Where is my time?

Charles was a knight at 1260 he was usual to awake early and get his sword and make exercise during all day, he exercise bother on horse and feet, he was very robust and courage and reckless. He got up on horse and begun the ride. After one mile he seen skyscrapers and cars; he was very astonished, and he seen around and he didn’t understand what he was looking, and he was more astonished because people was looking him and he asked because this interest, he got off the horse and asked a man that was looking at it with fear because he thought that he was publicity alone, but Charles spoken strange words, and he asked: “Who is lord of this feud? Answer plebeian”, but poor man was scared, and Charles drew his sword and menaced man, and again asked: “Who is lord of this feud?”, man didn’t answered with wide eyes, and a voice answered: “I am lord that you are searching”, Charles turned immediately and he looked a lord with armature and long sword, and Charles asked: “Who are you?”, and warrior answered: “Who you are searching, but I no want fight I want that you go on that street, because it isn’t your time”. Charles gone to border of city and he turned back on his horse and he saw no one, but and great dazzling light took him and he was in other space and time, he saw warriors with short sword and beards, they were concentrated in front for others soldiers that were very strange for clothing, they were, may, oriental; improvise Charles felt a hand on the shoulder and he turned back and he saw a man with beard and hair very long and he said: “From 13^th century to 384 before Christ you have run very much”, and Charles didn’t know where and whom see. Because he asked immediately: “Where am I?” and his guide answered in Jerusalem at 1099, Christian army has conquered the city and they have took holy sepulcher, then now Jarusalem is Christian”; Charles saw very much warriors and celebrations for this conquest; he turned back and he saw the sea and he wanted take a dip; and he dived and when he resurfaced he saw around and he seen a great square and a man fixed on door of church two posters with written much rules that Charles red and he asked to a monk: “What is it?” and monk answered: “It’s disaster but God want it I have written it”, and Charles asked: “What time is it?” and other man next him answered: “We are at 1517, and you are out your time, it is better if you look back”, and Charles made it and he saw again his castle and he ridden on the horse and entered to his castle and he got off the horse and entered to lunchroom, where were very much knocking and they were seated around table, one of them asked: “Charles we are waiting young from very much time, where was you?”, and Charles answered: “Around time”. and he looked faces of  his guests, and he recognized the monk, the guide and everybody worriers and he asked: “Are we met?”, and guide answered: “May, but at other time”, and Charles asked to everybody, while he looking them: “Where is my time?” and citizen that he met during his swim in Jerusalem answered: “same our ask”, and he continued: “don’t worry somebody is going to write this history, and somebody, may, is going read it, but these are problems that don’t concern us” and he by contacting the author: “You write and don’t disturb!”

Alessandro Lusana 

 

 

                                       

 

You are…

Life of a secret agent is very hard, and Michael was a secret agent that has been

employed everywhere, and he have to change very often his identity, today he was

George, and tomorrow Richard, after Arthur and other; he did his job with passion

and right spirit; he have made always to serious questions and he did always with other identity. A mission was very dangerous and he was hurt, and he was brought to hospital in European city, he was saved by a very good surgeon; and he with anaesthesia he slept very much, and an image met him during a dream; a woman with a multicolored cloth showed to him and asked: “Excuse me, I am conscience of a man but I don’t who is he, can you aid me?”, and Michael have turned around and asked: “I know identity of very much persons, I know very well presidents and policy men and actors and actresses tycoon and other, but Michael I think that I didn’t know him, who is he?”, and woman answered: “I don’t know, it’s very strange because I am conscience of Michael, but I can’t explain to Michael who is he because I don’t know and I didn’t know him”, and Michael: “If you are my conscience you are who I am!” and woman: “Do you are who are you?”, and Michael answered: “Certainly!” and woman: “Well, who are you?”, and Michael hesitating: “I am…, I am, nobody”, and woman: “No, absolutely, you are somebody because you are nobody, because if you was somebody you would be somebody, but is very important to be nobody because it is very difficult, then you are nobody and very much persons then you are nobody but you have your identity because you are nobody, and you must live because somebody exists because you exist, then you aid millions of persons to be somebody. Compliment.” And woman disappeared immediately.

Alessandro Lusana 

                   

 

 Nobody

Socrates walked on the streets and he looked around because that city, very great was very strange for him; and a policeman watched him and understood that he was foreign he approached and asked: “What’s problem?”, and Socrates: “I haven’t problems because I am nobody, then I can’t have problems or I can have it because I am nobody and then I am somebody”, policeman has got handcuff and he showed to Socrates it and: “Do you want it?”, and Socrates asked: “Do you want arrest Socrates or nobody?”, policeman then called other policeman, while some person was around both, because interested to this scene, they have thought that it was publicity, and in fact somebody has asked: “What is publicity? Are you actor or singer?”, and Socrates: “No I am nobody as Socrates”, and this guy: “I don’t think it, you are nobody and Socrates?”, and Socrates: “Yes, nobody but I am somebody, because I am present and it isn’t if you know me or not, I am somebody not certainly for you, but very much persons has known me, although nobody has known me after 399 a.Ch., in fact if I confess my name somebody that has known me trough my example he is going to think that I am crazy”, and guy: “Then?” and Socrates: “I am nobody for you and very much other, but I am somebody as very much persons that have lived”. Guy has objected: “If you are nobody, you are nobody and stop”, and Socrates: “I am nobody because you don’t know me as very much persons, but if you know me or not I am somebody, because if you think very well this concept, is very difficult to be nobody, because you have an job, you have a personality, you have a think, then you are somebody”, and guy: “Yes but nobody knows me”, and Socrates: “Do you know very much persons” and he has indicated persons around; and guy answered: “No certainly”, and Socrates: “Then they are nobody as you are nobody, but everybody knows somebody”, and guy: “Whom?”, and Socrates: “Himself, then you know yourself, then somebody knows you, and stop”. Socrates looked around among crowd and he has chosen a way and he has gone away.

Alessandro Lusana                   

 

 

Two Frenches consecutive

Although second for time I consider first Anatole France, this is Jacques François Anatole Thibault(1844-1924) as first example of follower of Honoré de Balzac(1799-1850); Anatole catches from Balzac his accurate description around episode and discourses very marginal, and with some  very partial interest, the reader is, may, caught for some moment, but after all disappears for some description very useless around some behaviour that hasn’t importance for romance, this is The red lily; we can consider alone that clear influence of Balzac, I think from Le Père Goriot(1834), is evident, it is sufficient to read romance of Balzac  and all this comment going to find confirmation; all is built around to scenes of real life, but real life of high middle class, as this step: “…the lady Garain, whit the chin bowed, sloped in the peace  of her housewife soul, and she has though to her garden on the hillock of Senna river, when gone musicians for to great hers…”, some lines before argument was the shooting of seventh thousand men; a boring life, certainly, very real life at Belle Époque, that Balzac caught with very spirit and he translated to Human comedy; then we can consider this romance as a following of Comedy of Balzac, because characters that we find are too adherent to reality, that boring reality of Balzac, and his charatcters.

Alessandro Lusana       

                 

 

 

Semiotic suggestions

Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814) has been a German philosopher that at 1794 written a pamphlet with title Doctrine of science, and he explained some concept very important for a discipline that, after, is officially is named as semiotics, this is study about sign and mean of sign, sign that we, her, must consider with all means, this is it isn’t alone means of language but all signs; this is about a written romance, this is style, style of painting and then his author, that in art critical is attribution, style of architectural building to search name of architect, or about medicine all sign of symptoms, daily weather we can preview a thunderstorm or muggy. This concept we can find, but alone for language in book of Fernand de Saussure (1853-1913), that adopted this concept for language, but he remarked also mean of language and signifying, this is what is mean about a text; an expression that can assumes some mean or other mean in determined contest, then to change all mean of a discourse if we rapport this word to a context. Importance of word and his mean is suggested also by Fichte; a step of Doctrine of science he says: “Nothing proposition is possible without content or without form…it must be certain immediately and for itself; and this means that, except that the content determines his form and reciprocally his content; this form agrees to content and this content agrees to content”, and other step says: “In the proposition The gold is a matter, that we know something is gold and matter…This is an affirmative proposition and this relation is his form…this first principle of Doctrine of science must have form and contest…this must be certain immediately and to itself, and this must means that the his context determines his form, and form the context…This form agrees alone to this context”; these words seem absolutely obvious, but these are ground of semiotic think, because a context is rationally reportable to a form alone; then a word in a text is reportable to a context alone, but if we change context same word is different, then his semiotic valour is changed, then the form and context change every content, but this is semiotic.

Alessandro Lusana

       

 

Satanic epicurism

 Reading of satanic bible, we can know the Epicurism think, this is a very assumption of dictates that we can find in Epicure Letter around felicity or letter to Meneceus that Epicure started with these words: “Never we are too young or old to know felicity, during all ages is very well that we work for our soul”. Furthermore, he has said: “The goods are, it’s evident, but they aren’t in opinion of common people that wrong always around them”. These steps of Epicure’s letter are very resembling with dictates of satanic bible that says, except existence of God, that felicity for man is to get pleasure and he says: “The wise as he dislike to live he doesn’t fear death…as foods he gets alone better, and he doesn’t choses quantity but alone quality”. Furthermore, he says: “We must remember that all future isn’t our, but it isn’t all not ours. So we can think that it doesn’t happens and we disliked for contrary”. So far, we have considered Epicure, and I am going not to mention satanic bible, but some step is very interesting for some concept that this book expresses; in fact satanical bible says that man is natural creature, then he must follows alone his natural needs, and he must live with satisfaction of these needs, but he is independent from all religion, in fact satanic religion is, if we want consider it with religious meaning, as an atheist bible, because all text is around freedom of man and around satisfaction of his natural habit, food, sex and other; we can notice, during reading, that in satanical creed neither God neither Satan are present as deities, in fact author, this is Anton La Vey, says that man must live alone for independent life, and if he want can makes something otherwise not; he denies common opinions around satanical creed, and other. It’s seems common opinion of Epicure around divinities, that we have seen before, and felicity and future depend by our directly, as La Vey says around satisfaction and our future that we can get now with our work, but without think to future punishment or other that can distract ous to our life that must be like and independent. Epicure says: “The strong knowledge of our desire let that we can chose for our body and our soul, because it’s duty of happy life, and we address every work to it”, same concept that we read in the satanical bible. Feurbach (1804-1072) a German philosopher is present in this book because satanical bible denies every deities, and in fact Feuerbach is mentioned on the step: “God didn’t man but man didn’t God”. 

Alessandro Lusana 

   

 

 

Past and future

A man was arrested by policemen and brought him to police department, he seen around and, above all he seen cloth of policemen and other persons, he seen policemen, junkies, pusher and other; but he seen whit much interest. Policeman brought him to interview room, and he seen with very much black astonishment a policeman, and this policeman was astonish because it seems that this arrested didn’t see a black. Inspector given some questions: “Are you from?” and arrested answered: “Sparta”, and inspector tough that this city was in Tennessee, and he asked again: “Where do you live?”, and arrested answered: “To my home to Sparta”, and he continuously seen around, then inspector: “Hi mate, you all right?”, and arrested: “This is strange town, where are we here?”, and inspector: “You are in police department, and we are policemen”, and arrested: “Are you Spartited?”, inspector seen other policeman and: “What’s your name?” and arrested: “Leonidas, king of Sparta”. Inspector seen astonish policeman and he commented: “He is crazy”, and inspector, that known same historical data, continued others questions: “When are you king of Sparta?” and arrested: “From 490 to 480, and my father was  Anassandrida”, and inspector: “Do you have fought at Thermopiles, and you are died there”, and Leonidas: “I am here and don’t seem myself died”, and inspector: “Can you tell history of fight of Thermopiles”, and Leonidas: “Yes, I can. Magistia seer told that we are going to die after, and I have sent back very much men, and I have made it because I seen to their eyes very fear; but I have kept warriors of Taspia; Persians came forward and we came versus to us, and we came for a wide gorge, and Persians came versus and very much men and warriors died, and two brothers of Xerxes died”, then he got up and opened the door, and inspector asked: “Where are you going”, and Leonidas: “To future, instead you are in the past”, Leonidas got out from district, and inspector followed him, but when he was out door, he seen an army with swords and shields, he seen them and asked: “Where am I? And a soldier approached to him answered: “Thermopylae, and we want you order Leonidas”.

Alessandro Lusana     

                                                                     

 

 

Difficulty of nothing

This concept has got much times and as much thought\; I follow think of Plato swears that nothing is no be, and it is very true, also Gorgias said that no be is an entity; in fact also no be is an name and rational concept, for example: we must consider that nothing is against all or everything, but all exists, with common exception, because there is also nothing, good is present against evil, believer is against atheist, and other; then every concept has one contrary, and to be is philosophical entity also no be, but also no be is entity because it has one nature, a character, then is present, therefore is to be then it is an entity. Johannes Scotus Eriugena(815-877a.Ch.) thinks that nothing is God because he superior every essence then he we can’t consider as essence. Plotinus(205-270a.Ch.) thinks that nothing is the matter, because hasn’t soul, think and life, to Hegel(1770-1831) in every matter and other is present both to and nothing, this is positive and negative also to matter. These think about nothing perorates that nothing is existent, then it is not nothing, but it is entity, both real and philosophical; but where is and where do we can nothing; this is, can we find nothing to everything or no? Can we find nothing to everywhere or no? Other question, how do we consider nothing? I think that nothing is present but with very strong limits; because our think to nothing is or universal, God is nothing, in the opinion of Scotus or is with matter, in the opinion of Hegel; I think that nothing is very difficult to demonstrate because it is very limited, this is to everything is present matter, soul and life, also if it seems very absent, to tree we can’t see life, but it is present; then think nothing is difficult, because absence of matter isn’t nothing; for example, air isn’t matter but it is present, therefore it is present then is essence. In fact we can consider that Plato thinks that isn’t absolutely nothing, but absence of something that is nothing, shadow as absence of light, but he didn’t solve problem, because we can find all but no certainly nothing; then we can consider nothing as philosophical concept, but di difficult to demonstrate.

Alessandro Lusana

 

Revolutionary Hegel

This essay relates about Hegel and his young written about religion, where is present a very much important and evident influence of France revolution, and, above all, a lack of a government in Germany during these years. Hegel scolds Christian religion because it has deprived men of liberty and independence, and because it has positive character; but positive we must consider that, in conformity with hegelian meaning it is authoritarian power, that imposes his orders and his morality; this is perfect, certainly, but Hegel falls when he considers that pagan religion was very freedom, pity Hegel has forgotten that Socrates was condemned to capital sentence for alleged atheism. Therefore Hegel scolds also that instruction the state has given to religious institution, this central point of will of state of Hegel, the state must get instruction for every citizen, then this is a principle ground of France revolution; and other sign of this revolutionary spirit is in representation of miss that, in conformity with hegelian opinion, has scanned social classes between rich and poor. Other fall is in celebration of choice of leader during ancient age; but historical election of an imperator in Rome never was, and tyrannies, this is leader, neither is in Athena, people had has power, from 508-507 before Christ, with Cleisthenes when democracy allowed to people of vote for policy of Athena, but religion in this contest not was, on contrary state, or city state, as Athena and other of ancient Greek, could impose their law for religion presence, but religion of ancient Greek was pagan; then this judge of Hegel has alone arose by enthusiastic revolutionary spirit, and since during those years also religion has considered ground of monarchic power that, in opinion of France revolutionary, has deprived liberty to men, then Hegel, evidently, has considered religion motive for impose to men his law. But Hegel never condemns the state of Germany, if men haven’t liberty the state deprives it, and not certainly religion, but Hegel not could consider the state for motive of deprivation of liberty because in Germany, then, a central government and a state not were, then religion was only motive for consider deprivation of liberty.

Alessandro Lusana 

     

        

 

Praise of nothing

This essay about a north European writer, this is Knut Hamsung(1859-1952), that I think unknown to readers, and I invite them to read his tales, because he got all style of English literature, this is the modest action and the nothing history; during read of his tales is very difficult to find a history, but in return they see very much nature; some precisely about wood and field are very argument for distraction, because this read is very boring and some to every sales. Every work descripted is common and devoid of continuity, this seems a description of daily action and this tales are a diary alone, an example that I have got from The son of sun, a tales: “To night its snowed. He has thought how much birds are going to be cold in the wood, where the violets are very wrong on the field, before that they are dying” this is an examples alone but is very important because all tales is so; nothing is never motive for interest. I know that somebody could comment why to read this tales, I answer, because this literature document is a perfect example about you do not write a romance or tales. A romance has an action and storyline, some connection with habit but, above all, with storyline because the reader can understand what is motive of romance or tale; landscape and other very less important are literature gimmicks for a momentary distraction, or for continuity of action; but now for Hamsun are present and without action, without protagonist, dialogues and nonsense, but returning very much boredom. Therefore these tales are necessary for to understand way about don’t write a romance.

Alessandro Lusana

 

The whip of writers

The literary whip was a paper of literary criticism, built and wrote by Giuseppe Marco Antonio Baretti(1719-1789), and this paper was very famous for tones very strong and offensive; in fact author wrote judgement very offensive against books and Italian writers; he despises contemporary poetry of a society called Arcadia, for ancient Greek land, and we can consider that verses of poems of these poetry are very poor, and he considered them poetaster, and we can’t consider that he was right. But often emerge also personal motive, so some attack to poetry and playwright as Carlo Goldoni, a prolific Italian playwright of 18^th century, that wrote 200 comedies, and he has had also praise of Voltaire, that wrote a letter to Goldoni and he called himself as more great admirer in France; but very and very rightly Baretti asked how it is possible to admire a Italian comedy if the admirer not knows Italian language; anyway Baretti criticizes characters of some comedy, but he takes alone some inaccuracy, and stop, he sees alone errors, Goldoni is sometime is boring, very boring, but these critic motives are very poor, because he take alone some image and not all comedy. I think that he wanted alone fame and success that he tried to obtain with these strong judges, and he was also, I repeat, also offensive, but some verse of his poem, was as much poor and boring. Somebody would comment that is necessary to see first owner qualities and after to consider other, then Christ talked: “Why you see the straw in eyes of your brother and not see beam in your eyes?”. Therefore Baretti is boring when he is polemic, this is always, because he critics all and everybody but after he does not give nothing that merits very praise. Baretti is a critic, offensive, polemic and may useless.

Alessandro Lusana