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

       

 I am it: the need of identification

This essay is very wicked because it describes the wit or will of identification of somebody, that during the childhood is normal, but worrying is when it is in adult age; because it is the sign of low personality subject to various influences, that can be positive or negative, and can undermine the develop of personality; in fact during the childhood we are subject to veracious influence above all from our family we can take different influences, both positive and negative, but we have influenced because we haven’t a personality, because our personality is absent, hence we are as air that takes every form of container, or water that has the form of container, we are as the clay, that can be formed from the sculptor how he want, and he can it because the clay is very soft, and our personality is similar the softness is equal, and the influence is the sculptor that shapes us. Who needs of this influence? Simple who hasn’t a personality or has a weak personality, hence he searches sureness for some influence; but it is sign of insurance, because the absence of personality is evident for the direct or indirect influence of somebody or something, and the influence is the involvement can works alone on the weak personality, that are searching a personality, because the to shape their personality is tardy, but although tardy it is going to form it, fortunately because who hasn’t personality never is involved for every influence, positive or negative, I want consider a sentence of a scientist woman Margherita Hack(1922-2013) that said: “That for identification of good and wicked not must be a religion, because if you not know twice you lack of personality”; and it is the dynamic of who hasn’t a personality, because he is subject to every influence, certainly he identify the good and the wicked, but the dominance of his absence of personality overcomes everything, because he want alone a personality this is he want say: “I am it!”, and for him it is the important to be something, not for to be different but alone for to be something, also equal to other; for example: a soldier is equal to other, but his personality is different, he obey as others and he makes that other makes but he is different, very different from others, because his personality is different, but the personality isn’t importance for the army, I have explain this example for to say that also the developed personality can be subject to a major influence, same the priests and the popes, that can have their personality, but they must obey to superior orders, hence they are equal to others but their personality is very different. The need of identification is necessary to the weak personalities, because they need of something that can identify them, but not for to be different but alone for can say to themselves I am it, it is important, to be something.

Alessandro Lusana             

 Auditory semiotic

We never has taught a question the is absolutely marginal, but that can assume some importance in the studio of semiotic; a category of semiotic that is auditory, that isn’t never considered but that is the integral part of semiotic; when we hearing a CD, musical CD, we can author , classic  or not because we have read on the packet, but if we are in competition and the question is : “Who is the author of this music?”, we can manage of choose the author for the style of the music; and it is the auditory semiotic, as a discourse or a voice that we are hearing, we can choose who is the author that has pronounced the discourse from the style and the voice, and it is the auditory semiotic, because we can recognize the author from the words that are expressed, hence from the sound of voice, ton and the words, but above for the sound; hence it is the auditory semiotic. The written we can  identify the author through the style, but the written is mute, same difficult for the auditory semiotic, that using  the categories of Peirce, this is the Firstness , this is the essence, or better the style, that is a peculiarity of human gender, of artists particularly; inasmuch the auditory semiotic, is a category that can be considered, because it is brings directly to the author, that we haven’t know before. A language is other motive for to identify somebody if don’t know somebody, hence if he is Dutch we may identify him for the language, or netter some compatriot we can identify his origin for the language, or better his town from determined expression or inflexion, that he is from the north, south or other; it is the auditory semiotic; a discourse is the auditory semiotic because the Firstness is the meaning of this discourse, therefore from the decode the sound, we can consider the essence, hence we can think that the object of our interest is changed, because from the sound we now consider the essence, but the essence of sound is the style, because the composer lavish his style in the music, and in his composition; but the change is present because from the sound we now consider now the meaning, thence the style for this  we can we can consider the author of discourse, also without know who pronounce it; in this case the different object of interest is evident, but the method is similar, because we are hearing always and the object is same , the discourse, therefore the auditory semiotic, that consider the meaning of a discourse that is the style; in classical concert the words aren’t , but the style is evident  for the ears, in fact we must hear alone , it is the style of somebody, in this case alone auditory but the style is always present, whereby the auditory semiotic is our.

Alessandro Lusana   

      

 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