You’re welcome. So did I.
I - Illuminist Reflections and the Clarification
If we look at Goethe’s Faustian drama we shall see that it is a Hegelian logic of the world and history, the logic of evolution, the logic of the positive dialectic that promises a constructive definition. Such a model of thought establishes a new era of metaphysical speculation. The world moves and its movement points forward and upward. The evil of the ages appears in these circumstances as the necessary price of evolution, leading us from dark beginnings, hidden to radiant objects. Here is founded the philosophical status as Faust. At the point where traditional metaphysics stumbles, in the interpretation of evil in the world, as the Christian background of this metaphysics pales with its salvationist optimism, art comes to fill that gap. Mephistopheles as the central figure of modern aesthetics, is a son of the idea of evolution, through which the age-old questions of theodicy and fugacity of phenomena can be formulated in the eighteenth century in a new way and answered with a new logic. What is certain is that evil in the world, from that time, death, destruction, contamination, negativity can no longer be interpreted as a punitive intervention or trials of God in human history as did the ancient Christians. And Enlightenment is not just a theory of light. It is, above all, a theory of the movement towards the optical, dynamic light of the theory of evolution. It is in evolutionism that lies the logical root of the theorizing cynisms that throw on the reality the dominant look of the masters. The theories of evolution enter and introduce the metaphysical inheritance in the sciences. Only they have the strength to integrate, in a comprehensive perspective, evil, decay, death and pain as a burden of living beings. Evolution as progress is modern theodicy. It authorizes the last logical interpretation of negativity, because in the evolutionist’s place we have what must suffer and what perishes, modern intellectual cynicism already puts its hands on the game so that the dead can be the fertilizer of the future. The death of others appears to him as a premise, both ontological and logical, of the success of his projects and of “his own cause.” The devil is not only an evolutionist, but he is also a nominalist. “Evil” understands itself in another way. It is seen as a “force”, as a phenomenon of energy, as a position in a polarity of nature. We recognize that Goethe’s Mephisto, despite all symbolic concessions, is no more, in essence, than a Christian devil. It is a post-Christian figure with pre-Christian traits. Its modern side emerges from the re-imagined friend: dialectical evolutionism (positive destruction, good evil) with a philosophical view of nature, closer to Tales of Miletus or Heraclitus than to Kant and Newton. The great realists of the nineteenth century are, without exception, all positivists, or at least they are “on the way” toward positivism. Much of realism says that we cannot think of a better world or even of Freud’s idea of the “reality principle,” but of using it close to Marxism. All survival wants to be paid for and demands a price that no merely moral conscience is willing to pay, nor can it be established by any economic calculation. The laboring and combative groups of human societies must experience price for survival as a bitter tribute to the principle of reality because they pay for it in their own bodies. Yes, where one fights, the fighter can do nothing but transform himself, with his own existence, into a means and a weapon of survival.
The devil is the first post-Christian realist. His freedom of speech still seems hellish to older contemporaries. When the devil opens his mouth to tell you how many times the world, the old Christian metaphysics, the theology, and the feudal morality have been swept away. And if we subtract the horn and the legs from Mephistopheles there is nothing left but a bourgeois philosopher realistic, antimetaphysical, empiricist, positivist. It is not by chance that Faust, the incarnation of the modern researcher from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries, struck a pact with such a devil. Only with the devil can we learn “what is the case”. He alone is interested in getting rid of our religious glasses to see from our own eyes. Mephistopheles is a fluorescent creature, living entirely in its transformations. Its provenance is a dog. We can interpret Faustus in his thinking as the profound reflection of a bourgeois scientist on himself: he enters in combat realism and insatiability, life drive and death wish, “will of night” and will to power, sense of the possible and aspiration for the still impossible. In the movie “The Witch” (2016), we see the devil as a master of the mask, the emulator of the swindlers or spies, for the condition of evil in the post-Christian era is the disguise under the masks of the harmless, socially accepted every moment according to fashion. The medieval embodiment of “evil” in a flesh-and-blood Satan is, to a certain extent, presented in Goethe’s ironic drama. The Goethe’s “devil’s” finding is his modernization into the figure of a great lord of the world, a trend that continues in Thomas Mann (Doctor Faust) and others in literature, Doctor and Monster, Frankenstein or Modern Prometheus, better known simply as Frankenstein, due to its creator Victor Frankenstein. It is also variously referred to as “creature,” “demon,” “ghost,” “wretch,” “devil,” “thing,” “being,” and “ogre” in the novel, also called Adam, Monster, Creature.
As a boy, Frankenstein had become interested in the works of alchemists, such as Cornelius Agrippa, Paracelsus, and Albert the Great, he longs to discover the legendary elixir of life. He loses interest in both persecution and science as a whole after seeing the remains of a tree struck by lightning; however, at the University of Ingolstadt, Frankenstein develops a predilection for chemistry, and becomes obsessed with the idea of creating life in inanimate matter by artificial means, pursuing this goal for two years. He is a scientist who, after studying the chemical processes and decay of living beings, gains insight into the creation of life and gives life to his own creature through reconstructed corpses and electricity in a storm (a light ray) reaches the creature. We also see innumerable cases of "night creatures" and occultism where various experiences with nature have been taking on increasing proportions especially in the middle ages. Things like vampires, demons, werewolves, Frankenstein, monsters, witches, zombies, voodoo, robots that live in darkness and have a mystical night. Most of the stories of this time are based on themes of psychoanalysis, biology, existentialism or medicine (black plague, cures, magnetism, spiritism, elixir, conquer death, megalomania of power and knowledge, laboratory errors, etc.). Hence, hell must appear in the form of kingdom or empire, its supreme inhabitant maintains, as great lord, the feudal form. Hell itself keeps the imperial protocol. The Devil denied being-in within the divine sphere and now experiences how the denied circle excludes the denier. The center of hell is a point in the world that one can perceive the inaccessibility of the world to the one who is there. Satan has the full panoramic view of the extent of the loss of a world.
He is now in an abundance of deprivation. The negation of the spherical union results in total anti-spherical isolation that characterizes the depressive state. For modernity, this is no more than an innocent principle of individualism, a kind of self-reference. The medieval view of the world is satanocentric. You cannot combine the geological and theological visions of the world. There is a profound contradiction between these two principles of construction that compete throughout the Middle Ages. On the one hand, it is evident that the world view has to be theocentric. God has to be in the center. But in what center? The best place in the universe is already occupied by Satan. At the same time, however, medieval thinkers had to answer the question of locating the divine resident. An issue that could not be resolved within classical metaphysics. If the earth is in the middle, it is the lowest point of the system, and only the happy few will escape to the "Empyrean". The location of the divine could not, therefore, be determined in the classical view. The contradiction is between the visions of the Platonic and Aristotelian world. In the Aristotelian view, the world is a given reality, a spherology, but in the Platonic view, the world needs to be explained by a "divine emanation." However, it is difficult to reach Earth in an emanationalist system. The Platonic vision involves a "big bang" of a dense and infinitesimal point, that is, God. A kind of minimum and maximum point, a dense starting point for the eternal blast and diffusion, which at some point returns to itself. Classical metaphysics deduces the systematic use of the superlative, since the world, it’s supposed origin of the divine intellect, has a round shape.
Andromeda Galaxy. We should see Hegel in this sense.
Molecule of water. On all the considerations so far, it shows that Kant’s definition of space as a possibility of being together must be replaced by a doctrine which is this: being together is what makes space possible. While in Kant things fill a preexisting space, better represented, a priori and subsist one to the other in the mode of reciprocal closure, we should educate ourselves to see and have a psycho and socio-spherical space, where the assembled and the clusters, precisely by their coexistence is that they conform (compose) themselves the space. They are huddled together and form a specific place (imagine a grape, almost several grapes are gathered and connected, they see a bunch of grapes). What we call “reality” or the things we see with our eyes every day are arranged in this way because structurally they are gathered together, that is, we would have to think that everything or almost everything is presented or shown as something in complicity , junction, proximity, paired so that space can arise (on a molecular or even microscopic level).
Emanation of letters. Taken from the representation of the Hebrew alphabet of the Sefer Yetsirá.
The devil becomes a figure of immanence and evil comes to inspire sympathy for his polite ways. In Goethe’s drama, he sometimes appears as a worldly courtier with a gibbon and feather on his hat, now dressed as in the student scene as a great scholar, in a parody of erudition, a satire inspired by wise cynicism - the most cruel improvisation of a Gaia science before Nietzsche. He then appears in the figure of an elegant mage, wittedly pouting with pimps and who, master of arms, teaches Faust to send the beloved’s brother to heaven when he becomes an obstacle. Insolence and cold sarcasm inevitably form part of the attributes of the modern and “immanent” devil, as well as cosmopolitanism, dexterity with language, culture, legal knowledge (contracts must be made in writing). In “The Witch”, when the goat still as a goat stays in the cabin with Thomasin, it takes the form of something. The best way to describe “it” is that it is a “embodied” entity as a “human body.” Thomasin asks if he understands her, and if he understands English? Capeta as an evil force has always been present in various epochs in history since the beginning of civilization, and with it, is polyglot. Ask her to undress and play a suggestion for her. If she does not want butter, a good place to live, let’s say “know what the world is good” He speaks in a cynical tone: “Look where your father got that fanatic!” And since he is no fool or anything, he plays a persuasion for her to sign the name on the book, a type of parchment, contract or paper that is the stamp on the passport for a return trip, she was the first-born of the family. She signs her name on the book being a kind of trademark, a pact, a contract. Every contract is a business. The cynicism of money as number. A form of prostitution is the nuclear part of the cynics of exchange, you can buy immaterial things (dignity, love, virginity, honesty, death, etc.).
Among "knowledge" there is too much knowledge that causes anxiety. If knowledge is power, then the once sinister, mysterious power, comes to us today in the form of knowledge, transparencies, contexts that can be unveiled-unveiled. If, before the Enlightenment, in every sense of the word, it served to diminish anguish through the expansion of knowledge, today a point has been reached in which Enlightenment has merged into what it had at first sought to prevent, the widening of anguish. The sinister, which was to be removed, comes up once again, now from the middle of protection. Clarification unfolds in the form of a collective mistrust training. Rationalism and mistrust are twin impulses, the two closely linked with the social dynamics of the rising bourgeoisie and the modern state. A new form of realism is produced. A form whose motto consists in the care not to become the victim of illusion and domination. Everything that "appears" to us could be an illusory maneuver of an imposing, evil enemy. In his demonstration of doubt, Descartes goes as far as to the monstrous consideration that the whole phenomenal world was perhaps only a phantasmagoria of a genius malignus, calculated to produce illusions in us. The emergence of the enlightening and unveiling vision (inaugurated with Descartes, Kant, and Heidegger) of actual reality cannot be understood without the cooling of the intellectual-world relation without a deep infiltration of suspicion and fear by virtue of the need for self-preservation to the roots of modern wanting. An imposing care of certainty and an equally irresistible expectation of illusion impel the modern theory of knowledge to investigate at all costs the absolute and unshakable sources of certainty, as if what was at issue for it was to overcome a frankly annihilating doubt of the world. For this reason, philosophers with the correspondence of truth as the first immunologists of being because aletheia corresponds to unveiling, unveiling according to a deep structure of representing images of the world.
The Chancellor and his wife of Marinus van Reymerswaele. (1539). The Bourgeois and the Banker would be the main figures of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Specifically, within the pamphlet and the socialist literature, these two driving forces of the market economy are taxed with the most virulent stereotypes. They are guilty of economically impoverishing mankind, extorting workers, charging high interest and money-laundering, ruthlessly executing debtor’s property, and reducing civil relations to “robbery” and “alienation.” Much of the “evil” in the world would be sponsored by them. The red tones and the hat on the head remind us of horns.
In modernity, truth is no longer definitively understood as that which is self-evident, in the sense of the Greek physis (as “growth of the seed of appearance”) or in the sense of Christian revelation, in which human means of knowledge , abandoned to themselves, had found it impossible to discover. These old and medieval pre-understandings of truth are eliminated in the time of exploitation, because both conceive the truth as something that, by itself and from itself, before any human request, used to appear in the uncovering: Heidegger listened attentively throughout his life, in an attitude of cultural receptivity. With the onset of the modern age it seems that the very truth passes into an era of artificial discovery. From now on only can and should be exploitation or investigation as theft to the occult, dark. One could not think of anything else when the Renaissance presented itself as the era of “the discovery of the world and of the human being.” The word “discovery” is a singular phenomenon for super events of the entry and registration of the earth and refers to a set of practices by means of which the unknown becomes known, not represented in represented and unregistered in recorded. Facing most of the land not yet traveled, not figured, not described, unexplored and unrepresented means that it was necessary to devise means and procedures to make a total and detailed image of it. In these campaigns of terrestrial globalization were aimed at putting images in place of non-images before or taking their images and consuming them. With this reason all the earth, sea and world takes starts with the pictures taken. With each of these images brought home, the exteriority of the exterior is denied for a bearable representation of the “point of view.” That is why in the modern age in Heidegger’s bias is also a time of truth where there is a “metaphysics of the subject.” An epoch in the history of truth. Knowledge as inquiry asks the entity to account for the way in which and the point to which it can become available for the act of representing. The research has the entity, which can be computed in advance in its future course or counted as something past. In the previous count, nature is disposed (gestellt), in the retrospective account, history is equally disposed. Nature and history become the object of an explanatory representation. This account with nature and accounts for the story. It is only, that is, it is recognized as existing, which, in this way, becomes object. There is only science in the form of research when the being of beings is sought in such an objectivity.
Taking of the world by measurement. Century XVI. British Museum, London.
After ten years, a knight (Max Von Sydow) returns from the Crusades and finds the country devastated by the Black Death. His faith in God is sensibly shaken and as he reflects on the meaning of life, Death (Bengt Ekerot) appears before him, wanting to take him, because his time has come. Aiming to save time, invites her to a game of chess that will decide whether to leave with Death or not. It all depends on your victory in the game and Death agrees with the challenge, since it never loses. Movie: The Seventh Seal by Ingmar Bergman. (1956).
John Dee and Edward Kelley using a Magic Circle to summon a spirit in a graveyard. (1560).
Gustaf Gründgens in the role of Mefisto in Goethe’s Faust. Similar view with the Death of Bergman.
The illusions, with which the Enlightenment counts, are, in effect, refined maneuvers, but in any case, critically discernible, capable of being exposed (truth and fact are convertible) in (truth and illusion are convertible). It is possible to unveil illusions, because they are made by themselves. What is understood in this world by itself are things marked by deception, by threat, by danger, not by openness, by supply, by security. Truth, therefore, can never be achieved “just like that”, but only in a second attack, as a product of criticism, which destroys what previously seemed to be the case. Truth is not “discovered” in a harmless way and without struggle, but conquered in a tiresome victory over its predecessors, which are its masking and its opposite. The world breaks its seams of so many problems, dangers, illusions and abysses. As soon as the modern gaze preponderated the backstage and the dressing rooms, the double solos, the panoramas, the illusory images, the covert grimaces, the secret feelings, the veiled motives, the covert bodies that hinder access to “actual reality itself” precisely because this reality is compounded by a growing complexity of actions and signs that are multisignificant, realized and thought. This is all the more necessary to keep mutually separate: the patent and the veiled. I am deluded, soon I am (Decipi sum, ergo sum). And: I unveil illusions, I myself delude, that is, I keep myself. Also, the cogito ergo sum cartesiano can be translated thus. It took until the twentieth century for the science and philosophy of Enlightenment to become aware of its own limited partiality and its narrower polemic and pragmatic attachments. In the era of class struggles in the late nineteenth century, the preservers of the seal of high knowledge needed to feel their ground faltering for the first time: an unpleasant suspicion was expressed that they, the bourgeois scientists, could be agents of bourgeois rule of class, obfuscated aiders of a political system that brought to light naive and idealistic “universal” truths which, in their application, served preponderantly the particular interests of the ruling classes. Who would trust them? If seen in the coming decades of the nineteenth century, the sciences as a whole have had a huge decrease in their phátos of truth. In addition, they have to live with a chronic suspicion from agents who wanted and still want to unmask them as helpers of the powerful. It does not seem altogether utterly unreasonable to make associations, which place the spy alongside the philosopher, the secret agents alongside the researchers. At the same time that the military became deserialized, the researchers’ conscience was pragmatized. From now on, knowledge and interest could, or rather should, have something entirely in common with each other. It would only be necessary to accept the interests of demonstrating their legitimacy. Nietzsche had begun to undermine the whole will of science through the suspicion of the will to power.
Without hostility and without a corresponding cover-up there is no denudation, no obscuration, there is no naked truth. The aspiration of "Enlightenment" to covert truth obeys a dialectical principle: only by means of a specific, polemically imposed cover does space arise "there behind," "naked and raw facts." The naked and raw is the former secret: the enemy, what lurks in his private space, the veiled power here, the conspiracy there, the naked women, the genitals that become visible the amoral confessions, the true intentions, the motives real numbers, hard numbers, inexorable measured values. Like Baubo, the truth seems to be hidden. Emerson says, "The hand he built can knock him down much faster. Better than the hand, and more agile, was the invisible thought that passed through it; and thus always, behind the gross effect, is a good cause, which, being closely watched, is itself the effect of a more subtle cause. Everything seems permanent until your secret is known. Rich property seems to women to be a firm and enduring fact; to a merchant, easily created from any material, and easily lost. An orchard, a good crop, good land, seems an accessory, like a gold mine or a river, to a citizen; but for a great farmer, not much more fixed than the state of the crop. " For Emerson: "Nature seems provocatively stable and secular, but it has a cause like all the others; and when I understand this, these fields stretch so immensely, these leaves are so considerable. " Not infrequently the figures of Baubô in history are those of a woman who opens the vagina or who has a face drawn in the belly, often making the mouth coincide with vulva. A kind of smile that opens. This woman truth does counterpoint to the truth woman of The Gaia Science of Nietzsche. Baubo makes a laugh and announces life. She shows her intimate parts with drawings. It makes you laugh and drives you away. Baubo makes a gesture that has obscene connotations. As Baubo, I show the truth, the place of the womb that is the place of truth and that is enough for me. But is it not to break a convention? So how does Baubo make us smile showing her vagina? The gesture of Baubô makes Demeter smile. Finally, it shows that it will come out of the depressive crisis, and then the very fecundity of the earth is saved. Raising the skirt and then provoking laughter becomes something to eliminate bad luck. The masculine equivalent of this is to make a laugh by showing the buttocks, lifting robes or lowering pants.
Baubo. Nietzsche in some passages refers to Baubo.
The Rape. René Magritte. (1934).
II - Eyes, Face and Dialectics
Ralph Emerson right at the beginning of his essay tells him that: "The eye is the first circle; the horizon forming is the second; and through all nature this primary figure is repeated without end. It is the highest emblem of the cipher in the world. St. Augustine described the nature of God as a circle whose center was everywhere and its circumference nowhere. We are all our lives reading the copious sense of this first of the forms. A moral that we already deduced when considering the circular or compensatory character of all human action. Another analogy that we are now going to draw; That every action admits to be overcome. Our life is a learning for truth, which around every other circle can be drawn; that there is no end in nature, but every end is a beginning; that there is always another dawn at noon, and under each deep depth it opens. This fact, insofar as it symbolizes the moral fact of the Unattainable, the Flying Perfect, around which the hands of man can never meet, at the same time the inspirer and condemner of all success, can conveniently serve us to connect many illustrations of human power in every department. " If we go back to the Greek period, the Theban Lysias looks at the face of Phaedrus, while Phaedrus, the handsome young man, turns his eyes to those of Lysias, and through them sends a gaze charged with blood vapor. With a meeting of looks, a face to face, begins in the scene described by Ficino, the episode of the reciprocal passion of the two Greeks. What will produce between the two a visceral connection, an erotic blood intoxication, must initially begin with an exchange of looks. The space between the two pairs of eyes must already be open before one can detach from it the radically intimate sphere between two hearts. Lovers leave the interfacial public space to consume each other face to face, they plunge into each other in the course of a magical symbiosis. Even before falling in love, love begins with the face. The filling of the heart (of red color) is nothing more than an operation of autogenous vessels. The heart can be seen as a kind of chamber that pumps blood, it occurs that passion makes this organ work even faster and pulsating. The two that form the one, two faces, two hearts (self-completion). A heart that grows in size. Hence comes the expression “this person has a place in my heart”. As if she filled him. Nature did not give us a face that had already begun. An idea of facial biometrics, that is, the idea of recognizing facial features on a monkey would be impossible or even an artist painting a simian “face” would create practically the same format. Men have faces, simians have face-faces. If we put pictures of gorillas next to each other we would be lost in trying to recognize some of them only in a 3x4 photo. It is not the portrait that enables the face to stand out from the recognition, but rather it is the protraction that elevates the faces to the threshold of the capacity to be retractable, in an open facio-genetic process. Heideggerianamente this could be a course in which the face invites us to conceive the history of being as a somatic event. It is not by chance that the novelty most characteristic of the innovative world of the media is the interface that no longer designates the meeting space between faces, but the point of contact between face and not face or between two faces. For archaic human history, it is correct to assert that men have faces not for themselves but for others. The Greek word for “human face,” prosopon, expressed with truth, in designating what stands before the eyes of others. One face exists at first only for the other’s gaze. The human face has at the same time the capacity to face being seen by a peculiar retroactive vision, and this, of course, on its part, does not see itself at first, but only the face that is in front of it.
The eyes from the beginning were the organic models of philosophy. Their great secret lies in them being not only able to see, but to be able to see themselves. This gives them a privilege among the so-called “cognitive organs” of the body. A good part of philosophical thought is nothing more than a reflection of the eyes, of a dialectic of the eyes. It’s just a sight seeing. This requires reflective vehicles and mechanisms: mirrors, metals, smooth things, water surfaces, or other eyes through which vision is made visible. This was exactly what the elenkhós, Socrates’ “method of refutation,” did: he led the other to fall into contradiction. Socrates’ reflection was always investigative, in dialectic with an otherness, together with the interlocutor, never excluding this interlocutor (another). Socrates invited the interlocutor to affirm a statement in which both could believe, or indeed believed, and then initiated a battery of questions to see the sustainability of the belief adopted. He would hammer this belief until it broke or changed to another.
In René Magritte’s “The False Mirror” (1928), we see that the human eye is oversized and, instead of providing a view of what is inside the soul of man, reflects what is outside, a sky with clouds. Another constant in Magritte’s work is the inversion or fusion of visions of interior and exterior, or opposing or extreme positions, making a game of turning inside out, asking us what is inside and what is outside. This work, according to the translation, is also known as “False Window”. Reflection is both the reflection of the mirror and the reflection of those who turn to themselves (who see themselves from within). The curious thing is that the painted eye reflects the horizon, a horizon with clouds. Ever imagined living without mirrors? Have you ever imagined a face in the mirror that passes being accepted as your own face that can appear to the extent that it is usually removed or by a means of a possibility of the field of reciprocal inter-facial looking (from the Greek point of view, a field of mutual speech and reciprocal) to the situation of a non-need for complement and the presence of the other, for now they can make and complete themselves for themselves? What would be understood modernly by the facial identity of the self or the possibility of having the face itself depends on a reconstruction of the inner and subjective space of the individual that began with stoicism in the invention of the individual who should be self-sufficient. Only in the realm of antiquity would we see the possibility of an eccentric construction intimate to itself. The nascent individualism, allowed here, themselves, and there, simultaneously to be their own observers. This individualism is a form of inner witness of your own life. An outward view of themselves. A second pair of eyes that remains your own. Modern man wants and should be alone. A self-fulfilling image of subjects under the realm of the mirror as a reflective and self-fulfilling function. He begins to organize not only life but also the aesthetics of one way of elimination or non-participation of the other, the self is now double, and wants to play both roles, just as Byung-Chul Han speaks of neoliberal self-exploration (two roles in a figure) in a bipolar relationship. A modern fiction of autonomy and the dream of mastery over self-pervades contemporary life.
O Falso Espelho. René Magritte. (1928).
Many take the mirror as a piece of merely casual decoration. Many do not realize that it is he, the mirror, who is at the center of contemporary life, that we look more into it than anything else during the day, even in the black mirrors. We want a response from the mirror at all times. We are much more driven by the mirror than the Queen of Snow White was for her magical and gossipy companion. We cannot get rid of him. Looking at yourself in the mirror every morning is something very recent in the scope of our customs. But we act on our considerations about ourselves as if from the caves we have done this, that of cultivating the practice of looking in the mirror. Lacan fell into this error, of naturalizing the “stage of the mirror” uncritically to something of the scope of narcissism. Lacan’s hybrid theorem as the form of the function of the Self can overcome its dependence on this familiar cosmetic or reflective utensil of the nineteenth century to great loss to those who have been overshadowed by this psychological mirage. We have the myth of Narcissus, which rightly should not be read as an indication of a natural relationship of the human being with his disturbing strangeness of facial reflection. It is not a coincidence that the story is transmitted by Ovid. Looking at this, we have to keep in mind that the eye and the face or the face and the subject and the face-object, were placed in relation to each other in a new way. Narcissus wanted to hold his face in the mirror of the water, but for a reason: he had not yet noticed his own face. His fall into the reflection allows us to think that until then, every face that appeared in sight should be the face of the other. Narcissistic misfortune is nothing more than an accident of self-reflection. A face that shows itself, as it were, is a charming face, whether it be the face itself is something inadmissible before the appearance of reflection.
Previously in Alcebíades, we had one of the first figures in the European tradition whose characterization shows traces of a facial aesthetic consciousness applied to its own case. Socrates decides to circumvent the vanity of his student, making him remain still on his beautiful face, the one of Alcebíades, to address not in the face, but in his soul. For the Greeks, the mirrors remain something unique to women. The Greek man can only have experiences of his aspect through the vision of the other. The initial experience of faciality consists in the fact that humans who look at human beings are looked at by human beings, and from the gaze of the other, they turn to themselves. The word face in English means face that in Portuguese can mean two things (human face is face), but (monkey face is not face, is a protoface, a face). A face would be a human face. The beginning of the face presupposes something that can only be observed from the other side or in front or in front. The exchange of looks allows each one to know and learn about himself when he looks at the face of the other, that is, of the one who sees him. The other would function as a personal mirror (alterity), but it is also the opposite of a mirror, since it lacks the politeness of a reflection of glass or metal.
Going to the work of Sartre called Between Four Walls, we have Inês character of the story that says: "Ora! I know what I’m saying. I do not need a mirror. " In this, Estelle asks: "Do not you have a mirror? (Garcin does not respond). A mirror, a pocket mirror, anyone? (Garcin does not respond). Since you’re leaving me alone, at least try to find a mirror. (Garcin continues with her head in her hands, without answering.) Ines asks, “What do you have?” Estelle adds, “I’m feeling weird.” (She palms herself.) Does not that happen to you? , I need to feel myself in order to know if I really exist. “Inês ends: You are lucky, I always perceive myself from within.” The characters’ preoccupation with the self and the mirrors gives us the hint that the two would function as mirror in the other. No mirror will be more faithful than Ines. In hell, and without mirrors, only looking into the eyes of others is that it would be possible to see. We would be there, closer not to a narcissism or a “theory of mirrors” of Lacan, but of a theory of recognition or Hegelian phenomenology combined with the positivity society of which Han speaks in his works that in the contemporary scenario the other would be eliminated, the other functioning as alterity that in functioning as a mirror of me would end up creating a subjectivism that might not correspond with the sensations or the image we have of ourselves (the other as self-knowledge).
Another finding would be the identification of the self with the body (identity). The subject only recognizes himself as such, from the moment he puts his “political dress”. What somehow reminds him of his past, the garment gives him a social character, which would also mean that through his personality (qualities and defects) before the other, the subject (self) could recognize itself. This is in a way a Modern view. We would have the individual coming back to himself. You can only speak of a look in your “own” face in the mirror when the individual has moved away from the other and faces his own face, which now appears to him in the reflected image and from which he must appropriate. The fairy tale about androgens from Plato’s Banquet also had the idea of self-sufficiency as a circle. At first, this is formulated in the mythical poem that Aristophanes presents as a member of the group, man was a sexually self-sufficient and perfect being, an androgyne with all the attributes of the feminine and masculine. The original man had four legs and four arms, two faces and a round figure like a ball, as well as the genitals of the two sexes. Who would be surprised to learn that this fantastic and androgynous animal was extraordinarily absorbed by itself? The jealous gods, however, soon thought of a way of punishing the excess (the hybris) of this being. With a saw, then the original man was divided and separated into two half-men, from which they were split, in order to understand that the part is not the whole, that man would not be god. Since then, the two half-men seek help in Eros, who can unite what is shown as copertinent and restore man to himself. The narrator serves his friends at the banquet with a Hindu monster with eight extremities and two faces as the image of a complete human figure, still round like a ball, unable to walk erect, something to which Greek body ethics had given so much value. The comic character of history reveals itself as soon as one sees the fact that fullness appears here once more as lacking - as it lacks precisely of beauty. Hence, the cruelty of the gods, who split up and separated the narcissistic original monster, has, on the one hand, a punitive sense, on the other a creative perspective. For in the midst of the split of man and woman, the beauty of the human body emerges, in a divinely ironic way. Only this beauty can point the way to an anxious love. Before the split, the circular being still had no way of experiencing love, for beauty was not yet present in him, the beauty to which love is worth aspiring to. Therefore, it is only in the second unit, emerged from the first unit of the one who was split, that a real perfection is shown as possible, a perfection still lacking in the first unit, for lack of beauty. From there, Eros, the god of pleasure with fusion and drunkenness with beauty, has to enter the game concomitantly, if unification must happen. The dialectic of perfection: even in the perfect there is still a lack. What we call dialectic has a second root that remains anchored even when we pull the first root. We find the second root when we investigate some of the ontological and philosophical-natural pretensions of the dialectic.
Probably Plato, Nietzsche, Hegel, Leibniz, and Spinoza are the basis of what Emerson uses. If I could “summarize” Emerson at least in the Essay, I would say that it was Lavoisier’s doctrine: “In nature nothing is created, nothing is lost, everything is transformed.” Wherever Eros is at stake, and if love is every new morning, the objects of love, along with it, are also so. In them, nothing is “known”, but in any case, everything is only familiar. There is no “objectivity” with them, but only intimacy. If the cognoscent approaches them, then he does not do so as the researcher, but as a neighbor, as a friend, as attracted by these objects. The classic talk of Heraclitus on the river is useful to us. Rather it is the things that want something from man than they are from them, and from which it is they that entangle them in the adventure of experience. They are directed to them, indulge in their impression and feel, as true researchers, under their enchantment. They are for them the river, in which no one can, according to Heraclitus, bathe twice, because, although they are new at every moment, continuing to flow into a new relationship.
Man’s life is a self-evolving circle which, from an imperceptibly small ring, runs to all sides, to new and larger circles, and to no end. To what extent does this generation of circles, wheel without wheel, depend on the strength or truth of the individual soul? He is using both the idea of centripetal forces as self-creation and centrifugal forces as self-expansion, as well as the idea of God Sphere-globe whose center is everywhere and its circumference nowhere.
The things that are dear to men at this hour are so because of the ideas that have arisen in their mental horizon, and which cause the present order of things as a tree carries its apples. A new degree of revolutionary culture instantly the whole system of human activities. Perhaps thought in ideas is the "cornerstone" as God is for the transformation of things, a force not exactly creative, but transforming. The change while re-designing. God is the sphere that has as many circumferences as points. It seems natural that this geometry inaugurates a "theology of light," the sphere of God. The apostle Paul in II Corinthians 5:17 says, "And if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things have passed away; behold, they have become new. "
The circle may have some relation to the amplification of world boundaries or some theory of knowledge. Casting yourself into the world is a first way of amplifying it and knowing it by touch, smell, color, taste. A physiognomic “theory of knowledge”, even before any theory, interpretation or scientific method. A stone may be at hand, and this one seems to request its release. It is interposed between itself and another natural element. The cut, the blow, the beat, and everything you can do with a stone in your hand. The stone is what is possible to be placed between the body and the object. Contact with the stone excludes contact with the body in dealing with things. The limits of my releases are the limits of my world. The world as an environment is already undoing itself and recomposing itself as the world itself (the historical and geographic place of man created-known-transformed and represented (apprehended), the world as an image by man.) The hominid as a launcher, operator, and cutter is Heidegger argued that technological and scientific knowledge was a technique of doing what is implicit, internal, hidden, in the sense of being a “producer of the clear” to use an expression of Heidegger (the technique is not without a delivery character). Modernization means, in this sense, “explaining” (modernization is not revolution, this was a misunderstanding), but not in the common logical sense of explaining, but in its cognitive sense of (I use the sight of an iceberg) Technoscience brings to the surface the conditions of possibility of life in a violent way An explosion of what was hidden on the surface. or the basic situation of abandonment, arises when we ourselves are impotent, and we must use elements of trust or trust that others dominate a technology, that is, I have to abandon-surrender myself when I go to a hospital for example. So I come to trust and believe that the surgeon knows what he does, in other words, he has a technical mastery over an act or procedure. In a society of division of labor, trust is the only possibility of reconciliation with one’s own not knowing how to do or reconciliation with not knowing or not being able to. Heidegger speaks in the position of a pre-Socratic who asks the question: if for contemporary humanity too, there is the possibility of something as a coming God, and thereby speaks of something that should be stronger than the modern cult of technological self-assertion and technological supervenience because God is a metaphor for something that is stronger than the survival interest of the human being. Future humans, if they are lucky, will know something that will allow them to overcome this curse of survival for survival. All danger is also in salvation. Where is salvation? The danger also grows. Human beings in modernity have good reason to be afraid of those who save, in the same way as those who put them in danger. The “Apocalypse” is not the attempt to evaluate the world from its end (from its end). We are talking about a cosmic-moral procedure of classification, in which the good are separated from the bad. To make a separation of this kind means separating those who are worthy of supervenience and unworthy supervenience: what is meant by “eternal life”, for example, is a metaphysically superimposed expression to be able to continue doing something, as “eternal damnation” means a mode of life has no future and is excluded from the forms of existences worthy of transmission and supervenience. “Revelation” means evidence “from the end backwards”.
The launching of the stone allows, the widening of the limits of the world as limits of launch range. The first form of theory, as a prior look at the launch. Existential understanding as anticipation and projection of possibilities of success and the first conception of truth as success (and falsity as error). The pitches form in the highlight between the horizon as a highlighted background of action towards something, it starts to take effect from this dynamic between the target and the bottom, between the patent and the latent (what is coming or what is to come) , what is inside the human world and the outer horizon of possibilities. In this way, it implies, from the spatiality (circular), a notion of temporality: the horizon, the unreachable, is original time, mythical, the not known, and at the same time, future, future, time, birth, time passing. Which is also the idea of day and night. The sunrise and the sunset. Much of the human condition in early Christianity was to interpret man as a walker or an errant (jesus, deserts, hermits, ascetics). The human being is essentially a walker. Not someone who has fallen, but who has already fallen, because with the expulsion of paradise, original sin, we are already fallen, but soon after we get up and become hikers. The Christian form of the walker is the pilgrim who is always on his way or on his way to a place of pilgrimage, in a last interpretation we could say that he is on his way to his own tomb. That was one of the conquering of the upright position. Who gets up automatically raises his face to be in a position to see ahead (acts of throwing and bringing to the near). The idea of the horizon as a temporal character has already been widely explored in literatures of all genres. The horizon as unknown, but also as the search for new territories, new existential possibilities, other airs, new people, new lands, new loves.
Then we shall soon see the naive and moving example of the plant arise, which germinates from the seed, however much the seed disappears and becomes the plant which springs from it. This plant, in turn, produces the seed that leaves it, which is carried forward and blossoms again, while the plant that has aged perishes, just as in general disappearance is the reverse of becoming. Surely we changed the terrain, but it was not without our noticing it? For the so-called dialectic of nature has always been from the beginning the Achilles heel of this current. In particular from Hegel it is possible to amuse himself with statements such as these according to which the budding would be the antithesis of the shoot, whereas the "fruit (then) declares the flowering as a false existence of the plant" (Phenomenology of the Spirit). For this example looks at the cycle of life and the great and universal transformation of phenomena between becoming, existence and perishing. The ancient tradition of wisdom (the pre-scientific tradition) has these phenomena constantly in front of the eyes: it sees the change of the seasons, the rhythm of day and night, the counterpart between light and shadows. At the center of these polar phenomena, it finds the game of the sexes, which at the same time provides the model for the expansion of polar dyads in the dialectical triads. For in the encounter of the masculine and the feminine the child appears, the "synthesis" of father and mother, ovum and semen, love and law, etc. That is, these naive considerations show that dialectics has sought to rely on its positive side. That is to say, it has long withdrawn its ontological principles from a philosophy of the original life, which has before the eyes and play of the world and the antagonistic dualities.
Says Rüegg (1980, pp. 92-93):
The opposite aspires to unification, from diverse to more beautiful harmony, and everything arises on the basis of discord. Connection: whole and not whole, consonant and dissonant, resonate as same and as diverse, and of all one and all. Two things are always in us: the living and the dead, the awakened and the sleeping, young and old. The former becomes by transformations the other and, in a new change, this becomes once again that one. We enter into the same waters and we do not enter; we are and we are not.
What is called dialectic is actually a rhythmic or a philosophy of polarity. Viewed in a pure way, this philosophy tries to conceive of life and the cosmos as a relentless change of phases and states of being, which are coming and going, such as the underwater and the flood, the cycles of the stars, joy and sadness , life and death. This great rhythmic comprises all phenomena without exception such as pulsations, phases, bars (the traffic in transit). It recognizes in them nothing but the oscillating movement of the one, of the cosmic principle in its natural and inevitable turns. The fact that everything in the world has its opposite, the fact and the states move in an eternal circular flow and movement and become extreme in each other. These are the great and unshakable visions to which this rhythm comes. The Heraclitean "dialectic" (the first) and certainly also the only European to show itself as a pure philosophy of polarity. It has a contemplative, non-argumentative sense. For her, the world does have a course and a breath of its own, and this philosophy of maximally first polarity was only a breathing together with the inspiration and expiration of the world. The thinker, much more "seer", assumes no "proper" position and does not stand out as the cognoscent subject of the known phenomena. In the great world of these pulsations and polar upheavals, it does not occur as a self that would detach itself from this world and that could fall into error in the midst of this prominence. Everything that he says also crosses it and things would be in any case like this, whether he said it or not. Ultimately, such a doctrine of polarity would have to be termed as a philosophy without subject. Where this vision prevails, there are only rhythms, only the oscillation of the opposing energies and poles, there is no sphere left for the self separate from man. In relation to these rhythms, there is only a valid posture for man: surrender. Again Heidegger appears as perhaps the most important name together with Freud of the twentieth century. Whoever surrenders is in the character of being played in the world, is released into the world (Dasein). One lets oneself play through things, be against any and all, formation of sediments, immobility. The self is not the master of the world, but it lives in the world under the sign of the playing character. In all cases, we make "projects", but even these projects, in turn, are "projects played", in such a way that it is primarily a passive ontological structure. If man is-in-the-world, it is because he takes part in a kinetic movement that brings him to the world and leaves him to the world (is played). This transactional exodus would only generate psychotic animals if, with the arrival into the world, there was not at the same time an entrance movement in what Heidegger calls the "house of being." It would enter there, the element of the traditional languages of mankind that enabled the ability to be experienced the ecstasy of being-in-the-world, by showing men how this being in the world can be at the same time experienced as being-with-itself.
Thus, the clearing is an event of spatiality and vibrational historicity on the frontiers between the histories of nature and culture, and upon reaching the human world it takes from the outset the form and traits of a come-to-language. However, the history of the clearing cannot be taken and developed only as a narrative of the arrival of the coming-to-world, in the being-in-the-world, and of the arrival of human beings in the houses of language. At a time when speaking humans begin to cohabit in groups and together, they bind not only to the houses of language but also to built houses, they enter a path of a sedentary way of life force. Henceforth they are not only sheltered by their language, but also domesticated by their dwellings (solidarity, pedagogical education, shepherd-sheep-herd). Just man is called by his own being to shepherd him (chosen for his care). Hence, men possess language (the hole in Dasein), not as something only to understand and domesticate one another. The human being enters there and becomes included (conceived) as the clearing of being - in a domestication and establishment of friendship. Human beings as shepherds and neighbors of being, and language as the home of being, this causes the human being to be linked to the being in a radical correspondence (restraint and confinement), the pastor as always in the vicinity or in the neighborhood of the house, a kind of bondage.
Heidegger deduces a foreignism originating from the existing human, the expatriate man (without homeland: like the Jews) like a specter, especially, in the philosophies post World War II. The man who crosses the devastated land feels a need to shrink and gather in artificial dwellings and unfixed homelands, as well as escape from anguish with his refuge in habits, habitations and daily life. With no homeland or homeless, we see the need for sleeping space that is minimal space. A cardboard box on the head may be enough to point out the demand for space for what sleeps. Perhaps one more reason for conservatives to abandon their extreme nationalism.
RÜEGG, Walter. Selection of Quotations. Antike Geisteswelt (Ancient Spiritual World - A Collection of Classical Texts). Frankfurt, 1980, pp. 92-93.
What a great and fulsome conversation! Am taking notes and thinking over all I’ve heard. here. Maybe I’ll be able to write up a more bountiful response, but even if I can’t, I want to thank you all for exploring these rich tributaries.
Cosmos Café [3/5] - Onset of Outsight
Cosmos Café [2/19] - Menu Review
Emerson says that: "Nature transforms (focuses) into balls, And its proud ephemera, Rapid on the surface and out, Scan the profile of the sphere; I knew what that meant. A new genesis was here. " Long before, Giordano Bruno, also in his time, in his book Do Infinity: The Universe and the Worlds, appeared in Venice in 1583, celebrates the emancipation of the human spirit from the misery of an untraced nature and stepmother and a petty God, limited to a single small world. Bruno understood that there are no borders or boundaries, barriers or walls, that deceived us the infinite wealth of things. Eternally fertile is the land and its ocean. He describes his own role as that of Columbus from the outer spaces, which he gave the Terrans the knowledge that it is possible to break through the covers of illusion. Just as Columbus returned from his voyage on the other side of the Atlantic with the news that there was another shore, Bruno wanted a return of his journey to infinity with the new one of no more than a vault or a supreme rim. Over and over, the world has lost its limits and resistance in all directions. This is the fundamental theoretical-spatial news of the modern brúnic age and does not want to sound less evangelical than the Colombian one. Bruno celebrates as an euphorizing boundary release his mental crossing of the universe and his passage through the "upper vault of the firmament" into infinite space and exposes the analogy between thought and navigation. Nietzsche had already said in The Gaia Science what is called "the death of God" or the disinflation of metaphysics (even of its end).
Nietzsche says (2001, pp. 147-148):
The Crazy Man. “They did not hear of this crazy man who lit a lantern in the morning and ran to the market, and he began to shout ceaselessly,” I’m looking for God! I seek God! "? "And as there were many of those who did not believe in God, he aroused a great laugh. So he’s lost? One of them asked. Did he lose himself as a child? Another said. Are you hiding? Is he afraid of us? Did you board a ship? You emigrated? They shouted and laughed at each other. The madman threw himself between them and pierced them with his gaze. “Where did God go?” He shouted, "I’ll tell you! We killed him - you and me. We are all his killers! But how did we do it? How did we manage to drink the sea entirely? Who gave us the sponge to erase the horizon? What have we done to unleash the land of your sun? Where does she move now? Where do we move to? Away from all the suns? Do not we continually fall? Back, to the sides, to the front, in all directions? Are there still “above” and “below”? Do not we wander like that through an infinite nothingness? Do not we feel the breath of the vacuum? Has not he become colder? Does not darkness everlast? Do not we have to light lanterns in the morning? Have not we heard the noise of the gravediggers bury God? Do not we smell divine putrefaction? - the gods rot too! God is dead! God is still dead! And we killed them! How can we console ourselves, murderers among the murderers? The strongest and most sacred the world had ever possessed bleed whole under our daggers - who will cleanse us this blood? With what water could we wash? What atoning rites, what sacred games will we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this act too great for us? Should not we ourselves become gods, to at least seem worthy of it? There has never been a greater act - and whoever comes after us will belong, because of that act, to a story higher than the whole story until then! "At that moment he silenced the mad man, and again looked at his listeners: they too were silent looking amazed at him. “I come too soon,” he said then, "is not yet my time. This enormous event is on the way, it still walks: it has not yet reached the ears of men. Corisco (bolt of lightning) and thunder need time, the light of the stars needs time, the acts, even after they are done, need time to be seen and heard. This act is still more distant to them than the furthest constellation - and yet they have committed! - It is also told the same day the mad man broke into several churches, and in each one intoned his Requiem aeternaum deo. Taken out and interrogated, he merely replied, “What are these churches, if not the mausoleums and tombs of God?”
To dwell is a cultivation of feelings in a fenced space. After Copernicus, the universe had to be rebuilt with good reasons and that it could no longer offer the inhabitants of the land the old security of the covers. The modern age and modernity can be unequivocally characterized by a radical structuring of immunity relations. Let’s wander like someone in an infinite space. All metaphysical philosophy is then, unauthorized. So now we can feel the cold. The cold comes because there is no more sun. The horizons were erased and lost their contours. There is the devaluation of all values as a maximum heat moves away. A cosmic frost succumbs to us. A cold world is a world in which then, because it presents itself with mist, allows some to have “to light lanterns in the morning”. The act of madness becomes a common act. The madman can appear in any market. Therefore, the greatest mausoleums and tombs of God are the churches. The dead God is known by some and not by others. Positivism announced the replacement of religion by science, falling to the ground any and all absolute, by its own internal dynamics. Science or knowledge has detached itself from a unitary view, creating mechanisms, scientific methods, data, experiments and observations of its own phenomena, independent of the beliefs and desires of scientists. From Nietzsche’s point of view, God’s death appears as a man-made “climatic catastrophe” (nihilism, “dark matter” penetrates all places). If structures in ring shapes that covered the earth were cut into pieces, a penumbra during the day makes it necessary to use light to see by day. The open animal plucked its roof and its house inside. Entering into modernity is putting at risk the immune systems it has created for many years. To live in the modern world is to pay a price for the absence of protective layers. The man in the wrapper deals with his psychosis of the time, responding to outside cooling with heating techniques and climatic policies or with climatic techniques and heating policies. Modernity has shown us an “ontology of levitation”. The being of man now acquires a characteristic of taking the feet of the earth, of the soil. Much of this is due to the movements of great navigations and the phenomena of globalization. Entering into modernity, we have the end of a post-metaphysical era, which has spread from the time of all the chairs. The end of the metaphysical absolute and the metaphysical disinflation. He is in a metaphysical homelessness of man. Lukács uses this concept to explain that the typical expression of modernity is the novel. That’s because the novel is the garbage basket for the roles of the homeless soul. It is the most important form of aesthetic communication for disoriented people. From these disoriented worlds, each one builds, in small proportions, his own immune system. The thesis of identity, indeed, would have to be valid in order to allow us to suppose with vision of success that the apartment of the earth at the center of the cosmos would metaphysically mean the evacuation of God from the center of being. In the text “On the Horizon of Infinity”, Nietzsche says: "We leave the mainland and we embark! We burned the bridge - still more, we cut every tie with the land that was left behind! Now be careful, little boat! Next to you is the ocean, it is true that it does not always roar, and sometimes stretches like silk and gold and daydream of kindness. But there will come times when you will realize that it is infinite and that there is nothing more terrible than infinity. Oh, poor bird that felt free and now it hits the walls of that cage! Woe to you, if you are stricken with longing for the earth, as if there had been more freedom there - and there is no more “land”! [1 - NIETZSCHE, Friedrich Wilhelm. The Gaia Science. Translation: Paulo César de Souza. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2001, § 124, p. 147.]
What we have left are the phenomena that present themselves to us. The human being was thrown into the open, and now, the balls-balls we observe are molecular-level. Emerson seems to have a mentality that comes close to a theology mixed with Spinoza’s belief in a God based on the following principle: God and Nature are the same thing, the famous: God sive Natura (God or Nature). But Emerson also seems to demonstrate an idea of progress where the past helps us form the new circle forward. Where there is no “immobility” in nature (or in the cosmos), everything is kinetic and volatile. We could reverse Heidegger by saying that “being-in-the-world” comes to “furniture of the world,” however, when we speak of ontology, we must understand that the world is not furniture populated by pieces that have already been constituted. The world is populated by what is constantly moving, traveling, transiting between the elements, but not as something immutable, but as something that transits along with the transition, something that moves in itself, transforming itself as it changes in space and in time. Not “being-in-the-world”, but rather, “being-entering-the-world”. An analysis of the place as “coming to the world”, that is, an old notion coming from the tradition of Socrates and a cosmology, that of metoikesis. A similar notion is used by Hegel when dealing with his phenomenology of the spirit. We could say that “nothing is lost, everything is transformed”. The “new” and the new continents are built from the ruins of an ancient planet. The new races were fed by the decomposition of the preceding one. The future feeds on the fertilizer of the dead. New gear destroys old. New techniques leave others out of date. Emerson goes so far as to say that: "… capital investment in aqueducts, rendered useless by hydraulics; fortifications by gunpowder; roads and canals, by railroads; candles, steam; by electricity. The hand he built can knock him down much faster. Better than the hand, and more agile, was the invisible thought that passed through it; and thus always, behind the gross effect, is a good cause, which, being closely watched, is itself the effect of a more subtle cause. " I believe that Emerson considers a “nature conspiracy” in our favor. He speaks with these words: "Our life is an apprenticeship to the truth, that around every other circle can be drawn; that there is no end in nature, but every end is a beginning; that there is always another dawn at noon, and under every deep depth it opens”. A phrase that sounds to Platonism, but at the same time, gives us the idea of modern science as truth. The universe is fluid and volatile. Staying is just a word of degrees. Our globe seen by God is a transparent law, not a mass of facts. The law dissolves the fact and keeps it fluid. Our culture is the predominance of an idea that attracts this train of cities and institutions. Let’s dig deeper into another idea: they will disappear. "Purified by light and elemental wind, Immersed in the sea of beautiful shapes. That the field offers, we can cast a glance back to the biography.
Sloterdijk (2016, p.21):
The thought of modernity, which for so long came under the naive name of “Lights” and the even more naive programmatic term “progress,” stands out for an essential mobility. Whenever it follows its typical advance, it performs a movement by which the intellect breaks out of the cave of human illusions toward the non-human exterior. It is no wonder that the turn of cosmology, identified with the name of Copernicus, lies at the beginning of the recent history of knowledge and delusion. It caused the inhabitants of the First World to lose their cosmological myth, and then set in motion an era of progressive decentering. Since then, all the illusions about its privileged position in the lap of the Cosmos have ceased for the inhabitants of Earth, however much such ideas may remain attached to us as innate illusions. With Copernicus’s heliocentric thesis, there began a series of exploratory ruptures directed toward an exterior devoid of human beings, towards the inhumanly distant galaxies and the more ghostly components of matter. The new icy breath from outside was soon perceived, and even some of the pioneers of the revolutionary changes of knowledge of the position of the Earth in relation to the universe did not fail to show their discomfort regarding the intended infinity; thus Kepler himself protested against the doctrine of the infinite universe of Giordano Bruno, saying that “precisely in this reflection there is a non-knowing that is terrifying and hidden”; in fact, we wander lost in this immensity to which limits and central point are denied, and with this, any fixed position.
Most likely Emerson talks about some kind of theology or even cosmology, it is possible that he is referring to some philosophies like Nicholas of Cusa, Spinoza, Leibniz or Giordano Bruno. The sphere has a morphological-geometric capacity to gather and to be able to inhabit in person coexistences in its interior. Nicholas of Cusa, in postulating the symmetry of the maximal being-implied, nothing more than, God, as concentration on the atomic point and maximal being-explicit, takes God as implantation in the all-sphere. With these assumptions, human thought would always be a cognitive accompaniment to divine expansion in the explicit. It is to say in the realized and created, to the extent that such a consummation can be achieved in finitude. A similar optimism can be seen in Spinoza’s works with his ethics which represents the singular exhortation to the development of natural potential. We still do not know all that the dark body is capable of. Already in Leibniz, cognitive optimism adopts more attenuated forms because the author of the monadology had a concept of the unfathomability of the implications that reach to infinity. Hegel had also constructed a circle of circles as a cosmology which holds in principle that the latter is only the first consummated and brought to itself epicentrically.
Only those who leave this system can learn to consider and understand this outside environment. Only then can one perceive a rupture between the known and the usual, on the one hand and alternative forms of new and artificial life on the other. Nietzsche’s prognosis that we, the navigators of the future, not only break the bridges, but also the land that lies behind us literally materializes in the airwaves of space (emptynauts) or “free spirits” as he calls himself. During this period, the antigravity policy had given rise, in the form of republicanism, air navigation, balloons, air strikes, aesthetics and therapy, industries, space technologies, telecommunications and long-distance traffic were latent to create their own means and machines. The conquest of space in an odyssey. After all, space is also space. The ocean we are sailing now is another, it is a black ocean. So, whoever does not want to speak of this upward impulse must shut up before Modernity. Nietzsche himself had declared to his friends “free thinkers” or “free thinkers” of life as aeronauts of the spirit. The so-called metoikesis is the path of the philosopher to the “nowhere” for this philosopher being and this “no place” is even a no place, so that the transfer has no rest. Hannah Arendt recalls that the only time Heidegger quotes Socrates is to make a metaphor of thought as gale. She asserts that Heidegger reminds Socrates that he would never have done anything else, even at the hour of death, but “put himself in the middle of that gale,” that is, the wind of thought, and then stay there. Thus, according to Heidegger quoted by Arendt, Socrates “is the purest thinker of the West”. This is why he wrote nothing. For whoever goes out of his mind and begins to write has to look like the people who take refuge in a shelter with a very strong wind for them. All post-Socrates thinkers, despite their greatness, are like these refugees. Thought became literature. [2 - ARENDT, Hannah. The Life of the Spirit. Rio de Janeiro: Brazilian Civilization, 2010, p. 196.] It is to this characteristic of wind, often referred to by the partners of Socrates to what he did in thinking and talking, that Arendt calls attention. It is to take the wind caused by the formulation of concepts. It is a question of formulating the general and universal that brings together individuals. Take thought as classic. If with conservatism we speak of expressions such as “discharge” and “liberation,” they are the most apt to contextualize the subjective and psychopolitical reflexes of the great levitation. With legalized society, we will have a constant optimization of routines that are driven by money, politico-legal frameworks and in a “world state” (Hegel) where the change of the contexts of seriousness and proportions of existential weight become present. A certain kind of levitated ontological condition has not yet been found very well by “society.” The discharge reaches all things, be it language, material conditions or state of affairs. Their states of mind now that they have been released from uncertainty in their exit from the universe of poverty are also important because they will be instrumental in opening a path to the relief of poverty. Driving to the rule of law gives an effervescence of ways of existence lighter, free, frivolous and ephemeral. The meaning of the ambition of moderns to settle in airspace.
A balloon takes us to the top, in it we can overcome gravity. A “swarm of balloons” takes us into an era or a movement of antigravity. The “free spirits” are those who are hovering in the air and cannot have weight or direction already determined are in the flow of the current or the forces of the winds, the “airmen of spirit.” It says only “aeronauts”, the light ones that fly (in the sense of an atmosphere). It was well known that in Hegel’s metaphysics, the spirit, as a storehouse of all storehouses, was described with an image of a circle of circles. A system of immunity that has surpassed all evidence, and which has come to collect and gather absolutely everything that at any moment can or has been able to be filed, to be divided again, as provision of the objective spirit (law, religion, science, culture, art, technique, etc.). Self-receptive working receptacles, with the need for animation and with common motivations and solidary spatial representations, with large numbers of human beings inside, inside a sphere of meaning. This relationship would become, after millennia, something so obvious that the entry of the twentieth century, under the historical world units, the peoples, will be understood, without further analysis, as a self-receptive group of thick walls. Only with the entry into the post-national horizon is it that in the nations of the First World a new universal historical society emerged: thin-walled society. What is now called “Artificial Intelligence” is a hybrid term for the familiar phenomena that in artifacts (tools, works and institutions), the intentions of producers survive almost independently of their products. This is precisely what was expressed in Hegel’s concept of “objective spirit.” What is objective is the intelligence invested in tools, works and institutions through their producers, who later separated themselves from them to be absorbed and applied by other intelligences (subjective spirit, students, users). This allows us to think about the transition that transits. In the man who already comes into the world with some kind of “fossilization” or “sedimentation” structure a receptacle (imagine for example water inside a bottle), and the possibility of transmitting them to future generations. This in operation tells us that, for example, the West has a certain “mold” or that frames man in Greek-Roman traditions, Christianity and Human Rights. These are the basis of the “formation” of individuals already shaped by laws, institutions, church, etc.).
Hegel when he speaks of the objective spirit as a preordination to the individual as something that remains intact and unsullied in front of his agency and how the gods, myths, and rituals of a tribe hold or become stable. A transmission from one generation to another. If men die, the forms and laws remain. Seeing things in this way, things, customs or institutions are a more lasting, real, objective and necessary dimension than the human beings who must coexist according to them. The concept of tradition emerges as a process of collective conservation of models in time, but a conservation of form. All content is form. Therefore, atheism is an outrage of form. In more traditional cultures, learning acquires a sense of accommodation with the existing form. As for modern cultures, there is an openness to progressive explanations and learning means taking part in permanent model review processes. In a recent interview with Michel Temer, the former president of Brazil talking about the crisis said: "People pass. I will pass, but institutions remain. " This faith in punctuality or a certain mode of operation is a reflection of the metaphysical conviction that behind every fact there is a prescription and behind each prescription, the seal of a higher truth. The man when he calls the lady for the dance extends the right arm, the train has time of arrival and departure, some write from left to right others from right to left, in some countries it goes from left to right in others from the right to the left or the men to give the hand to the women put them on their right side. The Stoics would summarize that belief in the power of rules in the thesis that being and being in order mean the same. Wittgenstein will say that “culture is a rule of order or presupposes a rule of order.” What we call “culture” are spaces integrated by geometric configurations and common models, and the concept of tradition emerges as a process of collective conservation of models in time, but a conservation of form. All content is form. Just see a bottle and its liquid inside. For Hegel, the romantic attack is that the slight has consolidated itself. He already believed that it should be put in place, processes of reviewing the weights and measures of the former serious consideration. The modern way of experiencing boredom emancipates itself as a phenomenon of its own. The inner time gets rid of in such a way that a loose and liberated competition of purpose appears, in positive sense without work that advanced of the whim and later to return to him. The floating spirit that judges only for itself and with the element of the world sees only an “insubstantiality” that takes its hands. It is when lack of seriousness, pain, the other, dialectics, work, patience and negativity. An active restlessness that is the self that as its counterpoint, circular movement and labor and laborious production know where it goes. One drifting aimlessly towards Hegel would be one cannot follow his own line. The message we see in Julius Verne with his Around the World in 80 Days is that in a technically saturated civilization, there is no longer any adventure. The unexpected or the surprise is replaced by only, but only, delays. In Jules Verne’s case, there is a change in traffic. The universal traveler renounces his documentary profession and becomes a pure passenger. He is a typical customer of a transportation service who pays to make your trip a mere matter of time and not an experience. A hero of punctuality. His only interest in the landscapes and images that travel through him is to cross them. The classic tourist prefers to travel with the windows closed. We have an “airy traveler” who transits through the spaces without fixing in any corner. There is no relationship let’s say “homeland.”
The experimentation of some weight began to be called into question. The self-conscious lightness was only possible before a horizon of a “society” that thanks to the well-being, science and technique left the field of hard work, heavy of effort. In this being on the air, we have nothing more than the end of the force of gravity. The beginning of a subjectivity before the definitions of “serious” world, with the beginning of the lightness and free time (monotony) of the substance. Freedom understood as weight-bearing and light-weight forces. A climatological interpretation allows a polyvalent reality with the animations of the bubble-space-vital cells as a means of antigravity tendencies. Let’s look at the term “gravity.” Gravity refers to a situation of weight consideration. If we have a weight, we do not have lightness or buoyancy. To gain gravity is to rise, to feel the absence of weight, to be lighter than air like the Daedalus Syndrome that seeks the recreation of some ontic sensation or ontology. A balloon takes us to the top, in it we can overcome gravity. A “swarm of balloons” takes us into an era or a movement of antigravity. The “free spirits” are those who are hovering in the air and cannot have weight or direction already determined are in the flow of the current or the forces of the winds, the “airmen of spirit.” It says only “aeronauts”, the light ones that fly (in the sense of an atmosphere). It was well known that in Hegel’s metaphysics, the spirit, as a storehouse of all storehouses, was described with an image of a circle of circles. A system of immunity that has surpassed all evidence, and which has come to collect and gather absolutely everything that at any moment can or has been able to be filed, to be divided again, as provision of the objective spirit (law, religion, science , culture, art, technique, etc.). Self-receptive working receptacles, with the need for animation and with common motivations and solidary spatial representations, with large numbers of human beings inside, inside a sphere of meaning. This relationship would become, after millennia, something so obvious that the entry of the twentieth century, under the historical world units, the peoples, will be understood, without further analysis, as a self-receptive group of thick walls. Only with the entry into the post-national horizon is it that in the nations of the First World a new universal historical society emerged: thin-walled society.
What is now called “Artificial Intelligence” is a hybrid term for the familiar phenomena that in artifacts (tools, works and institutions), the intentions of producers survive almost independently of their products. This is precisely what was expressed in Hegel’s concept of “objective spirit.” What is objective is the intelligence invested in tools, works and institutions through their producers, who later separated themselves from them to be absorbed and applied by other intelligences (subjective spirit, students, users). This allows us to think about the transition that transits. In the man who already comes into the world with some kind of “fossilization” or “sedimentation” structure a receptacle (imagine for example water inside a bottle), and the possibility of transmitting them to future generations. This in operation tells us that, for example, the West has a certain “mold” or that frames man in Greek-Roman traditions, Christianity and Human Rights. These are the basis of the “formation” of individuals already shaped by laws, institutions, church, etc. This faith in punctuality or a certain mode of operation is a reflection of the metaphysical conviction that behind every fact there is a prescription and behind each prescription, the seal of a higher truth. The man when he calls the lady for the dance extends the right arm, the train has time of arrival and departure, some write from left to right others from right to left, in some countries it goes from left to right in others from the right to the left or the men to give the hand to the women put them on their right side. The bottle with its format apprehends the format of the content (continent-content, what it contains and what is contained). The objective spirit, roughly speaking, would be materialized culture. The subjective spirit is man, and the absolute spirit is the spirit, that is, the spiritual whole, but in the case of Hegel, also the whole as the whole, since there is a cosmological holism: the universe works the way of thought. Think of something as a “cosmic mind.” It is not surprising that Hegelian tradition, for example, of Paulo Freire when he says that education was always a form of “banking education”, where the student was the warehouse or warehouse of the teacher in the classroom. The teacher, in the case, deposited his knowledge in the student, the idea of not constructing an experience or even joint knowledge, only a transfer (checking account) functioning as a deposit. The students would end up storing the teacher’s information in a “memory vault.” This information is then drawn by the teacher on the day of the test (here I use an image of monetization, cash withdrawal). The student is the bank and the teacher is the user of this “banking house”. Freire uses the importance of the experience, as it is what Hegel distinguished between historical experience and psychic experience of the spirit.
In Paulo Freire these two dimensions come together, the experience we have of the history of our people and the individual, psychic experience of what we have been through. But in both cases, it is not the story of the lived, but the unspeakable situation of the lived in the moment lived (the single moment happened in a unique way and that only the individual can only live once), therefore “living.” Experience is a situation that is lived and not repeated, not copied, and occurs individually and singularly. Experience is what happens with the kiss. Just like, you fall in love with a girl at school. It’s different than falling in love with you at college, at work, at the gym. The experience is then in the tradition of non-thought, which is the rationalization that breaks the experience. It is pure occurrence, a kind of phenomenology (the appearance of the phenomenon) that arises in the world and marks profoundly. Experience would be something close to “experience”, a moment or even the idea of someone having experience in the sense that he has gone through similar and similar situations and this gives someone a tone of wisdom, someone who knows things. Life has taught him to live experiences of the most diverse.
Letters to a German Princess. Leonhard Euler.
Structure of an atom. It is the grouping, the coexistence that makes the space. Every being-in-the-world has traits of coexistence. The question of being, which is so heatedly discussed by philosophers, can be made here in terms of the coexistence of people and things in joint spaces. This implies a fourfold relation: being means someone. Being with someone else and with something more and something. This formula describes the minimal complexity that must be built in order to arrive at an appropriate concept of the world. We would have to think of a Sartre, but like an earlier vision. Coexistence precedes existence. A vision as a passage from being-there from existential philosophies to a relational being-with. The same could be applicable to life and zoogenesis with the best theory would have that we still have today the evolution and the emergence of life in waters.
Primitive bacteria. I’m not sure if they are all like this. Then we have four narratives that are consistent with the idea of the circle in Emerson as we have also seen in Sloterdijk. The cosmologies with the beginning of philosophy (poets and philosophers) theologies (also made by philosophers and religious) Biology (basically modern science: (with Emerson and Nietzsche). Theories of knowledge (with the first steps of the one who walks and sees the horizon, the horizons would have a basis in the modernity of utopias, adventure systems, mobility, globalization, self-elevation. Whoever walks can also climb mountains.
Photo of a church near my house.
So, I think it is possible to understand Emerson’s text. I hope you teach me more about him. Emerson writes with a somewhat “classic” English if that exists. I had a hard time reading the essay. I was impressed that he had some sort of religious or proquial education as a young man. I have not been able to reach a conclusion, but his text makes it clear that he may be religious, but he is not a skeptic of science. It speaks in shades of progress, enlightenment-illuminist (modern science), but also considers a cosmology, theology mixed with a certain pragmatism. Perhaps the philosophy of language has roots in him and in Nietzsche. He says: “We are all our lives reading the copious meaning of this first of the forms. A moral we have already deduced in considering the circular or compensatory character of every human action that every action admits being overcome.” He seems to work with a certain attachment to freedom in the idea of generosity (self-confidence to build something). Not infrequently, we find in the subtle basis of all the most generous thought of America, including of philosophical currents different from yours, it seems to have a transcendentalism. We can see traces of him in old and new pragmatists, for example: does not Rorty’s notion of “edification” remind us of Emerson? He seems to work with a kind of lofty self that rises and may be close to Nietzsche with the idea of the “will to power” and heteronarcism. If we think of stratified societies or the most primitive age of man, the egalitarian meeting around fire is translated into the attraction for possessive advantages, all of which relate to a place of preference. This ends up creating a space of inclusive solidarity leading to a larger one. Heat is a good, a possession. If we understand island societies as places of distribution of advantages of uncertain origin, but whose level of well-being are based on successes of the economy itself and on tax systems. Comfort becomes custom, a political ethic, one does not wonder where it comes from. The expense also comes from an impetus of squandering like the sun that gives us warmth, but never wants anything around. A return to Nietzsche to say that if we are to imitate something that is the sun, words of Zarathustra, because the sun walks to its chance of a generous way. It only gives and receives nothing. He affirms himself but wants to affirm the others. The alterities penetrate him to a composition that crosses him, enchants him, tortures him and surprises him.
Nietzsche’s innovative gift consists precisely in the provocation of a mode of being in which the receiver is activated in his strength, that is, in his ability to open up to richer futures. Nietzsche is a teacher of magnanimity and generosity, insofar as he contaminates the recipient of his gift with the idea of a wealth, whose acquisition only compensates when one has in view the possibility of dissipating it. The principle of self-preservation, typically conservative and which later the Enlightenment would also be hooked, falls to the ground if we adopt this view of Bataille or of Nietzsche himself. Life is a wanting more, but in every way, including, and especially, a want to spend more, a suicide self-consumption. Was not Marx’s idea of more value already? The true Nietzschean interrupts his life involved in pettiness (his concept of “love fati”: loving the facts as in marriage is said “in health and illness”, “in joy and pain”, this is the idea of non-Christian man). If I opened up to life without hurt, without resentment, without “it was not meant to be,” “I could have done differently.” This falls on the weakness of the weak, the humble as an ideology. We can think there, even the idea of contingencies reaching us. An accident, for example, may not necessarily have a culprit, we are in the cosmos interacting. The luck, the luck, the result of the game of data since, in short, neither were we nor anyone else who even released the data. When Nietzsche says love is fatigue he is saying just that: to live is to live all situations of life. Nietzsche was against Christians because he understood Christianity as the resume of the denial of life, that is, the freak idea to jump it, to go to the afterlife. The soul is not it? Deny life as lived, deny the body as a place? Foucault is dedicated to showing how the body is annulled by the utopias that are its own annulment. For example, the myth of the soul, that is, what allows us to leave the body, is also what makes us forget the body, subalternize it, penalize it. It shows several other forms of override. Why should anything happen that we should put on someone else’s account? As an ethical imperative, the “eternal return” works, in the form of a paraphrase of the Kantian imperative, as follows: "Live as one who is able to affirm each and every occurrence, who wants it again and again and again " (The Gaia Science, § 341). The facts are more than accepting, it is being willing to enjoy the occurrences, to feel filled by them. However, resigning oneself is not loving, accepting and, of course, unwillingly swallowing a lot of things. Do not be a frustrated. Somewhat like the idea of Fortuna we saw in Sloterdijk. Do not be resigned to the missed opportunity, the roulette wheel of fortune keeps turning. Montaigne makes it clear that his moderation, which can coexist with his uncertainties, is not resigned. “I will never be grateful to impotence for whatever good it does to me.” This is his basic teaching. Therein lies a trinity: skepticism, stoicism, and fortune. He writes, “I value my opinions a little, but I give too little to others, and fortune pays me worthily.” It is fortunate that we can refer to the end. Therefore, who knows and knows how to enjoy the moment, should be able to make good judgment of itself. He concludes the text as follows: “If the event defeats me and favors the party I refused, there is no remedy, I do not reproach myself, I accuse my fortune, not my work: this is not called repentance.” Montaigne undergoes another treatment: he prepares himself first, accommodating himself to the situation of one who does not make his inner self strange or distant from the outer self. With this training, he keeps an eye out. That would be his maximum and possible virtue. Not being able to take the woman away at the right time, then, you will blame her for being more rebellious than you could imagine. In that hour repentance is not worth, but simply the understanding of how much fortune is not tammable. Montaigne makes it very clear that, looking at his life, he notes that he does not know about repentance. Christianity has come to bite once and for all with traditional religions. But the law of love was avenged only as an ideology. It was as ideology that Nietzsche took Christianity. Emerson carried out what Nietzsche also stands as a flag: the struggle against humility. The so-called men of good deed would be none other than those who live for the atonement. They make life a spectacle, not an unfolding called living. They are so following the determinations of “good society” that they are incapable of any spontaneous gesture. For this very reason he pointed out what would be the “idols” in the sense of Bacon, capable of causing great shortages and causing man to succumb. The United States of Emerson possessed a characteristic, until today in force in America, of creating clubs, associations and philanthropic groups on one side and lobbies on the other. Emerson seems to be terrified of this. They were clumps of hypocrites that cut off individual freedom at its root.
That was his observation: American philanthropists who were one, but once in clubs, they became a plague. Emerson has always been at the heart of the American catastrophe movement, the spread of hypocrisy, that is, Lions and Rotary, models from a series of thousands of organizations that would save the world. All these associations always made dinners where they spent more there, in the food, than one could collect for the benefit intended. The conservatives, however, stole from Emerson this idea, and by a mental operation typical of discriminatory thinking (and which later operated with ideas of Nietzsche also bent), they turned against every non-philanthropic club, but of an effective claim of construction of a better world. An opening has been opened for frankness, so his individualism is heteronarcism, because he is cultivated as penetrating and penetrated and consequently as resounding. What, in a way, Nietzsche had also spoken in The Genealogy of Morals about Jewish morality to have overcome (the idea of noble x plebeian). Life in this case is something without hindrance, as did the cynical Diogenes. Because he told Alexander to leave the front of the sun so that his bath could be received. A resentful or stingy would not speak what he said. He extrapolated, squandered, sponsored and donated exhaustion. A kinship between generosity and cynicism. A kinship that culminates in the “ethos of generosity.” It is that Emerson represents both individualistic and democratic ideals. It is American ideals, elevated to the maximum of beauty and dignity. I have seen the essay “Self-confidence” very quickly and Emerson even defends contempt for family obligations, removal from the circle of friends, absence of any duty to Good, to Charity. He is blamed for giving alms to a beggar: “I have no obligation, he says, to remedy the lives of the poor.” “Are they my poor?” I tell you, foolish philanthropist, that I give the dollar, the ten cents, cent for such men who do not belong to me and to whom I do not belong … although I confess with shame that sometimes I succumb and give the dollar, it is a wicked dollar that I will eventually have the virility to refuse. " he interprets things as clubs, associations such as the breaking of individualism into a sort of “good boy” appearance that these people basically want followers and notoriety. The little man Ralph Waldo Emerson, Nietzsche, and Jules Verne were masters at it. Philosophies or stories while nautical reformulation (waters, oceans, horizons, boats, boats, ships, home an infinite, freedom, mountains). In them, the aggressive tones of the early European period of the liberation of boundaries in transatlantic translation reappear. The idea of passengers. In Jules Verne’s case, there is a change in traffic. The universal traveler renounces his documentary profession and becomes a pure passenger. He is a typical customer of a transportation service who pays to make your trip a mere matter of time and not an experience. A hero of punctuality. His only interest in the landscapes and images that travel through him is to cross them. The classic tourist prefers to travel with the windows closed. We have an “airy traveler” who transits through the spaces without fixing in any corner. There is no relationship let’s say “homeland.”
That is why when Zarathustra walks around the city he says that everything got smaller, the houses, the walls, the people, he arrived too soon. If everything fades, it is because a higher perspective has been taken. Zarathustra as Nietzsche’s spokesman has always been on the heights of mountains and walking through forests. It is common in Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883), Nietzsche say: “I build mountains, mountains higher and higher.” There we have mountains on high mountains, nothing more than incredible vertical dynamics and the attempt in this way to make more bearable the prose of modern life which, from these psychic tensions, regains a higher “phatos”. "Whoever one day teaches men to fly, will displace all bounds; the landmarks themselves will fly through the air, and that one will baptize the land again - from “the Light” (NIETZSCHE, 2015, p.183). Without weight or Floating (a kinetic idea, but also of weight loss. Man can achieve higher flights and altitudes in any direction). Free Spirits.
Nietzsche comet (2015, p.145):
I am a wanderer and a mountain climber, said to his heart, I do not like the plains and, it seems that I cannot be long stopped. And whatever happens to me, as a destination and as an experience, there will always be a mountain walk and climb: after all, you only experience yourself. The time was past when accidents could happen to me; and could he still touch me that was no longer mine? He just returns home, returns to me - my own Self, and what of him long ago was abroad, dispersed between things and accidents. And yet one thing I know: now I stand before my last summit, and the one that has been spared me the longest. Oh, I must start my hard way! Oh, I’ve started the most lonely walk! But he who is of my character does not escape at this hour: he who says to him, "Now you are following your path of greatness! Summit and abyss - They have now joined together in one! You follow your path of greatness: it became your last refuge what until then was your last danger! You follow your path of greatness; this must be your greatest courage now: let there be no way behind you! You follow your path of greatness; here no one will steal you! Your own feet have erased the way behind you, and above it is written: Impossibility.
Continues Nietzsche (2015, pp. 199-200):
I trace circles and sacred boundaries around me; less and less men are climbing with me to ever higher heights - I build a mountain range of ever more sacred hills. "But wherever you wish to go up with me, my brethren, take care that a parasite does not go up with you!" Parasite: it is a creeping worm, insinuating, that wants to fatten in your sick and wounded corners. And this is his art, to guess, in the souls that ascend, the points that are tired: in your discouragement and bad mood, your delicate modesty he builds his filthy nest. Where the strong is weak, where the noble is too soft - therein he builds his disgusting nest: the parasite dwells where the great has little wounded corners. What is the highest species of all that exists, and which is the lowest? The parasite is the lowest species; but who is the highest, feeds the largest number of parasites. For the soul that has the longest ladder and can go down deeper: how could one not find the greatest number of parasites? - The widest soul, within which one can most run, err and wander; the most necessary, which for pleasure is precipitated by chance: - the soul that is, and that delve into the becoming-to be; the one who possesses, and wants to launch himself in the will and longing: - the one who flees from herself, who reaches herself in the larger circle; the wiser soul, which reaches itself in the broader circle; the wisest soul, to whom foolishness speaks in the sweetest way: - the most self-lovable, in which all things have their current and countercurrent, their ebb and flow: - oh, as the highest soul would not have the worst parasites?
Are not we talking about mountains like Davos? So how does Thomas Mann in his work the Magical Mountain? A phrase we would only see in the nineteenth century, as the phrase calls Ecce Homo that "I am not a man, I am a dynamite." Something that can only be written in Switzerland so rare that it was, but also because Switzerland was a playing field of individual terrorism, and in Switzerland was the state in which dynamite was used for the first time used for civil purposes in construction of the Saint-Gothard (St. Gotthard) tunnel, one of the marvels of the 19th century. The tunnel proves that humans can not only cross mountains, but also how to pierce them, and no one perforates as well as the Swiss.
SLOTERDIJK, Peter. Spheres I: Bubbles. Translation: José Oscar de Almeida Marques. São Paulo: Estação Liberdade, 2016, p. 21.
NIETZSCHE, Friedrich Willhelm. Thus spoke Zarathustra: A Book For All And For No One. Translation: Paulo César de Sousa. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2015, p. 183.
______ . p. 145.
______ . p. 199-200.
Movie: Netflix - Annihilation (2017).
Movie: Prometheus (2012).
Movie: Alien Covenant (2017).
Lastly, watch a movie today with a beautiful soundtrack that relates to my first post.
The storm could explode
In our eyes
We were hot and in a hurry
The pendulum killed the time
Who of us?
will hold the moment
Lovers fluttering in the wind
Our nights, our drunkenness, our deliriums
For us both
Everything we had promised
Our fights covered the music
Where we were flying the replica
Our tears we betray
Two hearts flying at the edge of the eyes
It was necessary to stop the fire
How can we
Dark look, who are you crying then
In the window the frost melts
And even the memories go away
How the two of us
I resonate, Eduardo, with your insights, and the epic sweep of your references is dazzling. There is a lot to absorb here and I have not the time to go into all of it, but want to express my appreciation for your creative effort. I wish we could move this to a special place so that we could take it in smaller chunks. I like to practice " chunk down and chunk slow." Give a phrase or a paragraph an undivided attention. Unfortunately, my mind space is a bit crammed these days with subliminal messages. So I need to take it slow, to engage a more grounded, relational sense.
Out of all of these references and allusions you have brought forward, what are you most drawn to?
I am especially drawn to your poem.
And the link to the youtube movie didnt work! Can you send the link again?
EDIT: @Douggins repaired the link
And thanks again for initiating the Emerson reading. I’m sorry you weren’t able to attend that Cafe. Maybe there will be a next time. I feel that you are up to something BIG!
What kind of How?
What kind of us?
And whereabouts is two, when the two of us?
Thanks again. I will muse upon this for awhile. And who, I wonder, is drawing the boundary?
I think this very interesting cosmological idea puts everything in motion, so Sloterdijk’s idea of sphere circles and Emerson are pretty cool. If we think of heliocentric movements we are on planets circling the solar system. I think we could see modern societies as vehicles. We should see them as paradoxical vehicles because they were put on the road or in motion before brakes were set up, in other words, the society vehicle can ride at different speeds ahead, and there is no sort of device with which one can slow down travel in a non catastrophic way. Those who accelerate a lot also end up winning gravity. We are condemned to acceleration. This puts us in a position that we always take off with little to the limit of the track. We are now in a situation that (in the end) we can only see a disaster. This is the basic idea of capitalism and globalization. I remember Sloterdijk’s idea of fortune where he puts the image of a spinning wheel. Capitalism is that. We want to spin faster than the planet itself so that the money returns to our pockets.
Looking back to the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in retrospect it is clear that the greatest possible accidents occurred at this time. We could cite the case of Titanic (1912), Apollo 1 (1967), Chernobyl (1986), Zeppelin airship (1937), space shuttle Challenger (1986), World Trade Center (2001) out some others as Ayrton Senna Brazilian pilot died breaking the suspension arm, which came through the visor of the helmet, pierced the skull (1994) in Formula 1 and Michael Schumacher who almost died while skiing. We are in a machine out of control today. The question is: are we going to repeat them? Or if there is a legality by virtue of which past catastrophes are put into reassembled scenes. Throughout the middle of the twentieth century, we have seen sequences of maximum accidents because it makes sense to apply the term “accident” also to wars. We have had the opportunity one time or another to affirm that history is not only made of great men and structures, but history, the basic force that makes history is the accident or the mistake.
In the future, should a climate policy not be seriously considered? Since we have reached a level where we compensate with fines, compensating environmental damages (in the broad sense) with money will not solve anything, or even atmospheric damages-gases. Unfortunately today it is impossible to “act in anticipation” of the Earth. If we fail with it all may cease to exist. Today we are repairing the boat on the high seas in full navigation with it sinking gradually, but without being able to reach a port where it could be carried out repairs these in a totally safe way. We are all condemned to acceleration. Man’s greatest asset in inventing machines is also a danger because the vast majority of accidents can only be “predicted” after they happen.
Sometimes I see people afraid of an Islamization of the West, but much of the bad happened for us in the 18th century. XIX and XX. The real cultural problem lies not in ethnic pluralism, multipolarity or polycentrics, but with all its reflections in local narratives, although these are referred to as nationalistic and nativist. The asymmetry and increasingly deepening of the past and the future within each culture is increasingly visible. The imminent confrontation between traditionalism and futurism. Although this occurs mainly at the periphery of cultural spheres, it can also be observed within the mainstream of each culture. It would be fair to say that the “push for modernization” that leaves a single past behind is the fate of today. This implies that many cultures must understand that, while analyzing a mainly separate past, they will experience a basically common future. This leads to the emergence of a “global situationism” that the inherent traits do not exist, but are shaped by our environment. Which places the only Earth at the forefront as a common place for all cultures.
Mankind exclusively as a backdrop and unlimited resource fund for its historical-cultural projects. It is only possible to think of it and rehearse it by various means of anticipation. The interference of the human being in the history of nature demonstrates that Heidegger’s intuition of conceiving being as time was correct. However, it lacked a deeper element: to know that time is only as conspicuous as time when it becomes difficult for it in its regular course. The first obstacle to the path that the ancients were aware of was the backwardness, which is one of the fundamental forms of the tragedy. Modern humanity is also threatened by backwardness, especially in terms of political and environmental measures. Nevertheless, in general, for the moderns, time as such becomes ostensible above all by accelerations. Acceleration to the extreme limit of the moving lane is the movens of the contemporary apocalyptic feature. It was from this that Heidegger’s brilliant conceptualization of the “being that walks into one’s own death” or “advance to death” was derived. The “being-to-death”. If we read Being and Time not only as an existential ontology, but equally as a modified social psychology of modernity, new perspectives are opened. The nineteenth century focuses its best theoretical energies in the attempt to make thinkable, through great realistic theories, the death of others. Dies becomes “I die”. The great evolutionary projects have extirpated the evil of the mute insofar as it affects others in order to transport it to higher states of later epochs: there are formal equivalences between the idea of evolution and the concept of revolution, the concept of selection , the concept of struggle for life and survival of the fittest, the idea of progress and the myth of the race. By assuming an existentialist shortening with the anticipation of the end. The authentic task of thinking would have to have been consisted in asking why in Modernity, for immanent reasons, the anticipation of a total end is installed. For this it takes a thinking force on the grounds of general acceleration that had driven and placed the way of life of the moderns in the form of absolute advance and absolute acceleration.
We have two climatic catastrophes planned on Earth: the planetary atmosphere and the moral atmosphere. In the 21st century, we will have the emergence of a narrative in which “societies,” states, individuals, communities, and politics will have to keep future generations in mind in considering the idea of respiration, gases, lightning protection, , life systems, renewable energy, etc.
It is not possible today to correct the defects that the earth machine possesses, even those created by us. With machines we can die and then predict or verify where we are wrong (manufacturing defects, materials, designs, maneuvers), but with the Earth it is only possible to think of a new apocalypse today. Thus, a whole science of futurology and risk prevention was born for the prediction of future years and decades ahead. Life insurance, pensions, social security. It is not possible to react to the earth because we are in a machine flying and catching fire. Whoever leaves the earth dies and who stays in it as well. Can not create an eject button. The finiteness of terrestrial resources, in addition to making a critical turn around the state and industry, makes us think that a finite basis can not build an infinite superstructure. Today our life is basically water, oil and electricity.
I think the idea of spherical biology is also quite fascinating. Life seems to have found a way to close itself. Putting the possibility of a closure to open the bubbles. A closed air-conditioned environment to submerge in itself. Another thing that catches my attention is that the scientists thought that life out there in space would be abundant and every day that passes we see that it is increasingly rare. Can evolution have a character of mobility? Nietzsche has a text that speaks briefly about this. Here it would be interesting to return and see that men are not monoelementals. The exit of aquatic animals to the earth, the proto-apes may have direct relation with the formation of the bad conscience. Not being able to quench the old demands that were satisfied in the aquatic environment, these contained instincts have turned into a vortex that is discharged inward, causing pain in each of these new terrestrials (everything in the terrestrial becomes work and effort). Breathing, feeling thirsty and hungry, carrying their own bodies. This leads to internal pain as the pain of guilt, as the central element of man’s evil consciousness or of some ancient ancestor. In the terrestrial environment there is a new element that is the gain of the calculation, measurement of distances, error and correctness, need of calories. From this to the moral field of man, he who measures, and measures himself, throws, answers, evaluates, marks distances, sees himself superior, even the idea of guilt. (loyalty, forgiveness, friendship). The moral man is to some extent a consequence of the Cartesian plan xyz. Those who go to earth need to measure distances, move in space, from points to others. Another important part is the idea of domestication of man. We paid a certain price for that. The rupture of biological birth as a coming-to-the-world act, Sloterdijk believes the human being as creature failed in his animal-being and his animal-being. By failing in this sense, this indeterminate being falls out of its environment and thereby gains the world in the ontological sense. I’m not sure, but man is the only animal that develops psychosis, autism, and the like. This shift between the elements may have severe psychological constitutions. Nihilism (the emptiness) and anti-nihilism (Nietzsche says that man is the only animal that makes promises). To come into the world means to arrive at uncertainty, since for men, more than for all other living beings, the world is something that is neither given nor settled, but which has to be investigated and defined, installed, the own place of arrival is taken unsafe and set in motion by the arrival of man, the animal builder. Today much more we install ourselves (as a world implant-if we think of space travel) than we live in an environment.
I think the idea of spherical biology is also quite fascinating. Life seems to have found a way to close itself. Putting the possibility of a closure to open the bubbles. A closed air-conditioned environment to submerge in itself. Another thing that catches my attention is that the scientists thought that life out there in space would be abundant and every day that passes we see that it is increasingly rare. Can evolution have a character of mobility? Nietzsche has a text that speaks briefly about this. Here it would be interesting to return and see that men are not monoelementals. The exit of aquatic animals to the earth, the proto-apes may have direct relation with the formation of the bad conscience. Not being able to quench the old demands that were satisfied in the aquatic environment, these contained instincts have turned into a vortex that is discharged inward, causing pain in each of these new terrestrials (everything in the terrestrial becomes work and effort). Breathing, feeling thirsty and hungry, carrying their own bodies. This leads to internal pain as the pain of guilt, as the central element of man’s evil consciousness or of some ancient ancestor. In the terrestrial environment there is a new element that is the gain of the calculation, measurement of distances, error and correctness, need of calories. From this to the moral field of man, he who measures, and measures himself, throws, answers, evaluates, marks distances, sees himself superior, even the idea of guilt. (loyalty, forgiveness, friendship). The moral man is to some extent a consequence of the Cartesian plan xyz. Those who go to earth need to measure distances, move in space, from points to others. Another important part is the idea of domestication of man. We paid a certain price for that. The rupture of biological birth as an act of coming-to-world, Nietzsche and I believe that Sloterdijk believe the human being as a creature failed in his animal-being and his animal-being. By failing in this sense, this indeterminate being falls out of its environment and thereby gains the world in the ontological sense. I’m not sure, but man is the only animal that develops psychosis, autism, and the like. Language enables us to be with ourselves. So I changed my view about how language came to man. I always believed it would be for psychic functions, but a self is only possible initially with language. If we were to expect from man a merely psychical self, we would not have language until today.
The acquisition of the self, which comes with language, since the self, is an exclusively linguistic element, before it is anything psychic, can only come with the end of the voice and the functioning of speech. To speak is to have no voice. To speak is to subjectivate as you become desubjective. To speak is to speak the language and, for this very reason, to have no way of expressing any subjective experience pertaining to organic life, to the animal voice, or rather to that voice that is no longer animal voice and which is still nothing human. Language as a cultural construct that it reinserts in speech, in the place of the voice, is something that has a certain exteriority, which makes it to be someone, to stop a self, a subjectivity, at the same time that it loses it. Initially there is no “I want water”, “I’m going to hunt”, so we teach children that the self is you, is the one who speaks. Babies do not say “I want milk,” but “I want milk.” Every time I say “I,” then the subject of my statement, not a non-linguistic subject, is on the move. But of course the use of the “I”, as a particle of language, helps in the appearance of a self that is understood as psychological, or substantial, even metaphysical. But this is an appendix result, not the basics. For always when we say “I,” this is valid as we are subjects of enunciation, conjuncturally linked to a so-called psychological subject only at the moment of enunciation. Thus, desubjectivation occurs where we get rid of experience to acquire only experiences that are experiences of language, not exclusive and proper experiences, is what is the process of subjectivation. If we speak, then language is our voice, and as you speak now, this is ethics, a past knowledge of generations from the oldest to the youngest and has become the basis of all other knowledge and unity of communities.
This shift between the elements may have severe psychological constitutions. Nihilism (the emptiness) and anti-nihilism (Nietzsche says that man is the only animal that makes promises). To come into the world means to arrive at uncertainty, since for men, more than for all other living beings, the world is something that is neither given nor settled, but which has to be investigated and defined, installed, the own place of arrival is taken unsafe and set in motion by the arrival of man, the animal builder. Today much more we install ourselves (as a world implant, if we think of space travel) than we live in an environment.