First the peace in empire and after other: Constantine and the Arianism

The Christianity has had very controversies, the last through Martin Luther(1483-1546), for mere politic motives, as the Catholic Church has defended its position for likewise politic interest, also because the north Europe was by now Protestant, the England was Protestant, and the ecclesiastic power was halved, hence the power that again hold have to jealously kept; these are alone controversies and in modern age, this is during the 16^th century and in Europe, but also in ancient time, in fact the first, or alleged so, Christian imperator proved his political nature, because he was a politic for the controversy between the Arian(a. Ch.256-336), a theologian man that thought that Christ was alone a subaltern to God and not certainly consubstantial to God; hence Christ has a human nature and a human biography; this polemic discussion between the bishop Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, and his presbyter Arian, in the 4^th century a.Ch., that to start was a lone a theological controversy and a simple discussion between two theological men, but after it became a problem, that it was condemned in the Nicaea council(a.Ch.325); but why this importance so great that Constantine have to intervened? Simple because he wanted that this controversy not compromised the peace in empire, and some step of his letters, regard this controversy, are very important because proof the political sensibility of Constantine for a question that was alone theological but it could determine the political confusion, and riots in Empire; the letters are copy from Eusebius from Cesarea(a.Ch.265-339), the first letter says: “I call for witness, how I can, God that is aid for my efforts and the conservator of everymen…My design then was, first, to bring the diverse judgments formed by all nations respecting the Deity to a condition, as it were, of settled uniformity; and, secondly, to restore to health the system of the world, then suffering under the malignant power of a grievous distemper. Keeping these objects in view, I sought to accomplish the one by the secret eye of thought, while the other I tried to rectify by the power of military authority. For I was aware that, if I should succeed in establishing, according to my hopes, a common harmony of sentiment among all the servants of God, the general course of affairs would also experience a change correspondent to the pious desires of them all.”, and the following step of this letter is more important, above all for the last lines: “I understand, then, that the origin of the present controversy is this. When you, Alexander, demanded of the presbyters what opinion they severally maintained respecting a certain passage in the Divine law, 1 or rather, I should say, that you asked them something connected with an unprofitable question, then you, Arius, inconsiderately insisted on 2 what ought never to have been conceived at all, or if conceived, should have been buried in profound silence. Hence it was that a dissension arose between you, fellowship was withdrawn, 3 and the holy people, rent into diverse parties, no longer preserved the unity of the one body. Now, therefore, do ye both exhibit an equal degree of forbearance, 4 and receive the advice which your fellow-servant righteously gives. What then is this advice? It was wrong in the first instance to propose such questions as these, or to reply to them when propounded. For those points of discussion which are enjoined by the authority of no law, but rather suggested by the contentious spirit which is fostered by misused leisure, even though they may be intended merely as an intellectual exercise, ought certainly to be confined to the region of our own thoughts, and not hastily produced in the popular assemblies, nor unadvisedly entrusted to the general ear. For how very few are there able either accurately to comprehend, or adequately to explain subjects so sublime and abstruse in their nature? Or, granting that one were fully competent for this, how many people will he convince? Or, who, again, in dealing with questions of such subtle nicety as these, can secure himself against a dangerous declension from the truth? It is incumbent therefore on us in these cases to be sparing of our words, lest, in case we ourselves are unable, through the feebleness of our natural faculties, to give a clear explanation of the subject before us, or, on the other hand, in case the slowness of our hearers' understandings disables them from arriving at an accurate apprehension of what we say, from one or other of these causes the people be reduced to the alternative either of blasphemy. Let therefore both the unguarded question and the inconsiderate answer receive your mutual forgiveness. 1 For the cause of your difference has not been any of the leading doctrines or precepts of the Divine law, nor has any new heresy respecting the worship of God arisen among you. You are in truth of one and the same judgment: 2 you may therefore well join in communion and followship.”; this controversy certainly interested very slow Constantine that was pagan and so he has died, but for to him the importance was for the peace in empire, and the example, that can show to us what would be the effects for a religious controversy, is the European war of thirteen years that seen the war of Catholic States against the Protestant States, that lasted 30 years; hence Constantine known perfectly that a very irrelevant discussion could determine very division in empire, and for to him the peace was the principal matter.

Alessandro Lusana  

 

Ephemeral republics: Cispadane and Roman Republic 1797-1799-1849

It is strange but for the dogged reader as me, in fact for me it is normal, but a rational think should consider what are the causes that have determined the failure, but the historical men hide their ignorance, or lacking of passion, behind the lacking of documents, it is absolutely false because the documents are but they are of different nature, from the archives, from the letters, form the discourses that are copied and other; the last source is the hypothesis, that can be used. Anyway for this other sources, certainly short, but important that has said that the Italian economy through these republics, at last in north Italy this is the Cispadane republic, where the economy was developed but not certainly in Rome, the economy known the liberal trade, that there was already, but alone underground; and the reforms that the Napoleonic French has brought were important for an economy: the abolition of guilds, the rights of fiefs and other specific reforms that has given possibility to economy for to develop; the question from a reader is: “Why the economy? What it so what?”, the interest for the revolution in history apart from the economy, that is instead the principal factor, as has occurred for the French Revolution, because although after the publicity has hold some theory that was absolutely false, as the search of political freedom and other cuck up of this gender, but we can understand it because it is alone the publicity, the true motives for the Revolution were alone economic, in fact some historical man has described it so: “During the end of 18^th century, the French crown after the defeat in the war of seven years, and for years of misrule, was in very economic difficult…Anne Robert Jacques Turgot(1727-1781) minister of finance in France, has ordered that every expense was warrant for the minister, and he has abolished the much useless offices, and he asked to the king the abolition of much pensions…”; these words are necessaries for to understand the economy of France in the end of 18^th century, and why the reforms in Italian economy, for the republics were necessary; the reforms occurred alone because the France was again in serious economic conditions, hence was necessary that Napoleon could take from everywhere the money, and the economic reforms guaranteed the gain through the taxes, that in fact were very great; same motive that occurred for the Roman republic the expropriation of proprieties od the religious institutions and the abolition 0f feudal rights, and the taxation was finally proportionated to the capital of everybody, but also here the taxation was enormous; and the taxes are the sign for to understand that the freedom of Napoleonic army was alone an ideal motive for to improve the French wealth; hence when the Napoleon was defeated, also the republics are disappeared.

Alessandro Lusana  

         

 

 

 Repetita juvant: the economic causes of French Revolution

In this essay nothing of new, because these motives or causes are known certainly, but the Latin words of title are the conform that of these thesis are known, but very much times are ignored; hence I want alone confirm how much is said, but the repeated things aid, in conformity to translation from the Latin language, this is the “repetita juvant”; the causes was prevalently economic, some historical man has written: “During the end of 18th century, the French crown after the defeat in the war of seven years, and for years of misrule, was in very economic difficult…Anne Robert Jacques Turgot(1727-1781) minister of finance in France, has ordered that every spending was warrant for the minister, and he has abolished the much useless offices, and he asked to the king the abolition of much pensions…”; in fact every expense have to approved from the minister; Turgot has also reformed the Ferme Générale, and private society founded in 1687, and it has had the duty of to collect the taxes, but the major important  reform was the liberalization of internal trade of wheat, and he managed reduced the deficit of the French State. But the dullness of nobles classes and the deficit very great didn’t allowed to application of the major reform that Turgot had thought, this is a unique tax on the immobile; for this tax naturally the nobles class refused immediately, and a crisis of agricultural nature in year 1774 and 1775 burst riot in Dijon, called after the revolts of meals; but Turgot abolished also the guilt and of the corvées, this is the free work of the granger for his lord, but in years 1776 the opposition of nobility won on the reforms, and Turgot have to resigned, and worse thing, his reforms were withdrawn. Same political address has had Jacques Necker(1732-1804), that has reduced the expense of the pensions and of same court. Naturally the noble class was hostile to these reforms and tried of remove it, and he published a count that he had given to the king, in year 1781, and he stressed the very serious condition of French economy and the liable Charles-Alexandre de Calonne(1704-1802), he proposed a subvention on the lands without distinction of class and for the gain; for the discussion about these reforms in22th February 1787, the king has met the Assembly of Notables, composed from the nobles, prelates, dukes and other nobles; but these reforms every reforms were refused, and the third state, this is the middle class, protested very much, but they were excluded from this assembly. These are alone some causes of the Revolution, but these are the important note necessary to understand that a nation or State are very complex and the competence must be awarded and not excluded; but today we think it because we know and recognize better the qualities of somebody, but Jean Paul Marat(1743-1793), the chief of Jacobins from 1793, would say: “It is very easy to say these concepts 237 years after the Revolution, but when these reforms had presented to an idiotic that was also king, the nobles class could make everything, because he was an idiot, and so he is was until the decollation”. And we could alone gove to him right, now and always.

Alessandro Lusana        

 

 

 

 

 

 A handbook of semiotic: Aristotle’s Hermeneutics

The works of Aristotle(b.Ch. 384-322) are very loved or hated, but for the Ερμηνευτικη I think that is an exception, because it is a examination of linguistic nature, that is very easy and also scant, he says: “The first we must consider what is the name  and what is the verb, hence what is the negation, what is the affirmation, and the enunciation and the discourse”; it is very elementary description that we can understand very easily, because in conformity to the Aristotelian code, he has always write and expressed easy concepts that are daily, and this book isn’t an exception, in fact he follows: “The sounds of voice  are symbols of affirmations that are in soul, and the written signs are of the sounds that are in the voice”; and he continues through some example that are very easy and elementary: “The false and the true regard the junction and the separation. The names and the verbs resemble to a think but without junction and separation, for example the words “man” and “white”, when isn’t added something. In facts it isn’t neither false or other…”; certainly Aristotle didn’t want offense the intelligence of his readers, although we can ask to us: “Why this book he has written?”; we must also consider that the readers in today aren’t the readers of the 4^th century before Christ; hence he has simplified very much, because then these concepts can be also difficult. But if we think well about this book, Aristotle has anticipated Charles Sanders Peirce(1839-1914), that is the founder of semiotic; because Aristotle has given a code necessary to the interpretation, that is the first exercise of semiotic, because if somebody read, following of Aristotle, the word man and white, the interpretation of these words is nothing, because for the meaning is necessary some other word that aren’t in Aristotelian example, inasmuch they haven’t meaning; therefore the interpretation there isn’t, in conformity of the example; in fact here the interpretation is impossible, because the words are very alone two, and the semiotic instead can give an interpretation, alone when the words are much and there is a discourse. Aristotle uses a word that isn’t in common languages, because the word “capricervo” is an imaginary animal, that is a mixed between a goat and deer, and he said: “…in fact the capricervo means something, but it isn’t the false or true, if not they add something”. I have already written about the Aristotelian semiotic(Aristotelian semiotic and the Origin of semiotics) and now a confirm it, form the book about the Categories to it, is a semiotic example; and he continues: “The name is a voice that can means in conformity to use, and independently from the time, and of this word nothing is able to means if it is take alone. In fact in Callippo horse hasn’t meaning if we take it alone, instead the words beauty horse has meaning”; it is the easy example of Aristotelian semiotic, that is a handbook for the understanding the semiotic. Aristotle has given to us a code that after is became the semiotic matter, and he has given very easy examples, so that it was understanding to everybody. Anyway the principal concept that I want give to this book is the genesis of semiotic, that during the centuries nobody has considered for this new consideration of language. May then very scant has understood the valor of this book, and today the semiotic valor is certainly unknown, but it is a handbook of semiotic, if somebody want know the semiotic must read this book, because it is the fundamental method for to know the method of linguistic semiotic, because for the semiotic  more bread in meaning is Charles Sanders Peirce(1839-1914)-       

Alessandro Lusana  

 

 

 

   

    

 

 

 

 The constitutional theatre 1797

I want stress the importance alone formal of an episode that in occurred in Italy during the year 1797, the Cispadane Republic, this is an absolutely false Republic, that has followed during that year in north Italy, that enclosed the region of Emilia Romagna and some cities of this region, and two cities of Tuscany; this essay want consider alone the constitution that has ascertained the constitution, and above all consider the fiction of the policy, that has, through Napoleon(1769-1821), has given the image of liberty when the power was always in his hands. The first sign of this lacking of liberty is in the write of this constitution, why? Simple because the Cispadane Republic has had a constitution that has equal to the French constitution. The first article of this constitution is very meaningful for this opinion, in fact the French constitution of 1791, says: “The sake of every politic association is the khe conservation of natural right. These rights are the liberty, the propriety, the sureness and the resistance to oppression”; certainly important declaration but that is almost specular to the first article of Cispadane republic that says: “The rights of man, that lives in the society, are the liberty, the equality, the sureness, the propriety”. A copy of the French constitution, as above said, but we must also consider that in Italy, the word constitution of rights were concept absolutely strange to the common people, and after this constitution lasted strange; but the stratagem is to give the image of the respect of rights and of the freedoms; but the copy continues: “The French constitution says: “The liberty is in the to make everything that isn’t harmful to other…”; the constitution of Cispadane republic says: “The liberty is in the free action that isn’t harmful to other rights…”; regard to the freedom about the think and expression is in this step of French republic: “The free communication of the thinks and of the opinions is one of man more important; every citizen can hence specks, write, print freely…”; very modern principle, that is specular almost to the Cispadane republic: “Nobody can’t be for his freedom about the think, write, and publish also through the print his thinks, except the cases forgotten from the laws…”; the article 12^th has modified but is the same concept  of French constitution: “The equality is in this, that the law is same for everybody both when it protects and punish…”; the difference is in the 17^th article that is alone a formal distinction, because the concept is equal: “The propriety is a holy and inviolable right, nobody can be deprived, except when the public necessity demands it…”, and the Cispadane constitution says: “The propriety is the right of to joy, and to manage owner goods…”. I wanted represent that these concept are absolutely new for that time, but it were already both in France and in Italy, but the innovative change is that they aren’t alone in the customs, but also in the supreme law, this is the constitution, that the Cispadane republic has borrow from the French constitution, I repeat, it was also necessary because the rights in Italy didn’t know, because the rights were alone tied to the habits. We must also consider that the power was always French, and form their hands never was given to the Italian. A historical gift of this republic has been the Italian flag, that is created on the French model, alone the firts color, red instead blue.  

Alessandro Lusana

 

 

 

 The other conformity

Usually we are habit to think to conformity as a rule not official as the laws that regulate the external life of us, motives are different, the job above all, the savage of our own, the dread of not gain and therefore lost something. But we never think that this conformity is very much, and we can know alone our daily and sure; because other forms of conformity are in the word and in the our vital space; in a city, for example, as New York the communities are very much, and every community has its conformity, this is the morality, that stemmed from its culture, its habit, its economy, but it is other conformity; a conformity that for us is natural, because the habit, daily habit, is for us normal; therefore we not want remove it because for us it is normal, and it is the conformity and sureness, hence we need of this conformity, as we need of logic that is other conformity, because think that 2 and 2 is the sum of five it is absolutely absurd, and doubt of an precise entity as the mathematic is crazy, instead it is perfectly logic; because the sum is demonstrated alone from our calculus, but in reality nothing can demonstrated it, inasmuch this sum is conformity, because the sum must be precise in conformity to the calculus, but why it must be so? Simple because if this sum was 5 or 7 or 9, the economic system of the word would be harmed from this opinion, and our sureness would be removed, hence our conformity, that for this is the sureness, there isn’t, and the economy as the other calculus would be harmed, the economy above all, hence 2 more 2 must be 4 and stop. But although we can’t think it, it is the conformity, a conformity that we have in the brain, that is also our sureness, for this we have get used to have fictions sureness, theoretical sureness, but our weakness is so radical whereby we have need of these sureness, always and everywhere; it is sufficient also think or remember a difficult context, this is an episode that has given to us awe, the awe is disappeared, when we have seen something that was familiar to us, hence our soul is calmed; it is the conformity because we have calmed our soul when we have seen something that was consistent to our habits, for this we have projected to these object the our rescue, and we have assimilated the thing to the our salvation, also if these object can’t save us but the presence is important, because it can calms our wit; it is the conformity, because that object is conformity to our life, hence it is nearest to us, and it is also consistent to our wit, and to be consistent is the first rule for our sureness and for conformity; hence I repeat 2 more 2 must be 4, because it is the sureness that the rationality gives to us.

Alessandro Lusana                    

 The conformity of the logic

When we think logically, we have sureness that this think is perfect, because everything has followed the rationality, therefore it is, for us, a sureness, but although we never think, it is also conformity, because the logic is conformity, why? Simple because something must be so, otherwise it isn’t illogic, hence mistake; but we not think that this rationality is right for us in our country, but for citizen of other country, it could be very odd; for example, for a Afghan the freedom that in our country have the women is anomalous, because for our logic it is normal but for the Afghan it isn’t, because we have a habit and we have developed a logic, that is consistent in the freedom for the women, but he has get used to other conformity, and the women hasn’t the freedom, but that is for us underdeveloped for them it is normal, because we have other logic and other conformity. But our think about the perfection of our think is conformity, because we have got custom to think in this way and we not work to other way, because the logic, this is our logic, hence our conformity, want it, this is the logic behavior, that is conformity; because we are following the method of our logic that is inherent to our customs , inasmuch to our conformity, or rather to the rules that our society has ordered, and that we follow mechanically; it is the same phenomenal of religion; because the religion is conformity to a belief and the faithful for to be faithful must follow these rules, that give also the identity, a religious identity, that is always an identity, and that must follow a logic that is inherent to the religion, or rather to that religion, for this it is the conformity because believe must follow determined rules, that are inherent to the belief, that gives the identity and the determined logic, that is conformity, because otherwise the faithful would be heretic or member of other religion, so a Protestant can’t follow the mess because his belief hasn’t the mess; the confession is merely Catholic but also Anglican, but not Lutheran; it is allows an identity and also a conformity, but they can also confess their sins directly to God, as the Protestant, or also to a priest; and it is the paradigm of necessity of a religion of faithful, because the Anglican has determined the three different ways, therefore the Anglican are “polyconformity”, because it enables different method of a sacrament; thence the different ways the first want meet the exigence of faithful, and hence enables the different conformity, that are necessary for the meet the favor of God; we can also consider that the Anglican is the less conformist, because it allows a choose for this sacrament of confession, but we must also consider, that the Anglican confession is similarly conformist although enables different ways for the confession, because the rules for the this sacrament are three but every rule are ascertained, for this the faithful must follow one of these rules, and it is the conformity, for to be Anglican as he not follow the mess for to be Protestant, as the orthodoxy has similar but also different way for the celebration of the mess; it give the identity and different conformity, inherent to their logic.

Alessandro Lusana