyond hedonism.
BARTHES, Roland. (1987) O prazer do texto. Trad. J. Guinsburg. Brazil, SP: Editora Perspectiva. (portuguese edition in pdf, in english edition pdf)
Authors and dialogues
01
Sep
I read a 1968´s text by Roland Barthes “The death of the author” 
in which he problematizes the concept, proposing it as “the destruction of all voice, of all origin”, he would also say about man today in a troubled moment of concept and events truly and “strangers” who are building “barricades in the texts”, what he said of his contemporaries (Alain Badiou and Jacques Derridá stated that without this concept no object is critically thought), and what he would say today, certainly his thesis I was right, and more so today.
It is known that Foucault gave pins to Barthes, but in Sade, Fourier, Loyola they were returned by inserting the reader in the discursive game and reformulating the question of authorship in another dimension: the body, this object of consumption of so many theories today, only in Barthes it finds some solidity (not liquid).
For Barthes the text is a body, an object of pleasure endowed with the ability to penetrate the reader’s life in fragments, generating coexistences between reader and author, or verbatim: “The pleasure of the text also includes a friendly return from the author.
The returning author is certainly not the one identified by our institutions (history and teaching of literature, philosophy, Church discourse); not even the hero of a biography he is… it is a simple plural of ‘charms’, the place of some tenuous details, the source, however, of vivid romances, a discontinuous song of kindness, in which we read death with all much more certainty than in the epic of a destination; it is not a person (civil, moral), it is a body. ” (BARTHES, 2005).
Barthes proposed in 1977 (Leçon) a distinction of the terms: literature, writing and text, which is particularly interesting conceptually, writing has something that is the manuscript an inscription in which a support, an utensil is supposed, in second place (although it is only of a didactic character) the cognitive sense, by which the installation is designated and the third the “linguistic” forms endowed with meaning that take on an artistic sense.
To problematize the question of “pluridimensionality” proposed by Barthes for literature, he initiates the so-called “genetic criticism”, problematizing the enunciative aspect of the term, aims to reconstruct a history of the text in its nascent state, seeking to find in it the secrets of fabrication of work, and thus it is explained what a text is and its relation to literature.
It is here that dialogue is established through language, without understanding the genetics of a text, there may be solicitude or dialogue, but it would not leave superficiality nor reach that level desirable for many contemporary authors to assume the preconceptions and establish new horizons. .
Barthes makes a valuable reflection on listening, distinguishing it from the physiological act of the mechanic of “listening”, giving it a statute of psychological act that can only be defined by its object and intention, a category so dear to hermeneutics although it is not exactly the same, has similarities.
The author makes a valuable reflection about listening, distinguishing it from the physiological and mechanical act of “listening”, giving it a status of psychological act that is defined only by its object and intention.
Barthes’ phrase is famous: “Any refusal of a language is a death” and an interpreter of this author explains the difference between hearing and listening: “[…] a poetic listening (‘brute’, as Barthes wants) aims not to imprison sounds in a hierarchical way, as in an insipid object of cold analysis ”(El Haouli, 2002), it is this aspect of hierarchical dialogues that dominate many who think they do it but do not do it, just want the passive submission of the Other to the their categories.
BARTHES, R. Sade, Fourier, Loyola, Paris: Seuil, 1971. [tradução: Sade, Fourier, Loyola. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2005.
EL HAOULI, Janete. Demetrio Stratos: em busca da voz-música. Londrina: Gráfica e Editora Midiograf, 2002.
Conspiracy of fear or of silence
26
Aug
The pandemic generated anguish and fear in the face of death
and health concerns, the virus has become a fear for all serious people, but not talking about the present and future danger and possibilities of this pandemic can be a “fear conspiracy” yet bigger.
Some authors have already spoken of the “conspiracy of silence” that affected society before the pandemic, Böemer and Adorno are two classic authors who touched on the topic of death, I became aware of this issue on my trip to Portugal, where the topic is treated in a diametrical way opposite to Brazil, and the pandemic brought the theme back.
We have already touched on the historical and sociological roots of the Greek tragedy, particularly in the texts by Nietzsche and Hölderling (see the post), but now the question is whether we speak of the pandemic and cause more fear and panic or we avoid and enter a kind of “conspiracy of silence ”, The one that goes from generation to generation, preventing a child from seeing death, not commenting on someone’s illness and death.
The silence related to death is more profound than dying, which is taken as a natural fact of life, but which should only be considered when the hypothesis does exist, so it does not make sense for a child or a young person, also for me it was a taboo because I imagined that the natural biological cycle: being born, growing, aging and dying was broken, or inter-broken, so death seems more “natural” than dying, the opposite event to becoming, becoming .
The proximity, almost daily with death, continues on the other hand with the convenience of not affecting “everyone”, but it is too inhumane, and this made me rethink once more about dying, previously questioned for children and young people, now I also think about elderly people abandoned their luck and their comorbidities.
The “conspiracy of silence” is that mitigation of dying, trying to remove fear of suffering, degeneration, loneliness and abandonment, the idea is to make man deprived of his “death” as some authors say (Carvalho, 1994), using the man deprived of his death, of his humanity (14,15), with euphemisms or allusions to false situations (he traveled, he is with grandma, etc.) to keep her away from the world of the living and the fatality of dying.
It is cruel to think about dying, but more cruel not to speak and not to mention that many are dying, that it is possible that fewer people will die, and that in addition to prevention, we should all dream of remedies that can separate us from this night of suffering that involves all of us. humanity, to speak of him is to show solidarity.
Adorno Y. Conversando com a criança sobre a morte. Campinas (SP): Psy, 1994; 20 p. 12. Araújo PVR, Vieira MJ. As atitudes do homem frente a morte e o morrer. Texto & Contexto, Florianópolis (SC) 2001 set/dez; 10(3): 101-17.
Böemer MR. A morte e o morrer. São Paulo: Cortêz; 1986.
Carvalho MMMJ, coordenadora. Introdução à Psiconcologia. Campinas (SP): Psy II; 1994.
