The power of suggestion: Coluccio Salutati

I know perfectly that much or every readers now is asked to him: “Who is Coluccio Salutati(1331-1406)?”, because he is absolutely unknown, and you have right, hence a short explication about this figure is necessary he has been a secretary of State in Florence from 1375 and great humanist, he is famous above all for his letters, and to find the letters to family of Cicerone(b.Ch.106-43); in his letter we find a example of how the suggestion could represent a condemn or absolution, because the text said: “My Major single(it is a honorific) name for motive of a homicide in Florence March 1381 made form the person of Guide from Arighetto I have heard and kept Simo of Simo from Stignano, that I consider my brother and it is for very heavy to my person I have received it, and for this same motive you have demand also Nello of John my brother in law, and it is occurred because it seems that they have accompanied who has committed this homicide, although in the truth never they were and nither they known, how I am certain the you are going to be become informed, and for I can respect their innocence , how I can I beg you that for love to me you want free called Simo and manage so that called Nello, neither for person and for propriety he is took away, that certainly so merits their innocence…”; it is an example of suggestion, that fortunately today there isn’t, but independently regard to homicide and guilt, I want alone consider the suggestion that an intellectual as Coluccio Salutati could give to the justice; we must also consider that more famous than Salutati, this Dante Alighieri(1265-1321), the most famous poetry in the Middle age, already famous in his time was banned form Florence because he was a Guelf, and Dante was ambassador of Florence to Rome and his fame has very greatest in confront to Salutati, but the times changed, Dante was died  and new intellectuals were emerged, as Salutati; beyond the rule of intellectual in this episode is certainly important but secondary, because the first motive for this liberation has been certainly the political rule of Salutati, he was Secretary of State of Florence, today we can say an very good reference; but the suggestion is important for the presence in this letter of personal sorrow; it is very frequent and it is motive to suggestion, it is as Salutati have written: “Free immediately these two men because not the intellectual Salutati toward you can you can blow raspberry, but the Coluccio Salutati the Secretary of State of Florence; hence an authority, therefore my reference is important”. It is alone my hypothesis, but it is credible because during the Middle age the intellectual were considered very much. If somebody is going to meet Guide from Arighetto or Simo of Simo from Stignano can ask if they were innocent or guilty; because we can condemn directly Salutati. Thank you. Any way the confirmation for this my opinion is other letter, in 2th April 1380, that Coluccio sent to his brother, Conrad, and he explained the solution. “Noble man Francis of James honorable from Valdinievole and my major brother. I dislike because I haven’t to nobody that has had the town that now you manage and it griefs for a new scandal, and never occurred so much accidents as now that are my duty the God is praised…I have heard the case occurred to the church of Saint Mary of Wood, between your knight and the notary of Buggiano(small town in province of Pistoia Italy), and twice made errors, and they were motive for the scandal, but when I was in that day in Buggiano, I have worked so that the families of knight and notary were agree…”; it is the signal of influence that Salutati could exerted, and the writing has had a mother Tuscany, and I can confirm that they are very clever to argue, hence see two Tuscany that are agree is a miracle, or it is possible because, in this case, Salutati has had influence. But when Salutati written to a noble lord, the diplomacy of 14^th century is normal, and it is proofs that the suggestion of Salutati can favorite somebody but it is specular, because he can also feel the suggestion; this letter is full of diplomatic formula and of respect, because it are rigorously and obliged, but the tone of letter is very low confidential, and it is logic, but the respect is very radical, because now Salutati is writing to a noble, hence as Salutati can be confidential and influent he is very compliant, starting from the language, this is the Latin: “Excellent  Lord Berthold of Orsini of Sorano my lord, worth your excellency, your servant of everything to your knowledge and the your blood with true charity, his letter to see, and of these manifestly I have perceived how hope from me   

 Alessandro Lusana 

 

 

 Revolutionary economy

This essay want alone hints to a particular matter that in historiography about the American “revolution” is always excused; it is right because it is very low important, other episodes are very relevant; it is also necessary to celebrate a normal, not certainly a request but a confirmation, will of liberty that was already present in the colonies, today USA, from the 1680, hence a century after this freedom was present from at last a100 years, therefore it is alone a pretext for a revolt that has had some died, a confront to certain date is necessary, during the civil war 750.000 died, and it is major number for every war of USA, the American “revolution” has had 25.000 died, that are always too much, but the number is very short; but the valor of revolution we can’t consider for the died, but alone the results, hence other confront is necessary, to the French revolution in 1789, and the difference is the French become a republic, that then was unthinkable, in fact the unique republic was that the Roman republic, in ancient time; this confront is necessary to stress that the French revolution has brought change very important, but the monarchic state in French was already died; for this a simple revolt was sufficient to this radical change this is the republic; but in USA this radical change wasn’t because the liberty was already present, and the English monarchic power was very long, an Atlantic sea between England and USA; whereby the suffocate a revolt in New Word would be too expensive, because the freedom already was in nascent USA, hence the England considered useless it. Anyway the comment of reader is: “ After this digression, what is argument of this essay? Because you are a pain on the neck”, and I can alone agree to this judge, anyway the argument is the wit of economy during the “revolution”; some step that I have took from the acts of Congress in 1784 keeps reference to economy: “Thursday, December 9, 1784.That a committee, to consist of one member from each state, be appointed to receive the marquis, and in the name of Congress to take leave of him. That they be instructed to assure him, that Congress continue to entertain the fame high sense of his abilities and zeal to promote the welfare of America both here and in Europe…”; it is translated means is alone the commercial exercise, because what is interest of American colonies for the Europe? Rationally nothing, but the words are very explicit if we consider it in their text and context: “to promote the welfare of America both here and in Europe”, it is exemplification to understand this step, because the promotion of merchants both in colonies and in Europe, enables to the colonies the survive and growth of wealth, hence the rapports to Europe was necessary; a historical question is present: “Alone now the nascent USA has considered the importance of Europe as merchant? Because in this paper why can read this reference to Europe; thereby before the rapports aren’t or it are?”, the answer is: “Certainly it was before of “revolution”, because also the colonies can live, and the economy was then as today also the commerce, hence the commerce to Europe was necessary, but is also necessary the welfare of Europe, as mentioned in the text, because otherwise the colonies could not sale nothing, and country poor doesn’t buy nothing, hence was necessary that the Europe has had a welfare; it is the evident sign that the USA was born from at last a century, because this text proofs that the freedom was absolutely objective, why? Simple because the commerce of colonies to Europe would included also the England, but in the text is mentioned alone the Europe, without exclusion of some country, and in political acts everything must be specified, hence if the commerce to England has been deny the text have to specify it, but the welfare was in Europe and England is Europe no certainly on Saturn planet, thereupon the colonies have to commerce also to England: “Pecunia no olet”, this is the money doesn’t stinks, hence also the England could be a source of gain, somebody could ask: “The patriotism”, it is mentioned, in fact: “has resembled that of a patriotic citizen, the United States…”; beyond the patriotism is important also the words that confirm my opinion, this is the USA was a reality, because the name: “the United States”, is a reality, and of this were aware both in USA and in England; anyway the text continues:“which they have frequently expressed and manifested on former occasions, and which the recent marks of his attention to their commercial and other interests have perfectly confirmed. Has resembled that of a patriotic citizen, the United States regard him with particular affection, and will not cease to feel an interest in whatever may concern his honor and prosperity, and that their best and kindest wishes will always attend him. Resolved, That a letter be written to his most Christian majesty, to be signed by his excellency the president of Congress, expressive of the high sense, which the United States in Congress assembled, entertain of his zeal, talents and meritorious services of the marquis of Fayette, and recommending him to the favor and patronage of his majesty.” The noun majesty is alone a respect form, as the colonies that are mentioned in December 1784: “North-American colonies and of the said colonies of New-York and Massachusetts-Bay”, and 1th June 1785, are common name that the Congress has used for a direct and easy identification, but they were aware that of colonies was alone the name. Anyway The USA and the Congress known perfectly that a Revolution or “revolution” isn’t without money, also if somebody must robber Fort Knox. Ulterior again resolution, from other source and now directly from the king of England James 1th, this is the authorization to give the laws: “The honorable owner for the paper o king, he authorized his heritages, with the consent of free men, to give the laws and it publish under his sigil, laws necessary to wealth of people, that aren’t never given under the right form…”.  

Alessandro Lusana

 Speculation of logic: Peirce

In a essay of 1895, Of reasoning in general, Charles Sanders Peirce(1839-1914) worked a speculation of human intelligence, and he didn’t said it but he has used the normal and philosophical method of Aristotle(b. Ch.384-322), this the speculative search, hence he has translated the truth, the human truth, this is the natural exercise: “Logic is the art of reasoning. The old times saw endless disputes as to whether logic was an art or a science. It is not worth while even to explain what those words were taken to mean. The present definition, respectable in its antiquity and superficiality, is intended merely to afford a rough preliminary notion of what this treatise is about. This chapter shall tell something more; but the student cannot expect to attain a real comprehension of the nature of logic till after he has gone through the book. The facts upon which logic is based come mostly within ordinary knowledge; though many escape ordinary notice. The science is largely, not wholly, one of rearrangement. Article 2. Reasoning is the process by which we attain a belief which we regard as the result of previous knowledge. Some beliefs are results of other knowledge without the believer suspecting it. After a sojourn among young people exclusively, an acquaintance met may seem to have aged more than he really has. This is a case of error. But not all such results are erroneous. A stranger with whom I am dealing may make an impression of being dishonest owing to indications too slight for me to know what they are. Yet the impression may be well founded. Such results are usually set down to "intuition." Though inferential in their nature, they are not exactly inferences. Again, a given belief may be regarded as the effect of another given belief, without our seeming to see clearly why or how. Such a process is usually called an inference; but it ought not to be called a rational inference, or reasoning. A blind force constrains us. Thus, Descartes declares himself obliged to believe that he exists because he remarks that he thinks. Yet he seems to doubt (in that stage of his inquiry) whether everything that thinks exists.”, Through inference we must think  to common intuition, the verb infer is from the Latin inferred, this is to bring in, that during centuries, as occurred for every word, has changed its mean, and now it is means to understand, to intuit. The word illation signifies a process of inference. Reasoning, in general, is sometimes called ratiocination. Argumentation is the expression of a reasoning. Argument may be mental or expressed. The belief to which an inference leads is called the conclusion, the beliefs from which it sets out are called the premises. (Sometimes written premisses) The fact that the premises necessitate the truth of the conclusion is called the consequence, or following of the conclusion from the premises.”; it is the description of normal think and intuition, certainly the judges are that he has described the obviousness, certainly, but it is so obvious that nobody has described before; and the premisses that Peirce has mentioned are the necessary argument so that every think has a logic conclusion; if we think well this think and this written of Peirce we can also, in opinion of author, that it is alone semiotic; in fact the description of think is semiotic, that we reading, can intuit because the description through the scripted signs enables to us of understand the significance, and report it to our daily experience, but read and recognize the signs, to understand the significance, because we can report it to our daily experience it is semiotic, because we understand some sign and we are informed about something. Regard to believes Peirce said: “Belief is a state of mind of the nature of a habit, of which the person is aware, and which, if he acts deliberately on a suitable occasion, would induce him to act in a way different from what he might act in the absence of such habit.”; the semiotic exam continues because Peirce, in same essay, said: “Thus, if a man believes a straight line to be the shortest distance between two points, then in case he wishes to proceed by the shortest way from one point to another, and thinks he can move in a straight line, he will endeavor to do so. If a man really believes that alcohol is injurious to him, and does not choose to injure himself, but still drinks for the sake of the momentary satisfaction, then he is not acting deliberately. But a habit of which we are not aware, or with which we are not deliberately satisfied, is not a belief. An act of consciousness in which a person thinks he recognizes a belief is called a judgment. The expression of a judgment is called in logic a proposition. The step in bold are necessary to understand the semiotic that after I have mentioned; “If a man really believes that alcohol is injurious to him, and does not choose to injure himself, but still drinks for the sake of the momentary satisfaction”, it is semiotic examination; because we can understanding from the daily reality the need of a man that drinks alone to pleasure but without to be drunk, and the description of judge is other step of semiotic science, because give to us an explication that is normal absolutely, daily and logic, hence nothing that can be important, but if we think it in semiotic sense and we report it to a semiotic code also the daily become interesting. Regard to sign Peirce given this judge: “A sign is a thing which serves to convey knowledge of some other thing, which it is said to stand for or represent. This thing is called the object of the sign; the idea in the mind that the sign excites, which is a mental sign of the same object, is called an interpretant of the sign. Signs are of three classes, namely, Icons (or images), Indices, and Symbols.”.   

Alessandro Lusana

 American semiotic: Charles Sanders Peirce

The true father of semiotic matter is emerged, the true father for methodologic system, because for the philosophical is Aristotle(b.Ch. 384-322), Charles Sanders Peirce(1839-1914) is the true father, in an his essay, What is a sign, in year 1894, he written: “There are three kinds of signs. firstly, there are likenesses, or icons; which serve to convey ideas of the things they represent simply by imitating them. Secondly, there are indications, or indices; which show something about things, on account of their being physically connected with them. Such is a guidepost, which points down the road to be taken, or a relative pronoun, which is placed just after the name of the thing intended to be denoted, or a vocative exclamation, as "Hi! there," which acts upon the nerves of the person addressed and forces his attention. Thirdly, there are symbols, or general signs, which have become associated with their meanings by usage. Such are most words, and phrases, and speeches, and books, and libraries. Let us consider the various uses of these three kinds of signs more closely.”, the words: “ Such is a guidepost”, is a, indication very much important because the semiotic is such; this is the guidepost, that is normal reference that we use and, the psychology wasn’t the preferred matter of Peirce also because it was a matter very marginal, anyway the guidepost that we use both consciously and unconsciously but it is always present, but it is a sign or more signs, that we have in our mind. He continued: “Let us consider the various uses of these three kinds of signs more closely. Likenesses. Photographs, especially instantaneous photographs, are very instructive, because we know that they are in certain respects exactly like the objects they represent. But this resemblance is due to the photographs having been produced under such circumstances that they were physically forced to correspond point by point to nature.”; it is the birth of semiotic, the speculation of a sign or other on the photos that gives to us precise indications; the read is saying: “It is normal”, and answer is: “It so normal that nobody has descripted before”, Robert Musil(1880-1942) has said: “The monument is so great that nobody sees it”; this mention is opportune and necessary because doesn’t explains what is the semiotic, but enables for two motives: the first is that allows of identification of method of semiotic, the importance of sign, now took as the matter of study, the second consideration is that this exercise is absolutely normal, daily, habitual therefore we hasn’t considered that this exercise can become a matter of study, because it is the obviousness. Peirce has though also an hierarchy for the signs: the first is naturally the evidence of a photos, where the nature is evident, here other considerations are useless: “In that aspect, then, they belong to the second class of signs, those by physical connection. The case is different, if I surmise that zebras are likely to be obstinate, or otherwise disagreeable animals, because they seem to have a general resemblance to donkeys, and donkeys are self-willed.”, the clearest explication of semiotic is in this example, because Peirce explain, through the example, the capacity of mankind of supposition, that it can makes for alone the signs, the zebra can resemble to donkey, but it are alone surmises, that man can give for the sign or behavior of animals; in short it is the semiotic, hence the methodologic father of Semiotic is Charles Sanders Peirce.

Alessandro Lusana     

    

 

The evolution of Heraclitus: Charles Peirce

Through the word synechism, very low m can understand what is from ancient Greek, somebody can misunderstand and thinks to a recipe of a foreign dish, but it is alone a philosophical think, that the author, this is Charles Sanders Peirce(1839-1914), explained in one his essay: “The word synechism is the English form of the Greek, from συνεκισμός from συνεκης continuous. For two centuries we have been affixing -is and -ism to words, in order to note sects which exalt the importance of those elements which the stem-words signify. Thus, materialism is the doctrine that matter is everything, idealism the doctrine that ideas are everything, dualism the philosophy which splits everything in two. In like manner, I have proposed to make synechism mean the tendency to regard everything as continuous. For many years I have been endeavoring to develop this idea, and have, of late, given some of my results in the Monist. carry the doctrine so far as to maintain that continuity governs the whole domain of experience in every element of it. Accordingly, every proposition, except so far as it relates to an unattainable limit of experience (which I call the Absolute), is to be taken with an indefinite qualification; for a proposition which has no relation whatever to experience is devoid of all meaning.3 I propose here, without going into the extremely difficult question of the evidences of this doctrine, to give a specimen of the manner in which it can be applied to religious questions. I cannot here treat in fall of the method of its application. It readily yields corollaries which appear at first highly enigmatic; but their meaning is cleared up by a more thoroughgoing application of the principle. This principle is, of course, itself to be understood in a synechistic sense; and, so understood, it in no wise contradicts itself. Consequently, it must lead to definite results, if the deductions are accurately performed.” Important note that is explicative for this concept is the following; it is true, the three dimension of space are generally with synechism Pierce find other dimension that are right, because the space is various but it is the speculative philosophy; the analysis that Pierce made regard this step is upshot of a think that he called: “…is a purely scientific philosophy…”. The conception of Pierce regard the space that is continuous is an evolution of Heraclitus, but with other sense, what? In geometrical words we can imagine that Heraclitus, with his πάντα ρει this is everything passes as the water of a river, he has imagined a line long, but alone straight, instead Pierce has imagined the extension of space everywhere, in fact he has spoken about the metempsychosis, that is transmutation of soul from a body to other after the death, and the deny that is in following words, above all, about the angles is an evolution of Heraclitus, because everything passes, but the direction can be other and not alone straight: “Thoroughgoing synechism will not permit us to say that the sum of the angles of a triangle exactly equals two right angles, but only that it equals that quantity plus or minus some quantity which is excessively small for all the triangles we can measure. We must not accept the proposition that space has three dimensions as strictly accurate; but can only say that any movements of bodies out of the three dimensions are at most exceedingly minute.” For the metempsychosis Pierce said, without mention of this religion: “But, further, synechism recognizes that the carnal consciousness is but a small part of the man. There is, in the second place, the social consciousness, by which a man's spirit is embodied in others, and which continues to live and breathe and have its being very much longer than superficial observers think. Nor is this, by any means, all. A man is capable of a spiritual consciousness, which constitutes him one of the eternal verities, which is embodied in the universe as a whole. This as an archetypal idea can never fail; and in the world to come is destined to a special spiritual embodiment.”, and he added, regard the general conception of synechysm: “I have said enough, I think, to show that, though synechism is not religion, but, on the contrary, is a purely scientific philosophy, yet: should it become

generally accepted, as I confidently anticipate, it may play a part in the onement of religion and science.”

Alessandro Lusana

 

 

 A Medieval copy of Aristotle: Ockham

The Semiotic studies the significance of words and their use, hence their mean, an example: an offence to somebody on the street is an offence to somebody that we can know or not, the same offence in theatre is laughable, because the context is different, whereby it isn’t an offence but a cute of script; thereby the words have more means in the different context, it is simply obvious, but I must say it because the code of Semiotic isn’t much know, this is it isn’t obvious; I am considering the code of Semiotic, that alone during the 19^th century has been codified, but the matter, or conceptual matter, necessary to successive formulation is explained involuntary from Aristotle. The semiotic sense that in Nominalism of Ockham we can find in the following step: “I say that spoken words are signs subordinated to concepts or intentions of the soul not because in the strict sense of signify they always signify the concepts of the soul primarily and properly. The points is rather that spoken words are used to signify the very things that are signified something a spoken word signify the something signified by a particular concept of the mind. If that the concept were to change its signification, by that fact alone it would happen that the spoken word would change its signification, even in the absence of any new linguistic convention”. May William dreaded that he didn’t be quite clear, hence has added also this step, mentioning the father of semiotic, this is Aristotle: “This is all that Aristotle means when he says that spoken words are signs of the impression of the soul and Boethius  means the same  thing when he says that spoken words signify concepts. In general, whenever writers say that all spoken words secondarily signify the thing impression of the soul primarily signify. Nonetheless, it is true that some spoken words primarily designate impressions of the soul as will be shown later.”, An error is present in this description of Ockham because he thought that De interpretatione of Boethius was a independent book of same philosopher, instead it was a translation from Περί έρμηνείας of Aristotle, that Ockham could not read because he didn’t know the ancient Greek; therefore he has took from same author, this is Aristotle, an interpretation, he could not know it, but he has given to us an important datum, what is? Simple that Aristotle is philosophic father of semiotic instead that Charles Sanders Peirce(1839-1914) and Ferdinand de Saussure(1857-1913), they have given more precise indication regard the codes and method, for interpretation and use the semiotic, but they have rightly given the methodologic codes, but the first use, although isn’t official, is from Aristotle from the Analytic and form the Περί έρμηνείας; there is the first conceptual definition and use, although, I repeat, involuntary of semiotic. This hypothesis is confirmed from the steps that Ockham has took and he has almost copied: “Now, there are certain difference among these three kinds of terms. For one thing the concept or impression of the soul signifies naturally; whereas the spoken or written term signifies only conventionally. This difference given rise to a further difference. We can decide to alter the signification of a spoken or written term, but no decision or agreement on the part of anyone can have the effect of altering the signification of a conceptual term.”. The Semiotic studies the significance of words and their use.

Alessandro Lusana     

               

 

Scholastic semiotic: William Ockham

A philosopher of Scholastic is a philosophical address that, during Middle age 13^th and 14^th centuries, was the principal school for philosophers that from convent schools was extended to Universities, as for examples that of Paris, Oxford, Bologna, Napoli and other; a exponent of this address was William from Ochkam(1280-1349), British Franciscan that taught in Oxford, and in a his book he explains the nominalism; but we can think this philosopher as semiotic post Aristotle(384-322), because for me Aristotle is the first semiotic in the philosophy; the semiotics, that has had his independence as single matter alone in 19^th century, but that has its origin in Aristotle, that William from Ockham has read through a translated book that he mentions, as the Analytics, this is the syllogism, may from the De interpretatione of Boethius(480-526 b.Ch), that has descripted the Analytics of Aristotle, anyway William gives some relevant motive for this analysis semiotic alone: “All those who treat of logic try to show that arguments are composed of proposition of terms. Thus a term is simply a component part of a proposition. When he defines the notion of a term in the first book of the Prior Analytics, Aristotle says, “I call that a term into which a proposition is resolved(for example the predicate or that of which it is predicated) when it is asserted or denied that something is or is not the case.” Although every term is(or could be) a part of a proposition, not all terms are the same kind. Thus, to gain a full understanding of a nature of terms one must know some of the divisions that are drawn among them. As Boethius points out in Commentary on the book of De Interpretatione, discourse is of three types, the written, the spoken, and the conceptual(this last existing inly in the mind). In the same way there are three sorts of terms, written, spoken, and conceptual”. It is alone a speculative, hence Aristotelian, description of logic organization of concept that after we organize rationally, or at last we try, but it is alone semiotics, in Medieval time, that took from other authors this is Aristotle and Boethius, that are before of Scholastic but Ockham is in the Scholastic and interesting is the follow that indirectly Aristotle has in the Middle age, that is a datum by now certain, because Aristotle is every present until the philosophy of 19^th century; therefore in Middle age, also in Pagan authors as Saint Thomas from Aquino(1225-1274), in the Summa theological; whereby Aristotle is a presence always present, at last in intellectual traits, but to semiotic level, except Boethius, he is absent; the merit of Ockham is that he took the basilar concepts od Nominalism, but after he developed this concept through the semiotics, that is the first clear example of semiotics, and I say the first because Aristotle has had the sake of explication of logic search, thereby the syllogism is a tool or method alone, that Aristotle has explained, but his principal duty was the explication of search not certainly the semiotics, Ockham instead uses the semiotics, and for him the valor is alone the words, hence the semiotics.

Alessandro Lusana