Infantile conformity

The conformity is the true infantile form of expression of human gender, why? Simple, because if we remind when the elementary schools, the masters usually during the visits in some town, were usual order to us the order and the keep the line, because the responsibility was their; but this think is similar to the conformity, because the people that follows the fashion or habit, because everybody makes it, is infantilism; the will of emulation of the men is infantilism, the child will be equal to other always, hence to be equal is the infantilism of man, that until the infantile age is natural, but after it is the sign of infantilism and lack of personality; it is the principal problem, the lack of personality, that is comparable to the water, every form of container is the form of water, a bottle gives the form to water, and the mode or custom gives the form to men, why? Simple because the following are lacking of personality, therefore they haven’t a capacity of imposition to themselves, and it is the lacking of think and interior strong; we can consider that also the soldiers are always equal, whereby also they are lacking of personality, instead not, why? Simple: because they are dress equal and they make the same thing, but the difference is in the duty that they have; because the obey and the make the same things is their duty; they have a precise duty, and from it they can’t leave something, because they are soldiers, and the monks or religious that can’t leave something from his believe, and the soldier has the same interior rigor, or at last they should have it. The conformity is also infantilism because after that the man has followed a custom, and the people follows other for to be fashionable everybody follows that custom, because everybody makes it;  this is lacking of personality, that gives the sureness because it is equal to other, hence it is following the people, that is an element of sureness; the genius is born when he makes something that is different; Galileo Galilei(1564-1642) has used the magnifying lens in other way and he has found the satellites of Jove, and the surface of moon isn’t smooth and other; he has followed his method; and it is the problem, this is to find a method that is our, because we can find it, why? Because everyman has his personality, and we can tie our method to it, because we must find a method that is fit to our personality, and this search, allows the our growth, because we can know better ourselves, because we refuse and accept something, therefore we must analyze ourselves, and so we can know ourselves, through this chooses, and we can begin to build our personality, through the knowledge of ourselves, and we can begin to remove the idea that is dominant, this is the following other; but we must also consider that it isn’t sufficient, because we must refuse the mute orders, this is the conformity, and search our taste and our preference, our way.

Alessandro Lusana               

 

 The ancestor of Cathars

The first need is identify the Cathars, the heretical movement between 12th and 14th century in Europe, that has distinguished two principles the good and the bad, this is the material and the spiritual, and furthermore they refused the Catholic Church and its Sacraments, and they, the unique Sacrament was the baptism that they called the “consolamentum”, this is the imposition of the hands that was the baptism; they diffused in south France, in north Italy and in Byzantine empire; the refusal of Sacraments and of the Church has, certainly, determined the persecution from the Catholic Church, more than the refusal of richness, because centuries after the Donatist the Franciscan orders refused the richness, and the Franciscan order are again the ecclesiastic order; but the Cathars were the example that not obeyed to the Church, hence they were dangerous; this refusal of money and of the richness is comparable to the Dolcinian, that were above all violent against the rich members of Church, instead the Cathars and Donatist aren’t it; but I want identify the rigor of this sect that during the 4^th century in north Africa has had great success, the Donatist believed that the Sacraments that had from the “lapsi”, from the Latin “lapsus” this is the decayed, this is the religious that has denied the Christian faith for to save their life; and the common interest is present, because during 4^th century was the life, but now was the sacraments, inasmuch the motive for existence of the Church, same thing that centuries after will make Martin Luther(1483-1546), that deleted the sacraments and the miss; and the Donatist held that the Church is composed alone from the saints, this is alone who has given the heroic example of faith can be member of the Church; it is the same rigor and severity of Cathars, and their refusal of money, but they have had also some habit that we can mistake to the original Catholic Church, but it isn’t because the similar way for the baptism, this is the immersion in the water, but it wasn’t a motive for the polemic; in fact the Saint Optatus of Milevi(4^th century a.Ch.), the major adversary to the Donatist was perfectly in agreement to the Donatist, and in fact he was agreement for the maintaining of faith, but the repetition of this Sacrament was the motive for the polemic, and Optatus has mentioned the Paul Apostle that has said: “…there is one alone Lord, one alone faith and one alone baptism…”; hence the secondo baptism is absolutely useless and heretic; but the with or opinion of Donatists was similar to Cathars for their severity, and they were Manichaen, from Mani(a.Ch. 216-277), the dualism that in Donatist was toward the baptism, instead for the Cathars was the material and immaterial, but the difference is alone for this, that is substantial, but in different times, when these are other questions, but the same rigor of Cathars.

Alessandro Lusana

         

                 

 

 Daily semiotic of Peirce: haecceity

 This concept of Charles Sanders Peirce(1839-1914)that is the essence in common words, and that he has took from Duns Scoto(1265-1308), a Scottish philosopher, that has theorized, rightly, thwe essence of everything, and he has called this essence as “haecceity”, form Latin heac, this is this thing; that for Peirce is the nature of everything, single considered, and it is the particular of the thing; one example od Peirce: “A whistling locomotive passes at high speed close beside me. As it passes the note of the whistle is suddenly lowered from a well-understood cause. I perceive the whistle, if you will. I have, at any rate, a sensation of it. But I cannot be said to have a sensation of the change of note. I have a sensation of the lower note. But the cognition of the change is of a more intellectual kind. That I experience rather than perceive. It is [the] special field of experience to acquaint us with

events, with changes of perception. Now that which particularly characterizes sudden changes or perception is a shock. [ . . . ] It is more particularly to changes and contrasts of perception that we apply the word “experience”. The Peirce description is very easy because it is common, and daily; hence the “haecceity”, is very frequent, above all for the human gender; because this “haecceity” considers the characteristic of everything; and we can make it also to the human gender; not alone for the something but for the human being; that it is absolutely true, because we can consider the characteristic of somebody, and to identify him through the his character, that is always his characteristic, as something has its character, therefore the “haecceity” is, for first, human, and our great gift is that we can identify these characteristics, both for the everything and for everybody; for Peirce after it is also the principal motive for the identification of something, and we can use this semiotic for the human gender; the difference is in the differentiation of characters and the men: the whistling that Peirce has mentioned is a character that we can use for the men, because we can identify a locomotive for the whistling, and we can identify a white or black for the color of skin, or better we can identify a German citizen for the language, that is always a sound; whereby we can use this concept of Scoto and after of Peirce for the human being. The human has his character, also national character, both for the language and for the characteristics, that are essential in the man, because the national character emerges also before of personal characteristic, through the language and for the reaction in face of some consideration; from this considerations the reaction, that Peirce consider element fundamental of “haecceity”; it is one of the elements, that distinguishes the thing, and the man is same, but in the human gender it is more evident, because we can offend a wall for years but the reaction isn’t, instead for the men it is, hence the reaction is more evident.

Alessandro Lusana   

 

           

 

 Human semiotic

When we meet somebody, never we think that he can give to us information, but not alone verbal but physical, how? Simple the cloth is  the first  thing and we can consider  t6he social level that he is going from, that is more clear than other by the language, because it is alone the slang he is very low class from; but if we know him from much time we can understand if he has improved  or he is the same; hence if in past used alone  the slang, and now he is same, he not improved never; we can understand  that the environment  that he has attended, if it is low, and also it can give to us the information, why? Simple he hasn’t the will of improvement  therefore his baseness for him is good, because in that level he doesn’t  behave one self, hence he avoid these social levels; if he has told about great successes  but he looks other point and tells something he is lying, or he is a schizophrenic, inasmuch he translated the think in reality; thence we have two hypothesis , the first is that  he lying because he fells the shame for his level or he is a schizophrenic , and other the lie we can also understand that his weakness. Other sign of weakness  is in the cry of somebody: when somebody cloud something he isn’t convinced of something and he is searching the sureness in other persons, when somebody is convinced  of something must not cry because the sureness  of his opinion he can attests ever. Who instead look intently the eyes of somebody he is sure and strong and not always but often says the truth. In history some example  of weakness is evident ; Celestin 5^th pope, a weak that after 5 months dismissal, why a weak so? Simple a weak chief enables of govern from the basin, that nobody look. This exam must lead us to consider that also the body can gives information. Also the reaction to an judge that we have expressed toward some nation gives the information, as the social class, the reaction is motive for to know and consider the character of somebody; it is the human semiotic, that we can and in fact we use always for somebody, the reaction also if it is hide something emerges always, because an offence can be accepted or not, a truth regard a nation can be also accepted because true, but the sequent reaction is manifest sign that of this offence nothing has been accepted, and the reaction, that Charles Sanders Peirce(1839-1914) has called from Duns Scoto “haecceity”, this is the nature and characteristic that makes the nature of somebody or something; and the reaction is the true nature of this character, and the reaction is the clearer manifestation of this “haecceity”.      

Alessandro Lusana    

 The tell of experience: Hobbes

We can also judge that is very easy to be a speculative philosopher because is sufficient take the reality and describe it in some page as Thomas Hobbes(1588-1679), that has took the English society and he has described the citizen through the philosophical ideal? Not certainly but alone for description that I want translated in this step of his book the Cive, this citizen, where more that to describe the citizen he describes the man: “These are the true delight of meeting to we participate for our nature, this is from the feels innate for nature, until we are touched from a damn or advise that solicite our attention…”; and the speculative nature of this book is in the following words: “(and for somebody a similar done can also occurs never)…If occurs in fact of tell, saying, some episode, and somebody teels his memory, everybody speak about themselves, if somebody tell a wonderful made, everybody tells the done more wonderful, and if they haven’t it they invent it…”; it is the description of human gender that Hobbes, evidently has studied very well, and he has seen, also during the meeting. But Hobbes has certainly participated to the philosophical meeting, whose he describes the human typology: “Finally for to speck about who is convinced that he know more than other, if is a philosophical meeting, very much are members, and very much are who want command, and very much who want the title of master, and my hypothesis is right because a word alone of Hobbes in following step is important: “In short, it is clear for experience for who considers deeply the human thing, that every spontaneous association of men is born from the reciprocal need or from the desire of satisfy owner ambition, therefore who participate hope that something can take…”; it is the human analysis of Hobbes above the human gender, but this analysis is determined from the experience, as we have above read. Hobbes continues: “The same conclusion we can reach if we think on the same definition of will, good, honor, useful. In fact every social tie is tied for free will, important is see the sake of this will…Everything after can seems good, determined to us a pleasure, and so it takes or the body or soul. Every pleasure of soul or is the vanity or presumption…”; this synthetic description is necessary to describe the nature of this book that is, as the other political treatise of Hobbes, the Leviathan, is a description of man but in the English context. The pitiless description continues: “Then every social pact is stipulated or for utility of ambition, this is for to owner love, and not certainly for to love of other…”; this is the description of human gender, that is valid for the time of Hobbes as today.

Alessandro Lusana

 The Aristotelian Pierce: the phaneroscopy

Charles Sanders Peirce(1839-1914)was the principal and unique founder of Semiotic, because has explained the valor of semiotic and his method, but the semiotic is a exercise that every day we can make, because a publicity is a the promotion of a product and we habited to it, by now not notice never, but we can recognize it because we have known the code necessary to identify it, hence our attention by now is very scant; but Peirce has deepened more and he has though three categories for to regular interpretation of this discipline, this is the semiotic: the Firstness this is the quality that is independent from everything and considered as the potential, for example: the red color and the sensations that it determined without to consider that this color belong to an object; hence the color for its alone; the Secondness: a reaction, the reality the direct reaction between two elements, this is an action and a reaction, the perception of a rumor that is improvise to the head. The Thirdness, this is the mediation between the Firstness and Secondness, this is the exact meaning that we can give to something, the word wall and the concept of danger for the collision; inasmuch the secondary thinks that are the motive for the identify the everything; after the read it can seems very original and certainly if not be original it is important, because it given to the semiotic other tools for the interpretation of everything, and through the tools also the method, and we must consider it, although obvious, as a tool for the interpretation; but the origin of this method is very ancient, because it is from the Categories of  Aristotle(b.Ch. 384-322), because the Aristotle, has, involuntary, descripted the semiotic in the Categories in ancient Greek κατηγορία, for Aristotle the principal genders of reality and language; hence he express also his think, hence it is become the semiotic, this is the Secondness of Peirce. I have already written about the semiotic of Aristotle, precisely the Aristotelian semiotic, and reaffirm this concept, through the new categories of Peirce, that are the speculative and real evolution of the think of Aristotle; but in this think we can also identify a track of Platonism, this is in the Firstness, this is the essence of something, that is in conformity with opinion of Platoon is the essence of horse, this is the essence that is deeply rooted in the nature of thing, animal or man; in the Firstness it is the red color that we have seen, independently from other characteristic, it is the essence, and Peirce, rightly, identify the Firstness to the essence, as Aristotle said about the essence, in ancient Greek ουσια, that is the more important of then categories; certainly Aristotle has took this concept from Platoon, and Peirce has took the categories and the idea of semiotic from the Aristotle, and he has developed through other adds, but the original concept of semiotic is in categories of Aristotle.

Alessandro Lusana 

 

          

 

 The idea: limitation of the sensible real

The concept of idea to day is automatically rapport to a find more or less frequent and original, the word idea is from ancient Greek ἱδέα, that is imagine of something; but imagine can be real or abstract, and this last version is the idealism, and it is the abstract imagine usually political, that after in history become the real and changes his nature from the begin idea or image; Platoon(b.Ch 427-347) has his specific function for the ideas, this is the unique idea that has expressed in Parmenides, a dialogues where Socrates(b.Ch.469-399) tells on unite of ever thing and he gather in one unit as somebody sees the things around and the gather in a alone version unique ideas fro everything seen, and the nature of this things is the same nature of ideas that is unique. In fact Parmenides askes to Socrates: “And do you confess that is a species of right to its, of beauty to its, of good to its?” Yes-answers Socrates-And do you confess that it is a species of man separated from us and from other men, a species of man, of fire and of water?” This concept strictly Platonic is developed for the following explication: “three categories of correspondence to ideas, the first category is the mathematic object: equality, one, much; the valor: the right , the beauty, the good; and the third isn’t correspondent to ideas; the natural things as the fire, the water and the man; this last of Parmenides in very important for the develop of the concept that I want express, in fact the last category hasn’t correspondence to ideas because it is invalid things. The concept is expressed also from two other philosophers  in 19^th century, This is Hegel(1770-1831) and Schelling(1775-1854), the second in philosophy of art thinks that the are the particular unities, that he calls also power, and in every particularity are very powers and he says: “In philosophy is alone the absolute always the absolutely one, and alone it in particular forms. The philosophy isn’t inherent the particular fro its nature, but always and only the absolute, and the particular alone fro it is possible takes to its represent the absolute”. It is Platoon in pure translation because this concept is similar to Platonic idea but a difference to Hegel these is, because Hegel has limited the absolutely in real translation; Hegel gives a limitation above all in Aesthetic, between  of idea, because it is the translation to the real of ideal; this concept is expressed from Schelling, that he called, as Hegel, particular; this process determines the lost of ideal nature; an example very daily aids us to understand it: when we are fall in love the ideal predominance is total, but after time we lost the ideal and see alone the real; the ideal is become the real, hence the same thing is in philosophy, the ideal that after become real, and losts the ideal; the sensible real has limited the ideal.

Alessandro Lusana