Performances of private life: Francis Scott Fitzgerald

This Side of Paradise or in the first version The Romantic Egotist of Francis Scott Fitzgerald(1896-1940),  is an absolutely decontextualization, this is an absolutely will of remove of original education, for to assume behavior that are distant and stranger of the American habit; the principal motive is that the Beatrice Blaine, mother of Amory Blaine protagonist, has travelled on the word, she has studied in Rome, Italy, Austrian and England, hence she has received a formal education that was certainly much polite but also formal alone, we must also think to the historical context that seen the American women more emancipated in confront to European women, and Beatrice was also much rich inasmuch much freedoms were enables from the money, in fact he said: “A brilliant education she has had, hers youngness is past in the Renaissance, in the gossip of Roman nobility, she was famous as a American young, very much rich, and she was known from the queen Margaret and to the cardinal Vittori; it is alone a told about to the education of a teen but where is the contextualization? Simple is the following step: “Beatrice O’Hara assumed that kind of education, that isn’t possible; an education whose measure was given from the things and persons that she can despise…”; it is the remove of American education; he has received an education very fine and he has seen the American country, Fitzgerald mentioned some town of California, as Coronado and in the Mexico in the City of Mexico; but the finest education of Beatrice emerges from the impatience, that she bored in California and she has risked a nervous collapse; it is the effect of finest politeness that translated on itself the effect of extreme boring, that hides a weakness very radical of the women of high society, but not certainly of uptown, that are alone farmer cleaned. Anyway Amory felt herself superior to other, and here Fitzgerald is master when he describes the sense of superiority of Amory: “Amery resided by two months to Minneapolis, and his principal cure was hide to his classmates as he fells herself superior to everybody…”; certainly Fitzgerald, has seen and studied the human typologies that he has described, because is perfect this description, that followed to other, when Beatrice said to hers friends: “This is my son is very sophisticated très charmant but delicate. We are every delicate. Here.”, the decontextualization is also evident in the rescue of form, that must hide other origin: “Those pilgrims on every part of USA were always through the luxury: on the car with driver, two waiters Ms. Blain when he could and also the doctor…”; it is a pitiless of a social class that tries overcome his inferiority and can uses alone the form. And the form tries of rescues also the other women, because the description of Fitzgerald is very cruel when Beatrice spoke about the women of west: “They spike as would spike a English waiter that has lived much years in Chicago, in the theatre”…”it is the moment when a woman of west thinks that she considers her husband so rich that she can permits one accent, in short they tries impress me…”. Very pitiless because it is the egocentric reaction of nonentity that want believes that to be something. It is the distance from the context, social, cultural and it is alone a simulation of something that is very ridiculous. The tentative of imitation, hence of decontestualization, is after in other step: “There was, therefore, a curious weakness of wit, hence a phrase  sharp of a major boy turned to him, was sufficient  because he lost the calm and he becomes touchy or timidly stupid. He was slave also of his changeable humor, and although he was able to bold actions, he felt that he…”; the decontestualization is in the portrait of Amory that is almost mirror to a portrait of young lord of Italian writer Giuseppe Parini(1729-1799), perfectly idler and useless. Anyway this romance is alone a translation decontextualized of the humor and life of author, therefore Fitzgerald has translated in a romance his life.

Alessandro Lusana     

 

 Speculative category

What fuck is the speculative category? “This is the problem”, some years ago these were the words that in Denmark were recurrent; the speculative category in the first place isn’t other form of declaration of war, but alone a inquiry about the object that we study; it is alone the object that we consider for our inquiry, and hence we pick our method that is always equal, this the observation, but the change is in object; in philosophical words: we follow Aristotle for the speculative method, but as same Aristotle we change object, therefore that we see for the humankind we don’t see for a book, that although it is written from a human we read indirectly the author and not certainly the man, that there isn’t. The category is change; from the human to a book, inasmuch other category and other method, because with the category must change also the method, a book we can alone read, whereby the speculation is same, as I have said above, Aristotle “docet”, this is Aristotle teaches, but the object is different, thereupon the method must change, an example: we can gaze a painting, a sculpture, a tragedy or comedy in theatre, but the object is different, hence that before was the principal object, the book, during afternoon, in night it isn’t therefore the method is changed. Every object is a category, a scientist man inquiries something that can be anomalous or unknown, but the inquiry is always through same method, this is the speculation, but he study something that is very different from a book, that is in the same method seen but for other motive and for other material, but the motive is the major distinction, because also the scientist man read or has read, but for causes that are different from the literature man, hence the category of interest and the sakes are different, hence also the categories are different, what is valid for the painting, when the painter as Rembrandt(1606-1669) has painted the lesson of anatomy of doctor Nicolaes Tulp, an art history man can study this painting for the style, the reality, the growth of painter, but the surgery sees it for the correctness of anatomy, for the correctness of muscles and other, hence the category and the object are different but the method, this the speculative, is same. And two persons a surgery and art historic man see two different categories, but, repeat, the object is same, the painting of Rembrandt; why this change? Because, in the first place the obviousness, the interest is different and in the second place because the categories are different, the painting is always loved both it is seen from a surgery or art historic man, and Rembrandt would see twice for a portrait, if somebody pays him; and the portrait is opportune reference for this think, why? Simple because a painter portrait a model, and he must draw the anatomy, but his interest is limited to the face and body and neither other, but the object is same of surgery, that gazed the symptom of some ill, but the face is same, but the category is changed, the difference is in speculative category.

Alessandro Lusana                    

 The categories of semiotics

The category of semiotics can be very much, and I want add some other; for my personal think about the semiotics that I want add to, we can add, or better to specify the nature of these categories, that can be verbal, a tone of voice both for anger or to give an ask, we can understand if it is a question through the verbal semiotics, because the ascendant tone toward the end of proposition indicates a question, hence it is the verbal semiotics, as the use of a language enables the identification of a nationality, and it said to us that the national origin of somebody, as the inflection, this is the pronounce of some word in other language has different sound, and we can understand the original birth, it is the verbal semiotics. After we beyond the verbal communication as the written communication, and already is the textual semiotics, but since the worse hasn’t the end, the three categories of textual semiotics are ready: the first is the pure semiotics, this is the translation the words that has kept same meaning from the original language, for example from the original Latin the Latin word “captivus”, the prisoner is a man or woman that is in prison because he has made an wicked action, and the “captivus” in Italian language is the linguistic mother of “cattivo”, this is wicked, and the wicked often are in prison; semiotics contradiction when the meaning is different or partiality equal.; similar semiotics translation, when the word kept a similar meaning but not mirror, and finally the basilar semiotics, this is the capacity of to understand from the context, through the words, behaviors, gestures; who manages to understand it is a basilar semiotics, the human semiotics has demands also experiences to human gender, that are different because the men and women are different, hence a behavior is necessary to a person but to other is impolite, why? Simple because beyond the human wit is present also the social origin that has character that are own, because if something can be impolite for somebody, for other is daily, but beyond the social origin and cultural, also the nationality is important, because a custom can demand same behavior, an example that is very laughable, in the Parliament of Union Kingdom is absolutely forbidden to die, because the Parliament is in the royal palace and the protocol want that the died has celebration very solemn, and the cost would be excessive, in Alaska State is absolutely forbidden to give a drink to an elk, in Germany to be without petrol is illegal; these are alone something that can be given to us some sign, semiotics signs, that are very important reference for the understand a context or a person; it is the human semiotics; what is? The behavior and the reaction are motives for the human semiotics; we usually consider the behavior of somebody, both directly and indirectly for distance, for example the television, but never we think that it is also an argument of semiotics, no certainly literary but simply human. The behavior can be argument for the study, psychological semiotics; this is the inquiry necessary to understand who is face to us; one guy that boasted and songs successes is a weak that must be impressive so that he can overcomes and wines his weakness; this feel we can also understand from the documents that are indirect, this is not written for somebody, in letters, personal letters it is more evident, because we are sure that these letters are going to read alone the addresses, hence also the hide arguments are confessed; but from these letters we can understand better the rapports and the dislike of somebody, inasmuch more better we can use the semiotics as a matter necessary to know the familiar life. The social semiotics is other category that we can use, because we can identify the social level, the social culture, the social politeness of somebody, we can see somebody and recognize from him some sign, that enables to us to recognize the origin and culture.

Alessandro Lusana               

 

 The metaphoric theatre of Aristophanes

Aristophanes(b.Ch. 445-385), a comedies writer in ancient Athens is, as other authors after him, very much speculative, this is he is an observer of reality, and he seems managed it very nicely, in the comedy of Acarnians the soliloquist of Diceopoli is nice : “…Joys I have had scant, very scant,  three or four. Instead gravies very much, neither sand of sea…We consider the satisfactions? When they make so that Cleon split the five talents, I have recreated the soul, spectacular! It has been a very joy; I kiss the knocking, they are worthy of Elides. But other time I was waiting a tragedy of Aeschylus and that instead Teognides. I have felt a very grieve in the heart…”, it is alone a simple example of comedy that Aristophanes has written, the humor is, we must consider that the author lived in 5^th-4^th century before Christ, and then these were the canon for a comedy. The wit of this comedy is in the first motive that melted two events one comic, the comedy and other a historic event certainly not pleasant, as the war of Peloponnesian(b.Ch. 431-404); but Aristophanes has found a motive to laugh in this comedy because he has descripted of Diceopoli, a granger, that managed to reach a personal peace, it means alone for him and his family. An herald tells his misfortune: “I was running for to bring to you the truce, and some old Acarnian smelled the smell. They have very robust, bad as oak, robust marathon, and soon they cray: “Criminal, you are bringing the war…”, they gathered the stones in the mantles. I escaped and they back and crying.”, and Diceopoli: “Let them cry! But do you bring the truce?” and the absurd is in this step above all; because the herald gives to Diceopoli three small bottles and he says: “Yes I bring it. Three qualities. It is of five years, taste!”; in this context is also a hint demand for the peace, because the following words are very explicative of this will, because the herald gives the small bottle of thirty years: “hence it of thirty, for the sea and for the earth! There is!”, and Diceopoli. “O Dionysus what smell, ambrosia and honey…I take it, a drink…”; here we can get down on the practice life, because Aristophanes asked the peace, because evidently the Athens were very boring of war; therefore Aristophanes is spokespersons of Athens citizens. And the chorus leader that asks directly to public of indication regard the direction of flight of herald; some time in past in comedy movies the protagonist involved the public with request; and the chorus leader says: “Follow him everybody there! Ask to everybody passes. For the good of city we must take him(forward the public) Give to me a sign who he is, who brings the truce?”; this will of search of guest of truce is other polemical, alone hinted, to enemies of peace in Athens and Greek; Aristophanes hence takes the reality and translated it in theatre, also against the people considers the followers of war. The unicity of Diceopoli that want and reached the peace, is a metaphor like mirror to the same will in Athens, may the will of peace was asked from very scant, or from the great number but they were the common people that aren’t heard, because in those contexts was necessary the army, and the weapons and politic were very important. Therefore Aristophanes become the voice of short people.

Alessandro Lusana

    

 

                                               Impolitic very good citizen: Socrates

About the philosophy and the figure of Socrates(b.Ch.469-399) very much has been written and said, but a particular is always ignored, also because nothing testimony has said something about this particular side of Socrates, this is the his ideology or his political preference; in fact we haven’t nothing reference regard the Socratic ideology; the ancient books that has used Socrates, as the Republic of Plato, and the biography of Xenophanes(b.Ch. 430-355), has said about it something; evidently he haven’t ideology, and he respected alone the laws, as he said in the Crito, a pupil of Socrates that has offered to Socrates the possibility of to escape from the prison, because he would corrupt the guards, but Socrates refused it and he spoke to Crito about the valor of laws: “Socrates asked two things: the first is that Crito is convinced that the wreck never we must make, neither fo0r the revenge, and the second is if is licit don’t respect the faith of somebody after a right accord…Socrates goes toward the last side of dialogue and he made a personification of laws. The respect of Socrates was both for the Athens laws and for the divine laws, a step aids us, a religious particular, during the holiday of Delo was forbidden the capital condemn, hence the condemn of Socrates occurred 30 days after the sentence  Crito informs Socrates that the sheep from Delo will arrived in that same day, and Crito said: “hence Socrates you are going to quit the life”, and Socrates responds: “With good lucky, Crito! If it is the will, it must be so”; furthermore Socrates shows his adherence to laws of Athens in this long step, where he personalized the laws: “And if the laws asked me: “But Socrates, it was the pact that we have stipulated, or instead that you must obey to judges of the city?...What do you reproach to us and to the city? The first your father and your mother have married and you are born? Say to us, that regularize the marries, do you have some reproach to us because they aren’t good?”, and the concept is repeated over: “…You are violating the pacts and the accords that you have made to us, and made not because you are compelled or through deception…but during seventh years you could gone away, if we dislike to you? You contrary hasn’t preferred neither Lacedaemon and Crete, whose you lode for every occasion the laws and order, and neither other cities…and more than every Athens resident you have loved this city and its laws, because to whom like a city without laws? And now you don’t respect the pacts, you are going to be faithful to pacts, if you follow us…”, and the nature of rightest citizen of Socrates emerges in these following words: “In fact when you have violated your engage and made this guilt, think what good you can make to yourself  and to your friends. They are going to face the risk of exile and deprived of civil rights and deprived of their richness…”; it is the wit of Socrates, that in this context could make egoistically and gone away from Athens, inasmuch save his life; but he thought first don’t betray the laws, and it respect for the city and for the citizens; therefore he was a very good citizen of Athens, but first he was a very good citizen.

Alessandro Lusana    

   

 

 The Socratic technic

We certainly can’t know how Socrates(b.Ch. 469-399) interrogated his pupils and other, his lesson were in Athens agorà, in ancient Greek άγορά, this is square, he hasn’t written something, hence we haven’t document, except the testimonies that known him and followed his lessons, although he never considered him a master; but the read of the Republic of Plato(b.Ch. 427-347), a his pupil enables to us know the thecnic of Socrates; in the 6th book, or chapter, of the book of Republic, we can consider, although alone hypothesizing, what was the technic of Socrates for the questions that he given to his pupils, the actual title is: “The philosopher loves and makes in herself the major virtus”,  the dialogue is between Socrates and Adimantus, brother of Plato, and Socrates says: “After you can see if those men that we want be worthy of our needs they not must in their nature thi character.” And Adimantus asked: “About character do you are speaking?” and Socrates: “About the sincerity: they were aware that they never must enable to lie. They(the philosophers) must hate it for the love of truth”, and Adimantus: “It is probable” and Socrates: “Dear friend, it isn’t alone probable, but absolutely necessary that the man very inclined to love he love everything is similar to object of his love”, and Adimantus: “Its true”, and Socrates: “hence can you find something that is more similar to the knowledge than the truth?”, and Adimantus: “How could make it?”, and Socrates: “A same man can be philosopher and friend of lie, and Arimantus: “Absolutely no”, and Socrates: “Wherefore who aspires to knowledge, he must ouset he search the truth”, and Arimantus: “Absolutely”; this boring interlocution is necessary to explain the Socratic technic for to give the questions to his pupils; he given questions that were absolutely obvious, and the answers could be alone consent or not, but the question that he given to Arimantus are elementary, and the answers are likewise elementary, because obvious. But this book although has Socrates, inasmuch the rationality, has written from Plato, that is abstract: “Hence if every tension of man is toward to studies and the science, I would say that his pleasure is limited to soul instead the pleasures of body would be quitted…”, and Adimantus: “It is necessary”, and Socrates: “A person so is also tolerant and never attracted from the richness, because the motives that determined the run to easy money, are adapted more to other than to him”, I want consider that this imagine, very idealized, of philosopher is the same image that until the past century was canonic; the philosopher that has quitted the richness; but I think that Plato has took this image directly from the reality, Socratic reality, this is how Socrates lived, absolutely poor.

Alessandro Lusana      

  

 The speculative lesson of Aristophanes

Aristophanes, an ancient comedy writer(b.Ch.445-385), that written the Clouds, a very famous comedy and it is famous because one of role is Socrates; he has used the speculative inquiry and certainly he has seen and known Socrates, but his inquiry is extended also to other not personages but character, some step is going to explain the meaning, a soliloquy of Strepsiade, father of Fidippide, that during the night is awake for the debts, and he remembers his life before of marry: “I brought in campaign a bless life, with ugly cloths, laid, and rich of bees, sheep. After I am resident in campaign have married a resident in the city…woman delicacy, luxurious, she was every delicateness, and luxury, perfume, smell of a thousand essences and fire of luxury…”; the right question is: “What is speculative inquiry”, simple in the narration of Strepsiade, he told that he wife was a rich woman that has married a poor; it is normal, a woman searches always somebody or very much rich or somebody that she can subdue, because it is a revenge of female sex against hers weakness, hence I want the domain or through the beauty or through the richness. The speculative attention of Aristophanes is in this particular, when Fidippide after an indication of his father he describes summary Socrates and he mentioned him: “The miserable I know them. Do you want hint to these charlatan without shoes on feet, among is also Socrates and Cherophontes”, Aristophanes has certainly seen and studied Socrates, because Cicero, for example, called Socrates “pedes rudes”, this is barefoot, but Cicero known it from some narration instead Aristophanes, contemporary of Socrates, seen him during his investigation. The investigation is confirmed from the words of Socrates to the clouds, he speaks to clouds as goods; this is a hide polemic against the Sophistic members, that spoke about everything without logic arguments, and the Socrates is took for reference, but the object of this polemic are the sophistic school, that Aristophanes has seen. The clouds answer, and the polemic is clear: the sophistic school of nothing that, as the clouds, are alone air, this is nothing, the question is, why Socrates? Because Socrates was the eminent personage in Athens but he was also impotent, this is without power, hence he could took very easy model of philosopher. The confirm of this my opinion is in the words of Socrates: “The clouds, great goddess  of men and they alone give the think, the art of word, the intelligence, imposture, the speech and cunning”, it is the proof that Aristophanes has seen both Socrates and the sophistic school, these words are unworthy of Socrates because, from witnesses, he never has said it; but Socrates is reference to Aristophanes also because he was the eminent personage in Athens, inasmuch Aristophanes has used the figure of Socrates, because the more famous philosopher in Athens, and he has represented the Sophistic school.

Alessandro Lusana    

'