Material hieratic; national portrait AndyWarhol

We know or can know Andy Warhol(1928-1987) a contemporary artist that has interpreted the American tradition with an originality and I think borrowing from Italian art, where is come much times among 1975-1987; I think that he has took the ideal hieratism of painter of Italy during centuries; it is possible that he has consecrated the daily use of normal objects as saints, as in Italian art, instead the worship of a saint of Christ of Virgin, the public can worship the can of tomatoes or a actor or actress of cinema, hence the Marilyn Monroe is perfect(Fig.1), as Elvis Presley(Figs.2-3), and Warhol used the silkscreen, a consecration of human star, thereupon the holy images now, in American society, are the stars, sanctification of human gender, that hasn’t Renaissance conception, but alone a portrait of American people, that has scant history and therefore scant tradition, hence could project yourself alone toward the future, because the tradition certainly is motive of pride but is always also a weight; the desacralization of saint, and the national habit that is presented to the public as sacred object; it is certainly not polemical nature, but alone a portrait of American society that is accustomed to common object, thereupon it is the consecrated image of a society that has traditional conception of use; Warhol has consecrated the common use of materials, as the cloths(Fig.4); and the love for Naples, Italy, shown to an eruption of Vesuvius, in 79 a. Ch.(Fig.5), that was a tragic event causing the 10 thousand died, but Warhol has took suggest, certainly during one visit in Naples, for painter the personal eruption(Fig.2), that is dress down for colors that bring happiness, it is evidently is the wit of Warhol, that after the consecration of material object, he has dressed down the dramatic event; therefore also this episode is tragic we can join about and celebrate as an common object; it is impossible! It is the comment; but the Vesuvius is always there, and we consider it as a common object whereby we can took and interpreted it as motive both tragic historical but also an object that we can look with other wit; as the cans of tomatoes(Fig.6), that are common object that can be consecrated, because in evolved society the can is used and thrown, Warhol consecrated this object because it is in a society daily use, thereby he given importance to common objects, that as stars or other we can consider as an artistic object, without worship but with consideration that it merits. It is the celebration of consumerism, a portrait today of much societies.

Alessandro Lusana               

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

 

Renaissance: the generational evolution

I do not want turn to literary Renaissance or artistic, because we have read thousands of books and essays about this matters, and nothing is new that we can consider or remember the last book about figurative Renaissance is Rebirths of Panofsky(1892-1968), that is the attests the medieval origin of Renaissance, regard to figurative arts, in sculpture above all. The literature about this cultural movement is concentrated above all about the development to literature, that is true, at last in Italy, of reuse of ancient literature, beyond the language, the Latin, that was natural, then, to culture men and very much monks and priests, in Roman curia it was the official language, and in Jesuitical order until 50 years ago the official language was the Latin, also in the daily life. A question yet never treated, the ask is: “Why the literature first and after the art?”, because the Roman and Greek art, or classic sculpture was present in Rome, above all, therefore this discrepancy could not be, but it there is, why? The first motive is merely material, this is the manuscripts copied in librarians, because the librarians there were and were kept, although attended very scant persons, these held much manuscripts, among the Roman poetries and Roman historic men; the humanistic culture was kept above all in convents and aristocratic families, where was taught the Latin language, and thereupon the transmission of literature was very easy, hence the Renaissance is birth thank the classical culture? No certainly, because during the Renaissance the Latin was spook as the Middle age, but because in arts is so late the rebirth? Simple because the figurative canon, beginning from the costumers, doesn’t want it, because they didn’t recognized each other to imagine that has had a different style; the faithful recognizes each other to an imagine if it corresponds to his culture, and the imagine must be equal to his expectation, to a Muslim of Lutheran pray in front of image is unthinkable because they are aniconic, the protestant church or mosques are without imagines; the painting art, in Italy, has development with Giotto(1267-1337), in sculpture with Nicola Pisano(1220-1284); when Giotto frescoed the superior basilica of Assisi, Italy, principal Franciscan church, and the costumers accepted these new style, it is meaningful because the costumers has changed the preference, because the medieval word was changed, and together also the men, that now accepted will the change, also regard the imagines, because it didn’t scare, also if different from usually canon; thereby Giotto was a man whose generation felt the change and translated it in painting, as Dante Alighieri(1265-1321), contemporary of Giotto has brought this change to poetry; therefore the Renaissance is born in Middle age, and it is normal, but is born from Giotto and Dante generation, why? Because the think and the rationality was changed, it was a silent revolution, and generational, this is the tradition was by now past, thereby we must go ahead; proof of this think is the frescos of Giotto that are again where was frescoed and the Divine Comedy, after seventh centuries we read. The Renaissance has been a generational development, this is evolution of with.

Alessandro Lusana          

 

         

 

Raffaello Borghini a Trimalchio of Renaissance

Scant frequent is presence of Satyricon, a Roman romance with a dinner very luxurious, carried out in rich villa of Trimalchion, a cortigian of imperator Nero, during the 1 century after Christ, in city of Capua, in Italy; Raffaello Borghini(1537-1588) written his Riposo, a description, very boring and useless, but that has took the source from the Satyricon, where the luxurious is principal argument, that the author, this is Trimalchio show off during all the romance, some step: “The usual megalomany, in the painting Trimalchio has made painted a ideal triumph, the principal steps of his life and his social growth, from slave to rich freedman, he is painted with caduceus with snakes, usually attributed to Mercury, god of commerce, and accompanied by Minerva, goddess of intelligence and cunning. The fates are three Clotho Lachesis and Atropos symbols of destiny…”; this luxurious villa is as to the pleasant panorama that we can read in the Riposo, a dialogue carried out in a Rinaissance villa in Tuscany whose owner is called the Vecchietto: “ to it much cypresses around bushy grass, that seems almost black for blooms painted…”and the synthetic description of painters of chapel: “…is set the chapel in are painted the Ascension of Christ and the Apostles, and on the vault some angels very beautiful of Francesco Pagani(notices from 1502 to 1548) that if the death didn’t remover to word so soon , he is going to be painter very excellent”, we must also consider that this dialogue is set in Tuscany Renaissance, therefore the artistic culture is predominant, in fact, the description of some rooms of a mister Ridolfo, description of this artistic works is predominant: “In the first beyond the thousand heads, hands and legs, and torsos, and other fragments of statues, whose the wells are full, and models of horses and other animals, and we can see the Night, Aurora, and other figures Michelangelo’s(1475-1564), that are in sacristy of church of Saint Lorenz, and same greatness, of chalk created through the great diligence…the second(room) has much things of ancient marble, some painters of very beautiful towns of Flanders, a model  of Apostle of Sansovino(Francesco Sansovino, 1486-1570, a Florentine sculptor and architect) and a great drawing of Michelangelo…”; these descriptions, absolutely imaginative, although took from real examples. But also Borghini failed in this book because he attributed to Michelangelo a sculpture that the sculptor has never sculpted, and an painting work in the Secret room of Francesco de Medici(1541-1587), Borghini hints to a sculpture that Michelangelo could not sculptured because died. The source of this book is Satyricon though in modern version; we can think the Riposo as a cultural vacancy of rich lords of Florence, that pass the time among the nature, painters and sculptures, therefore art both natural and artificial, as the lords of Renaissance past the days of rest in their villas; it is certainly a description of art works, but is also a document of life during 16^th century.

Alessandro Lusana  

    

 

Philosophical obviousness: Rousseau's Emile 

The read of “Emile or about the education” of Rousseau is more disappointing than he social contract and other, because it is treated about the education but alone with obviousness: “Since the education is an art is almost impossible that it is manages to his duty, because the successful of this duty isn’t dependent form somebody. Whole that we can make is alone near the sake to reach it…it is the habit of plant, whose we device the right direction. The free plant keeps the inclination that we have given to its, but the its nature hasn’t change the prime direction, and if the plant continues its growth the its extension become again vertical…”; I want notice observe that it is natural, and stop. This concept expressed to mankind is alone competition of obviousness: “The same occurs regard to inclination of men. Until the man is in same state he can keeps those that are from habit and that aren’t scant natural; but when the context is mutated, the habit falls and the natural returns…”; we can consider this example as speculative philosophy, whole founder is Aristotle, in conformity of opinion of Hegel; but Aristotle written his books around the 5^th century b. Ch., during the 18^th century are necessary more speculative concepts, more deep, less superficial, to explain the superficial consideration of Rousseau is necessary a today example: when we go out from a gala party, for example and we have turned home, where the freedom of language and behavior are predominant, hence we can make everything freely, we use the familiar conducts, and we take again natural our habit; a Italian writer, Luigi Pirandello(1867-1936), written a maxim of human nature, under form of warning: “Remember that for your life you are going to meet much masks and scant faces”; this is you are going to meet much false behaviors and very short sincere persons; it is the obvious, but this expression, very synthetic, is a poetical representation of human kind; this is when we are gone out from gala party, the context is changed, thereupon we leave the mask of polite, of grief, to unpleasant occasions, and we turn to be that we has always been. Rousseau after educes we poor mortal through one exemplar issue: “We born sensible, and from our birth we are impressed from objects around us. When we have the awareness of our sensations, we become incline to search or ovoid the object pleasant or unpleasant, after to convenience and inconvenience…”; other philosophical maxim that we haven’t though, fortunately the Rousseau had explained it! But Emile we must read because we must become that the great exponent of Enlightenment are bearer of the obviousness.Beyond the conceptual errors, for example: “…we must choose between make a man or citizen, because we can’t make both one and other”; yes we can actually we must make both the man and the citizen, and it is possible. Every partial society, strictly unite and concord, is alien from great society. Every patriot is indifferent to strangers, and these aren’t men but nothing to his eyes…”; it is normal also during daily life, to our family, when the door of our home is closed nobody and nothing can interest us. Other step: “The good social institutions are the principal factor of denaturalize the man because it removes the his absolute existence and give a relative, to transfer the I in common unity…”; this step is important because I think that Nietzsche(1844-1900) has took this step to his theory about the Superman. The other error of Rousseau that has took some historical man, as Plutarch but he failed, because he tells: “Attilio Regolo pretended to be Carthaginian because he was propriety of his patrons, and he refused seat in Roman Senate because he was stranger, was necessary that a Carthaginian citizen allowed it…”; he before to come to Rome Carthage ordered to him that he must reach the peace otherwise he is going to kill when he was turned to Carthage;    Regolo come to Rome and during the first Punic war(b.Ch. 264-241), he solicited the Roman Senate don’t accept the peace of Carthage, and turned to enemy city and faced the cruel death.

 Alessandro Lusana   

   

 

 

Stylistic semiotics

When we read a book and we don’t know the author we, also unconsciously, search the author in our mind, among the records, because we want satisfy the curiosity about this doubt, who is the writer? To historical men of art, who is the painter, the architect, the sculptor or artisan that has made it? It is natural, because the writer, artist, actor has a owner style and from it he doesn’t not prescind, because in this dramatic manifestation, dramatic from ancient Greek δρἇμα, this action, therefore the actor playing his interpretation he makes the action, the painter makes the action, the sculptor same and the architect has other δρἇμα, this is the intellective because he must find the form and satisfy need of costumer, but every artist follows inevitably his nature, his culture, his experience; thereupon to us is easy identify an artist, when we experienced and we have known the style of an artist. To historical art men it is natural because he search in his memory the imagines that can be corresponding to the painting the he is looking; he sees the style that is composed with the sign, the application of color, the graphic style to drawings, where he find the characteristic of author. But also unconsciously the artist or whomsoever gives his style, but what is the style? It is a characteristic that whomsoever lavishes it to whatsoever he makes; and in this work we can find, to semiotic level, his culture, experience and exercise, that is the style. To Michelangelo we can identify him to his characteristic, the translated sculpture to painting, in Sistine chapel; Melville’s(1819-1891), we can identify the style to richness, lyric and deep, the style of Frank Lloyd Wright(1867-1959), to his organic union to nature, Francesco Borromini’s(1599-1667) we can recognize for his dramatic conception of space. We slavish our style also when speak to somebody, hence we can become disagreeable to him or sympathetic to other, because same characteristic somebody has found to us; in fact the waiters must be kindle to everybody, because this is canon the usually is fit to everybody, but differences are also to context, because in an episode that needs of action, therefore we can or we become disagreeable because the context want it; thereby we change our style, and our politeness and we use the arrogance or frankness; this is we can change our style every time, every moment, every day, but a characteristic, whatsoever is always present and give information to extern of our nature; therefore we are recognizable always.

Alessandro Lusana             

 

The pilosophical hypocrisy

It isn’t a polemical essay but must say that I don’t bear the hypocrisy and incoherence, because I see for the first a false simulation, for second the opportunism that, is justified, when the it interest the national interest, to personal interest you must work to your interest without include the nation therefore the common interest, and stop. The man is always equal during the history, thereupon in 18^th century also hypocrisy was present, everywhere and incoherence was equal and when these faults become the philosophy it is alone the modern hypocrisy because it want see alone that is noble. Jean Jacques Rousseau(1712-1778), born Switzerland, was certainly a preromantic author but his importance is comparable to his incoherence and some error that is very important; in his Discourse on the sciences and arts, he said: “The French got rich of these spoils(Roman culture). Very soon the sciences followed the letters”, but truly is contrary, because the science in Egypt anticipated the letters, And. “…to art of write joined the art of think…”, but if a man doesn’t thinks a man doesn’t writes…and it feels the vantage of merchant of muses, that of become the men more sociable and like one to other…”; this is the pure fantasy, because the man lives in the word, this is in the earth and no certainly in the word of ideas of Plato where all is perfect. Other step: “The with has his needs as the body. These are fundaments of society, those are ornament. While the govern and the laws provide to security and wealth of men joined…”; it is exactly, but the hypocrisy and the fault in logic essence is that the govern and the security is a works purely human…; therefore these laws and security: “suffocate in the man the sentiment of original freedom to they are born…”. These  are opinions of Rousseau, but I think and I pretend coherence, this is, if in civil Geneva, where is civility, and you think that the civil word is give the chains you can go away, or you didn’t think never because in this chained you live more well? The secret answer would be: “Certainly I live well in my Geneva”, and somebody could answer: “Why do you tell these bullshit?”, we are waiting an answer, that neither Rousseau neither his following to us will give never. But we must also consider the historical and moral context of this discourse worth of an today radical chic, because the moral, to Rousseau was compliant, ordered this behavior, and further Rousseau lived in Geneva, this is Switzerland, where the austerity and simple life was prevailing,  , and I must add that Rousseau has judged his opinion in Latin language: “Barbarus hic ego sum quia non intelligor illis”, this is: “I am barbarian since I don’t I understand them”, but we can add this suggestion, this is: “If you are against this word and this prison”.

Alessandro Lusana          

  

 

                                                          Mythological evolution

During the read of Philosophy of art of Friedrich Schelling(1775-1854), the references to mythology are very frequent, and the read certainly is impassion but left the emotive character of this lecture, after takes the pace of rational considerations, the first is the Greek have took from reality and they, during the centuries, have transformed these real habits to mythological nature; but we can also think that they were aware that the time from far time was pasted, and we can deduce it from The theogony of Esiod; in fact he regard the birth of Titans describes: “But after she(Gea, the earth) met to Uranus(the sky), she gives birth to Ceo, the titan of intellect, this is ancestor of Athena, born from brain of Jupiter and goddess of intelligence; and it is the certain proof of this think, because if a minor god of intelligence is, why contrive other divinity? Simple, two explications we can give, the first is because the titans are all prisoners in Tartars, this is the reign of death, that in Christian era become the hell; but evidently the Ceo has been the union between physical strong and the intelligence, instead the Athena is alone the intelligence; hence the predominance of rationality and intellectual acumen the Greek were conscious, that the evolution from ancient time there had been. Athena is goddess of intelligence alone, instead  the physical strong is Hercules. Creos other titan that managed the harmony among the stars, but we must consider a characteristic of this titan, it is the old age; in fact he is one of older, and it is very meaningful, because the old age is bond, also in ancient time, to wisdom, and he, I repeat, managed the movements of dance of stars; this is an important duty and to this responsibility is necessary the wisdom. The other titan is Hyperion, titan that has duty of managed the light of sun, that after the evolution is become the Apollo. Other titan is Iapetus the is identified as grandfather of mankind because he has had two sons Prometheus and Epimetheus, the first has generated the men and the second has managed the evolution of men; but we can consider that after the flood wanted from Zeus, and extinction of mankind; it is a record of original sin of Hebrew Genesis, although that creation of mankind was present also in Assyrian mythology, very much far from Genesis of Holy Bible. The Rhea a woman titan, or titanide, the is considered the mother of goods, the first Jupiter, that she hided to hers husband Kronos, in human nature this is the time, that after was chained from Zeus after the war between the gods and titans; it is alone the human representation of time that is stopped, therefore the gods are deathless, other titanide was Themis, the first wife of Zeus, she managed the order and justice, that after was put besides from Dike, hers daughter, that is evolution of Themis , and finally the Mnemosyne, mother of nine Muses, this is arts. These very cold listing, is important because represents the selection of duties, that are noblest and that after has guaranteed the evolution, regard to law, to arts, to wisdom of Greek people; thereby we can think that the selection among the wicked titans and good titans has represented the evolution of customs of Greek civility, and therefore the past is icastically represented from the wicked titans, the past is of hell titans but the evolution is to new gods side by side to god titans.

Alessandro Lusana  

  

                   

 Determination is sake: interchangeable semiotic

When we are making something we have very clear the motive because we are busing, it is simply normal, hence nothing to understand, but we never have though the difference from determination and the sake, that formally are different, but alone to form because in essence are same, it is the absolute spirit of Hegel(1770-1831) and Schelling(1775-1854), but in this union this concept and distinction is nearer to Hegel, because, in absolute spirit of Hegel is all, include the contrary, and this concept is bonded to particular, this is the pragmatic reality, hence real isn’t the absolute spirit. The politic sake of Luther is determined from a will of German Church, the sake was the determination, that we can invert this is the sake is determination, the action would be the same; a teacher explains easily some concept so that his students can understand, the sake is to understand to students; thereby the sake is determination or determination is sake. The semiotic science for this aid us because it allow to think the same mean in different words, bur through this science we can homologate these words; in fact if we consider that the determination is the will of something, when we decide that something is to carry out it is the sake. The sake is action to something, hence it is motive or cause, thereupon the determination, because action is determined by the sake, and the sake is the first factor to action. The action is practical or intellectual; in mathematical science to reach something above all to financial mathematic, is necessary that the intellectual action is right; other example, during a dispute that is in tribunal or on television or other town, we must use the logic to reach the region, rational region and consideration, also momentary, to reach the region moves us to set right arguments; it is the interchangeable is the valor semiotic of this action, because the reach of region is the determination, that become the sake, if we search something the sake is same of determination, that is cause. The destruction of city of Troy, during 1000 before Ch., has had the determination, hence the sake, of richness of trades, the actions, and it is plural, because Troy was destroyed nine times; and to this example, we find two sake and two determinations, one was the richness of trade to Greek but other is same sake, this is the gain from Troy, that made pay the toll to every merchant nave that passed near to Troy; the action is the reconstruction of Troy for nine times, and the sake of Greek was the destruction of Troy; thereby the determination is sake, because cause of destruction was the toll, and the reconstruction was the same toll; these words are perfectly specular to their meaningful, and these actually are interchangeable; this is the valor of semiotic science is also, think the same word apparently different but in particular contest are in mean equal.  

Alessandro Lusana             

  

 

Philosophical source: Schelling to Hegel

The first issue I must give some dates that is useful to rational definition of concept that I want express in this essay: Friedrich Schelling(1775-1854), given the lessons about the philosophy of art during years 1802-1803 in Jena University, Germany, and some step is important to understand the influence to Hegel: “God is immediately, for his idea, absolute all. In fact from idea of God follows immediately the infinitive…since God, because infinite affirmation of herself, he includes again herself…and infinitely as indifference of twice”; this affirmation is alone philosophical and very difficult to understand; but it is very simple, because if we consider the universe, that is infinite, it includes in herself the planets, and nature of word, the light of sun and the dark the TrES-2b, the planet darker today; but also the sun and the last planet quoted are twice in universe, if universe was a man when he think the dark or light he would refer alone to sun and to TrES-2b, that are includes in herself; hence he would think alone herself always, because he has everything; other step explain this concept synthetically: “…this is God self, considered in infinitely affirmation of herself, it is=absolute all.” The absolute in opinion of Schelling isn’t free: “It isn’t free, since the freedom is based of relative opposition and on relative unity of possibility and of reality, but in absolute twice are the one thing”; we must understand well this abstract concept; the concepts of reality and possibility are founded on possibility, because if something is possible we can make it otherwise no, thereupon we could have impediments; for example the law, that forbidden the illegal actions, but it is limitation, beneficial imposition certainly, but to philosophy it is limitation, because the all is invalidated, the absolutely liberty isn’t. This concept is expressed, almost equal, but almost, because some is difference, from Hegel during his lessons about the Aesthetics, that he made from year 1820 to 1829. These lessons are the acme of think of Hegel because he speaks about the absolute spirit that penetrates in art production and has made the artist work; this concept of absolute spirit, he has took from Schelling, because the lessons of Friedrich on the Philosophy of art were partial published, certainly not every lessons but Hegel has certainly read these lessons or he has informed or directly from Schelling, because they were colleagues or has read; anyway this concept of spirit is come from Schelling, whose evidently Hegel has felt the influence to his lessons on Aesthetic, and I mention Schelling because other philosopher as Baumgarten(1714-1762), because isn’t nothing bond. In fact Hegel tells about the absolute spirit alone in this lessons, because after the read or grasp of information from Schilling he has carried out the lessons about the aesthetic.

Alessandro Lusana  

 

 

The national religion: Mormon

The religious belief is personal alone, and it determined from familiar education, psychological conditions of everybody, and other, but the belief to a national religion is particular, and during the read of Book of Mormon we can understand that Joseph Smith(1805-1844), considered the prophet from the Mormons confession, I think that he has had alone the think of found an American religion, some step of Holy Bible, Smith said that he has found the tables of the new confession on 22th  September 1827, but the divine messenger, or angel, given these tables of an hill: “Near of village of Manchester, county of Ontario, in New York state”; this gift is happened in USA, it indicative to a national intention. The steps of Ancient Testament are present also during following tale, because: “When it knows that I have the tables, it much attempts to steal it”, this is contemporary version of Moses that destroyed the tables of laws when he has seen the idolatry of people; this is the contemporary version of sin of Moses. The Sodom and Gomorra has inspired the tale of Lehi and his family, when Lot escapes from Sodom with his wife and daughters: “The God warned Lehi of walk away from Jerusalem, because he prophesizes to people regard their iniquity…he travelled for three days in the desert”; it is contemporary version of Biblical Exodus and the three days of travel is the eco of Resurrection of Christ. The tale of Lot followed to inspired: “It happen that my father to Lehi being go out, he prayed  the God, so whole his heart, favor his people…”; it is the lot that meet the angels of God in Holy Bible. The fire column of Biblical Exodus is source to this step: “It happen that while he was praying the God a fire column and it laid itself in front of him, and he seen and heard very things, and to things that he seen and heard, he trembled…”, it is destruction of Sodom and Gomorra. The Apocalypse of John has inspired this step: “He seen a guy the gone down from sky and he seen that his sheen was superior than sun in half day…”, and the Apostles are the twelfth that gone down from sky with the first vision. The Sodom and Gomorra pursued their presence because the step following: “So and very things read my father regard to Jerusalem: that it is going to destroy with its citizens. The tables of law, of Moses are used to this step: “But I am going to make the tale of my actions and my days. So I make a summary of history of summary of my father on table that I have made through my hands. The source of this tale is Holy Bible, but the sake is alone the birth of national Church, this is a American Church, because the German, through Luther has their, the Muslims has their, the Anglican has their, hence also the American has their. Smith has been the American prophet more than a prophet.This step is proof of all affirmed: “…you obey  to my orders, you are going to be prosper and you are going to be conducted  to a promised ; yes a land that I have prepared to you…”; it is easy imagine that this land is American land. Other step: “Since you will obey to my orders, you are going to be to govern and teacher to your brothers” this is Joseph Smith seen herself as teacher of faithful Mormons.; and the break of alliance between God and men through the break of law tables, is repeated here: “Since, in day they are going to be rebel against me I will curse them. The chapter 3 a dream is tool to a revelation, it is from Genesis, when Jacob seen in his dream a staircase until to paradise, and Lehi, and his brothers, that got up to Jerusalem is a took directly from the staircase and angels that got up and got down, and Jerusalem of the Holy Bible is USA. The violence that Laman and Lemuel used against their minor brothers is took from passion of Christ, humiliations and pains that he has borne. The angel that is shown to these major brothers is took from Gospel of Matthew, when the angel informed Joseph that the persecutor of Christ child are died, and the same angel said to Joseph that he must go back to land of Jerusalem, as the Laban. The progeny that is mentioned in this step: “Since your progeny is going to obey to my orders and it will be prosper in the land of promised”, this step is directly from promise to Abraham from God, but in religious context this land is USA and the progeny is Mormons. The decapitation of Laban: “I obeyed to voice of Spirit and I took Laban to hairs, and I decapitated him with his sword”, this is took from Judith and Holofernes. The treasure of Nefi is same of Gospel of March regard to offer of widow. The biblical  Exodus, when the Jewish compelled to Moses: “In Egypt lack may the tombs, because you have leaded us to die in desert?...”.Again the USA with hide name of premised land in same chapter: “But I have reached a land promised”; and from Gospel of Matthew and March he has took two episodes when Christ said regard the hardness of heart, and Smith used it: “here you are my major brothers and why are you so heard to your heart and so blind to your brain…”; and the step when Nefi seen a great house lived from men and women, this step is directly from ark that Nai has built, The Gospel of Matthew when Christ is carried on the temple and the evil aske that he goes down, this the step from this episode: “I was kidnapped in the God’s Spirit, so on the highest mountain that I haven’t never seen after…”. The moral judgement is expressed in this step: “I looked and I seen the whore of whole word and she seat on much waters and she has domain on whole word, among nations, tribes and languages and peoples…”; hence these tribes, peoples and nations are every nations and peoples that aren’t Mormons, it is very partial judgement and very scant Christian, and the church that he seen is comparable to other religions and religions, it is very nationalist think; and proof of this interpretation is in following step: “And occurred  that I seen that the great mother of abominations herded multitudes on the word, among the nations of Gentiles to fight against the son of God”; an historical step, although alone hint: “ …that I seen that the angry of God was poured church great and abominable so that were wars and rumors”, it is the wars of religion that were fought in Europe during the 17^th century, and the wars in Islam to officially to religion questions among Sunnis and Shia.

Alessandro Lusana

 

 

 

Two masters to one century: Schelling

During the read of Philosophy of art of Friedrich Schelling(1775-1854), are manifest two masters of Greek philosophy this is Plato(b.Ch. 428-348) and Aristotle(b.Ch.384-322), but beginning the analyses of two addresses that Schelling followed, I want quote a step of this book that is reality, differently from other steps: “Albrecht Dürer with Raphael, Cervantes and Calderon together Shakespeare. This era is happily  and purely productive is past, takes the place of reflection and to her the universal scission: that there was the living wit, now is tradition. This mention is valid as absolute and real character of history, because that now is present to future generations is going to be alone tradition. But elements very Platonic and Aristotelian together are present in other steps: “Now the philosophy is manifest alone in the totality of every potencies. But the universe is to absolute represented  in totality of every ideal determinations. God and universe are a thing alone”; this is every thing is contained in universe, it is real, because the word together milliards of other planets is in universe; therefore as the word is contained also the single stone, home, man and all, this explication easier to explication of this concept that can seems very difficult. Other step clarifies regard strictly philosophical sense. “In absolute idea, that is principal of philosophy, identity and totality go back to be a unique thing”; he repeats same concept, everything is one alone; we must understand this abstract concept through real examples: when we look a table, because we want furnish our home, we choose the furniture, and we look as table, I repeat, and we look intensely because we want be sure of this choice, thereupon we search the motive to buy this table; when we look the table, to material we look the table, but ideally we are looking the nature that has given the tree necessary to wood, therefore the nature, because the tree is in nature, but the nature include the all tree, the animals, the rain, the rivers and stone and other, hence we are looking that all the nature, the spontaneous comment is why not men? Because man is secondary regard time, because the joiner represent the artisan but, ideally, the mankind that, now, is distinct from the tree, although the man lives in nature as the tree; this distinction, that to table are necessary, this is the quality of wood and the artisan to Shelling are potencies, but both the man and the tree are elements of all, this is the nature, the word, the universe, this is God, (to avoid these philosophical problems the next time that you must choose also an ashtray, I can advise you; send other). Other step: “In philosophy isn’t absolutely other except the absolute, this the absolute one…hence is clear that can’t exist the particular philosophies and neither the particular philosophical sciences…In the general philosophy every single power is to its absolutely, but is this to its is part of all   ”; it is the concept that we have seen above, the single that is part of all. Its is the Platonism, because in opinion of Plato in the word of ideas everything was contained, and the reality is alone the imperfect reflex of this word of ideas, but emerges from this description also the bond very strict to idealism of 19^th century, but different from Hegel(1770-1831), because idealism of Schelling is philosophical alone, and abstract, instead, although philosophical is more concrete; anyway beyond Plato is also Aristotle because the philosophy that contains all is also the think of think Aristotle’s, that in Hegel is absolute spirit, because in think of philosopher of Stagira everything is in think of think; fro this concept Hegel took the absolute spirit. But in Schelling two thinks are present from his idealism, and he follows both to a think that can be interesting but not certainly original.

Alessandro Lusana               

 

Half platonic: the drawing

The don’t give attention to daily behavior that we use, among the translation of a ideal to reality, that is normal, but we can think that this gesture has a source that we can call as Platonic, because is the translation of an idea or think in reality; when we leave a quite to somebody or to ourselves, we stopped an idea, a think and an opinion, that is an idea; this translation is necessary to remember something, it is normal, certainly, but this process come from ideal conception, and it is translated to reality, hence it is the platonic process; a writer writes an idea to a romance or a tale, and he immediately stopped it with a quite or short description; it is the half-platonic nature, because half of think is on the reality, because we have written, but half, usually the whole think, is in brain, thereupon ideal again; half-platonic nature. Same intellectual process is equal to the artist, that when has costumer, hence commission, he must stopped that ideal, certainly half ideal think, that he develops to whole project, but the costumer that has scant fantasy can’t imagine the painting or sculpture or build, thereupon he needs of a graphical project, and for painting a pictorial sketch, that is always the half-platonic translation; it is usually was accomplished to a description and count of cost of colors and, in formal rapport, also to a contract. Regard the artist the quite is necessary to Francesco Melzi(1491-1570), pupil of Leonardo da Vinci(1452-1519), that picket the quite of Leonard and after he printed the About painting;, but to origin it was very much quite of Leonardo, that he written immediately from impressions from painting, that he seen. The pictorial translation is similar, or equal; the artist is likewise half-platonic process, because when he has seen something, he keeps it in memory, concept likewise Platonic, and after through he translates it in reality, Annibale Carracci to Farnese gallery in Rome(Figs.1-4), is graphical explain of this process; naturally these drawings has been necessary to costumer, this is the cardinal Edward Farnese(1573-1626), to consider the figures and the cost. Same calculous the July 2th(1443-1513), pope, made to Michelangelo(1475-1564) to the painting on vault of Sistine chapel; the drawing of Michelangelo are very relevant(Figs.5-8); the technology has certainly aided the man, today we have the computers, but the process is same, and we, every day, on paper or computer we use same method; hence time passes but the criterion is same; it is the course and recourse of Vincenzo Vico(1668-1744), that has told about the same habit of men during the centuries and constant repetition of history.

Alessandro Lusana  

    

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

         

 

Pragmatic theologian Luther

The read of 95 thesis of Martin Luther(1483-1546), written in 1517 and affixed to door of church of castle to Wittenberg, without his knowledge, it amazing to their nearness to Catholicism; it is could absurd, because Luther is founder of Protestantism, but we must consider that he was a Augustinian monk and in convent he studied theologian, hence the Catholic believe was in him very much and during writing of these thesis he was Catholic; but we must read some steps very contradictory: number 2: “The pain is so until is continue the depreciate of himself(this is the very interior penance) this is until we are going to go in the reign of heaven”, the Catholicism said same but more moderate, but the confession is the repentance, but during confession the faithful must repentance, and he must confess every sin, and alone after the repentance the priest gives the absolution. But if we consider the theological practice, and abolition of confession it is a pragmatic valuation, this is Luther allowed to protestant every sin; without a confessor you could make every sin, after your death you are going confess to God, certainly, but the faithful lives on the earth and now; thereupon it is very pragmatic way to major liberty; it today is normal but in 1517 it was very strange. Number 5 The pope will not  can pardon sin except these ordered from precise bond fro him or canonical right”, it is very surprising, because the pope and the Church make it from centuries. Number 6: “The pope can’t pardon nothing sin if he not declares that it is given from God, or condemns these guilt that alone to him are reserved…”; it is normal costume of Church during 1517-1518 and from centuries. The seven thesis is acme of laughing because is palmar contradictory, but after we can understand because  this contradiction: “God not pardon the guilt for nobody without that he is subjected, and deeply humiliated to priest, his vicar”; it is very right, but the vicar of God is priest and clergy; without the confession that Luther clergy and the mess that Luther has deleted the faithful has his sins always, on stead the priest asks the repentance. The number 8 is same: “The canonical penance the Church hasn’t ordered the penance to dying, contrary has given the saint oil to pardon of sins, thereby it absolves and not condemns. The vicar of thesis seven isn’t the priest, but the prince, or princes, it is means that Luther just has though that the princes could helped this Reform; in fact some years after the thesis, he although accepted the protest of peasantries to excess of tax, he asked the submission to orders of princes, why? Because they are helping the Reform. Luther as Calvin to his thesis played between two field, one papal and other reformist while he attended the develop of events; the princes took profit and he become a convinced reformer; therefore the politic guaranteed the Reform, as the politic guaranteed the Catholic reform.10.“The priest that give the penitence to dying that they are going to expiate to purgatory, they work very bad”; a priest give alone the pardon of sins to dying and no certainly the penitence, because alone God is going to judge, and no the priest that is a man. Number 12. Once it ordered the satisfaction of penitence not after but before the absolution, it was a true proof of contrition”; today is same, before the confession and after the absolution.17. The Protestantism doesn’t believes the purgatory…”; but we must consider that in this time Luther was Catholic again, hence he is speaking as Catholic. “Number 18. It isn’t appears not where in holy Gospel that the soul can’t grows his merit”; when the soul has gone to paradise, nothing merit can grows his merit and thereby because he arrived to Paradise and the climb the corporate ladder isn’t to Paradise; but we can think that the Protestanism hasn’t the canonical priests, but pastors that must gain faithful, and for this carrier is; and we can consider that Luther has had just though to his Reform when he has written these thesis, or rather when he was Catholic. Number 19. Neither it appears that they are sure of their beatitude, although we are very certain”; the last judgement is alone of God, thereupon we can’t sure that a soul is beat. Number 20. “For this the pope, with remission of every sin, he doesn’t thinks every blame but alone those that he has ordered”; it is normal, because the pope is human, and he can pardon the human sins, God, after the death, is going to give his judgement. Number 21. “They mistake the preachers of indulgences, tell that to indulgences of pope the man is freedom from every penitence”, it is true; but among these preachers was also a guy with name Martin Luther, that 10 days before of affixation of these thesis he was preaching in favor of indulgence; therefore he should written that he was one monk favorable to indulgence, but this particular isn’t. Number 22. Actually to Purgatory souls the pope doesn’t give other penitence, that they should expire during their life”; alone God can grow the penitence and not certainly the pope. We can consider these errors of Luther as ignorance, but it isn’t, because the hide truth is that Luther wanted an religious  independence from Rome, thereupon the theologian was very less present. The adherence of Luther to Gospel is principal motive to argue to Rome, because in the reality both religious and political more things must change, but it is necessary to Luther to creation of a politic state in Germany, and hence to exclude the Roman power; the words of saint Paul: “Although I was free, I become servant of everybody”, the comment of Luther: “The Christian is completely free, he is lord od everything, he isn’t subject to nobody”; it is can seems alone an interpretation of saint Paul, but it hide something more relevant, this is in Germany you are going free, above all the tax or indulgences, this is motive to protest against the indulgences; but when the tax has ordered from some German prince it is more bearable, because these princes are German; further the Protestantsm foresees the predestination, this almost a salvation, thereby more salvific than Christianism; but this theological solution why? Simple because who is adherent to Protestantism and is German automatically he is going to save; naturally it isn’t not declared, also because very much peoples in Europe would be excluded; and the marketed distinction from Catholicism is the absence of well works to Protestant; Christ said about the well works as consequence of interior light of Holy Spirit, but absence of well works in Luther because predominant is alone the interior light is contradictory in theologian concept, but no certainly in politic think of Luther, why? Because to work to other state as Rome is useless, instead you, Protestant faithful must work to a German state, alone so the tax and work is bearable, because these tax are going to be in Germany alone. The words of saint Paul(Letter to Corinthians 9-20): “I become the slave to gain the major number; and I become Jew to J, to who are subjected to law as I was under the law instead I am not so, and who is without law I become almost without law…”; it is alone a step of Gospel, hence without importance; but we must consider the politic sake of Luther, and interpreted so all is clear, because, the uniformity of behavior to different person and religion or communities, guarantees the diffusion of Protestantism, and the following words of same Paul: “You have not duties toward somebody except love one together”; we can object that is normal in Christian religion, and protestant are Christian, thereupon nothing of relevant, yes certainly but if this step is though politically we can understand that this step of saint Paul is very useful to Luther to his sake, because also you are Protestant or Catholic you are before German, and it is important. These words of Gospel are used by Luther and in politic translated sense we can interpret other way and we can arrive to truth; the step of Matthew(5,17) is a  political declaration of Luther but under the Gospel step: “You don’t believe that I am here to abolish the law or Prophets: I am here not to abolish but to complete them…”, and other step: “If you want fulfill the law as it demands, you must make it: you must believe to Christ, to him are promised to you grace, justification, peace, freedom, and if you believe you are going to have everything, otherwise nothing”, it is other step of Gospel, but interpreted with hide political sense, we can translated it so: If you believe to the German state you are going to have everything, peace, freedom(above all from the Catholic Church). Other step but not evangelic, but from a book of Luther(The freedom of Christian), are meaningful to the politic sense: “Since these words of God are saint words, true, right, free, peaceful and full of goodness, occurs that the souls that adhere with faith indestructible, it is absorbed until the first moment and so it takes part…”; it is enough substitute the God with State and the political read is fulfilled; and the following step pursues the precedent sense: “If the simple touch of Christ healed, so this spiritual penetration of word of God is going to communicate to soul every its virtues. So the soul is justified, sanctified, peaceful, freed, to alone the faithful, without the works, thank to word of God, and it is filled of every goodness and become daughter of God”, same think above expressed; it is enough that God become the State. The Evangelical step is in John(1-12) “He given the power of become son of God to who believe to his name”; this is to who believe in the State. The step of Paul(letter to Corinthian 4,1): “The man is going to consider us as ministers and manages of mysteries of God”. This division of duties has originated, today to show of richness and power and so fearful dominion, as the laics were different from Christian…”; it is rational think, but in effect is other, and we can understand because Luther has abolished that priest figure, and has laicized the religious figures; the priests in fact has had a  power, of suggestion above all rather than politic, thereupon with secularization of every citizen, the State has power on everybody. Always saint Paul is used to other step: “Apostle Paul, in fact, says that we work with hands fro give to whom needs he could say “because so we feed ourselves”, but he has said, so that we can give to whom needs. Thereupon it is Christian have cure of our body, and keeping it to health, so that we can work, and we can produce to others…” it is seems the true Christian message, but it is alone a message to peasants that, as occurred in years 1524-1525, were rebels to lords to tax too, in meridional Germany; evidently he has foreseen some rebellion or some riot, and he searched stopped it with a religion justification; the riots occurred alike; but important was give a religious justification to creation of a State, and: “…but to humility, anybody consider other superior, and he don’t will his interest, but cure that other…”; it is mere utopian but Luther aware of it thinks that the other interest is those of lords. On other step of Luther is justification of predestination that God has given: “So the Christian that is satisfied from faith is happy to divine condition that God has given to him…”; mere issue of human law that become divine so that nothing was modified, above all the politic power, through we can understand it? Simple Luther could solicit the owners of lands, after the riots, to give major economic income to peasants, because also the owners are men, but he made the contrary, why? Because they guarantee the Reform, I repeat. The contradiction is manifest in other step: “The free Christian, in fact, will say so: “I will fast, pray I will make it and other because it is ordered by men, not certainly because it is going to be useful to me, but because it is I obey to pope, to bishop, and community, to my superior or my near, and I will offer an example, and as Christ made suffering to me…”; it is evident that Luther consider in this step the humanity of faithful, of bishop, of pope; but these are Catholic clergy, and distinct and distant from reform confession, thereby that is always a pope and a bishop, hence obey to them is adherence to Catholic Church. In 1519, after two years posting of 95 rules, Luther written the About Babylonian imprisonment of the Church, that he begun so: “I want of not will I am constrict become every day more sapient…Two years ago I written about the indulgences in my 95 thesis, but I treated this argument with way that today I am not satisfy, then in fact I was adherent to an idea deeply mistake because diffused from tyrannical power of Rome, for this I considered that the indulgences we don’t must refuse all, that I seen accepted through very much consent…but after thank the benefic aid of Sylvester and the monks that has defensed it, I understood that are alone the cheating of worshippers of Rome…”; it we can interpret as alone a compel of a protestant, but we can pick two motives of this compel and judgement, the first is that by now the Reform was diffused, also in conscience of German people, therefore this consideration were become common, and the second is that German State being born, thereupon the fair to the 95 thesis was not, the step, that I repeat because important: “Then, in fact I was adherent to an idea deeply mistake…”; it is meaningful because also Luther was faired from suggestion of Roman power; but evidently in 1519 the Reform was very wide and the Catholic Church didn’t scare. Regard to the Catholic answers to 95 thesis Luther mentioned two religious, one Italian from Modena and other German, nothing of interesting certainly, bur reading the judgement that Luther given twice the difference is to the adjectives, that are ironical certainly, but to Italian he said that the monk didn’t write his name instead the German he said: “The monk of Leipzig, instead, as is opportune to a proud German has listed the titles, life, sanctity, doctrine and his glory…”; ironical certainly, but the names used from Luther are much and positive; we can consider that this judgement hides the contempt to Rome, certainly but it is comparable to proud that Luther has expressed to German religious; why? Because the process of union Germany was active. Regard to mess Luther was right to a side but other he is contradict herself, nay he denies it, because he said: “The first thing we must refuse the Gospel of John because it didn’t hide to neither a syllabi to this sacrament, and not only that because it not was issued…”, the words: “but not only that”, this lack is because this sacrament then was not, it is enough; an example if we to a miracle were transfer during Middle Age, and while we going in to a house we ask the electrical light, the owner looks us with stupor, because the electrical light in Middle Age was not, and the owner would ask to us what is the electrical light, it is normal because I can’t use the phone during the Renaissance, 15^th and 16^th centuries, if the phone was patented by Anthony Meucci in 1871; I think that isn’t necessary a great intelligence to understand that if something not exists it is impossible use. Other historical contradiction: “We fake that I am in front of to papist lords and I give this question: in the dinner of Lord, the complete sacrament, this is two species, he has given alone the priests or to laic? If it has had alone the priests, in their opinion, therefore it we can given to laic”; the first is that the Church has never deny the sacrament of two natures, to laic, the Church allowed from 12^th century, and during the last dinner the priests weren’t, because the Church not was founded; hence it is alone a fake justification to issue a German religion to a German State. During the last dinner Christ has said: “Accipite and manducate ex hoc omnes: hoc est enim cerpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur. Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi et eterni testament”, Take it and eat it, this is my body, that to us is to you given. Take it and drink it, this is calix of my blood to new and eternal alliance”; thereby the sacramental under two species has had issued from Christ.  During the last dinner Christ has said: “Accipite and manducate ex hoc omnes: hoc est enim cerpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur. Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi et eterni testament”, Take it and eat it, this is my body, that to us is to you given. Take it and drink it, this is calix of my blood to new and eternal alliance”; thereby the sacramental under two species has had issued from Christ. Further proof that the discourse of Luther is alone politic, is the following step: “If somebody is to call heretic or schismatic, it aren’t certainly the Bohemians and neither the Greeks, that founded their religion, but heretics are you in Rome…”, the comment is natural and it tells: “it is normal because capital of Catholic religion is Rome”, certainly, but during the 1520, also the French, Spanish, British, Ireland, Holland and Europe was catholic, why alone Rome? Because Rome was capital of Catholic power. A note very remarkable of freedom on religion is in a step: “…nobody has fear of to be chargeable of heresy if he believes that on altar is true wine and true braid, he knows, instead, the he has freedom, without danger to his soul, of think and believe one or other thing, because here isn’t bond to faith…”; it is very commendable, for time of Luther, and we must stress it, but the political motive is distinguish the Reform from Catholic Church, and no certainly theological think; and this freedom is alone formal, because during 16^th and 17^th centuries the capital condemns to witchcraft were very much, although the freedom was a formal conquest of Reform, but evidently the popular religion wanted his corpses, and these were both in Catholic and Protestant Germany; therefore the freedom of Luther is alone propaganda to Reform. The last note, the difference between catholic and Anglican certainly is in the theologian field but the liturgy is almost same, why? Because the British union during the 16^th century the Union of Reign of British was, therefore unite something that yet was united was useless.

Alessandro Lusana