The theological heritage

Some book on the ancient Egypt is very important because has some note that can illustrate the human origin of the human Greek gods, a step of a book on Egypt, says: “Every action, also the more daily, has had a cosmic sense as: to plough, to sow, to product the bear, make the ships, make the war, paly these actions have seen as the actions of divine activities. In ancient Egypt the religion was so known that not needs neither of a name. For the Egyptian was not the difference between holy and daily…”; it is the totalitarian religion of ancient Greek, and the human nature of gods of Greek is took from the ancient Egypt. But the ancient Greek humanized the gods because the Egyptians has had a very severe hierarchy, that after the ancient Greek has took that their was necessary to theology, Zeus Jupiter, that was the first god of ancient religion is a translation direct or indirect, but anyway humanized, of Amen-Renef, that was everywhere and nothing could exist without him; this concept is more interesting because the ancient Greek managed to humanize the divinities that in ancient Egypt was alone nominated and whose essence is unknown. For the ancient Egyptian before of creation was alone an liquid abyss; a notation of nothing importance, but we must consider that this emptiness was translated as the Saturn that eats his sons, this the time that killed the man. The chaos, that was before of creation, was determined from the compression of matter, the atoms was gather; this note can gives to us a suspect about the Heraclitus, that tells about the atoms and about to the gather for some scheme. The voice furthermore has a valor very important, the Book of died says: “I am eternal, I have created the verb, I am the verb”, the verb is the voice and in ancient religions, Greek and Roman, but the voice is a trough of cosmic energy, a tool necessary to make in reality. The divine voice transformed the matter in the universe, ordinated, different, and given to them the objects forms. A notation about the language, because the ancient Egypt called the not creation state Nun; it is important because νοϋς, this intellect, something that can be imagined but isn’t real; hence the state of precreation can be imagined but isn’t real. The phase between the unconscious to conscious awareness of man, this is in ancient Egypt from the absolutely absence of every awareness to awareness of themselves, fro the ancient Greek, in religion, became the childhood of Jupiter to awareness of his importance and the imprisonment of Saturn. In other ancient religious text of Egypt it says: “I am much names and much forms”; it is the origin of the transformation ancient Greek of Jupiter, now is a but and the rain of gold, swan and cloud, these are the cunning transformation of Zeus  for the human infidelity. These are alone some example necessary to explain that the ancient Greek religion is a heritage from ancient Egypt.

Alessandro Lusana

 

 The limited nature of gods: Schelling

I am imagining the comments: “what a drag again Schelling(1775-1854), you and he are two pain on the neck, I confirm fully this judge; but Schelling is very master for his speculative and limited description because regard to gods he says: “In Homeric gods isn’t expressed the immorality but alone the mere limitation. They work in this limitation, and they are divine for how they work in this limitation…In their limitation they work likewise  as every natural being in the owner freely, because work so his the their nature and they don’t know other law that isn’t their nature…In the their immorality, the Homeric gods are alone ingenuous; truly they aren’t neither moral nor immoral, but untied but this contradiction”; and for explication of this concept Schelling continues: “Generally the morality isn’t something of supreme, hence nothing that can attributed to gods, it is clear fro its contrast to the beatitude, contrast that has every ended”; so read it is incomprehensible, but the explication is very simple: everybody is subject to sorrow, and other harms, instead the blissful is exempt. The concept of limitation and unlimited is expressed in this step: “The gods whose nature is composed from the two natures, they don’t live a dependent life and conditioned, but a free and independent and although they are particular, they joy the blissful of absolutely…”it is simple concept; the gods although limited, this limit is expressed trough the word “particular”, they live the blissful the is until the concept of morality or immorality; but a contradiction of Schelling, because he has said that the gods are untied from these concepts of morality and immorality: “… since beautiful and the morality are the something, we can say that the gods are absolutely moral because they are beautiful”; it is  the contradiction because he has said that the gods are untied for these concepts. Interesting the genesis of ideas that Schelling has tied to the genesis of gods: the theogony is similar to birth from ideas is born by other; and interesting is also the synthetic note: “The representation  where the universal means the particular is the schematic; instead the representation where the particular means is in the universal it is allegory”; it is means that in schematic definition we can the universal, and example: when we see a three we can think that the nature has made this three, but other can interpret it as a will of God, hence from the particular to universal, this is from the three to God, and schematic fro his synthesis, is directly to the particular, because it is synthetic, hence the same example of three, without the nature, the factor of birth of three is God alone, from universal, this is God that is universal to three that is particular, inasmuch schematic; and the concept is ended trough the last fase, this is the symbolic that has merged both in alone concept; but Schelling has took also a citation from Kant(1724-1804), that has called the scheme: “ as the rule think is reality of production of an object”; this is  the synthetic  and real process of intelligence, that works but much synthetically  fro a creation of an object in the brain.

Alessandro Lusana       

 

 The dual nature of arts

A contradiction of the arts that never we consider now and we never has considered so, a contradiction, because they are both  material and ideal in same matter and time:  a panting is beauty or not but it is always material, hence human earthly, mortal, but it represent usually holy subjects , inasmuch beyond this word or metaphysical but not certainly earthly; it is the contradiction because for the ancient sculpture it is more evident, because it follows the same  contradiction but more contradictory , why? Simple because in same sculpture is represented the god that has the equal characteristic  of other gods, this is immortal , but it also human, because the gods often have human characters; whereby in same sculpture are two characters one human and other divine; same contradiction is Christian arts, for example the Creation of man of Michelangelo(Fig.1), God is creating  Adam this is the first man, but the man is  already present, why? Simple neither Michelangelo nor other  has sees the creation of man, then Michelangelo has given a physical reference to the spectator, so that understand the subject, hence God  to represent trough human form; but it is the contradiction, he has painted the men and women that are for their nature consubstantiation , because they are the human form  but the divine nature, therefore they are the dual nature, human and divine; same consubstantiation  that we see to pagan sculpture, but for ancient sculpture it is normally accepted, because the nature of gods is dual always, for the every tale. The human is expressed for two times, because the first, when the painter paints and the second time when the divine, Christian or Pagan, image is ended, and it has two natures. We can take a judge of Schelling regard to the figures od gods: “The  absolute reality of gods is consequent  to their absolute ideal nature. They a4re absolute, but in absolute ideal nature they are the same  thing”, and the dual nature is expressed from Schelling  in his Philosophy of art, and he has written again: “Every figure the gods, are real because they are possible” it can seem alone a philosophical note, but Schelling has expressed a concept very important trough the word “possible”, because they can exist or not, and this adjective “possible” explains the arts because the human figure of gods or God can be so or not; hence the possibility is present. And the philosopher continues: “The first thing the secret of their charm and of their nature for the figuration in art is in their limitation, this is in same divine figure, the qualities that limit one other, and they are absolutely separate”. It is the concept that we  have seen before, but that we can think as dual that excludes one and other this the earthly matter and the divine nature of image.

Alessandro Lusana

Fig 1

 Architectural publicity: Borromeo

A treaty of toward the end of 16th century, this is Instructionum fabricate ecclesiasticae et suppellectilis ecclesisiasticae, by Saint Carlo Borromeo(1538-1584), is a treat about the form and furniture of the churches, in Against reform wit, every tool was necessary to contrast the Protestantism and other confessions, hence the architecture was useful, and this book begun: “…the work of our cure on the method of make we ascertain:…so that also the building and ornament and decoration of churches in conformity to fit form; and this concept could be a personal idea of writer, but it has confirmed from the words of the same Borromeo: “…we have necessity, for our herd that we must defend from the lethal heresies, and we must work so that the health for perpetual through solicitude of our duty…”; it confirms my judge, also the architectural built can aid the catholic cause. Regard the cloth of priests: “…the holy cloth and vases must be very much, calices and candelabrum and relics for much uses must be of gold and silver, and cloth of gold and silver…”. But also the saints not understand the architecture hence regard the town of build the church the step is meaningful: “De town of church. The first judge must be of bishop and together of architect, because the town must be opportune…”, the mere instructions has beginning: “…as built church with three or five steps fro get up to it..”, the symbolic valor of this steps is in origin pagan culture, because getting up to the temple, through the steps, the faithful left the earth and he became near to divinity; the Christian architecture has kept the same symbolic function, and the number three is the Holy Trinity and the five is otherwise symbolic and means, because five are the senses of body, and getting up the steps of church is means that the body is leaving the earth, but it means also the five sores of Christ. The faithful must be concentrated on the his prayer, inasmuch the rumor and stores od workers, and other distraction must be very distant. The Medieval heritage is in this step: “…neither the church windows are dark and nothing prevent the light”; it is the medieval heritage because it is enough remember the valor of windows in the architecture of Medieval cathedrals. Rightly the publicity has need of a public thence: “About the largeness of town of church. The town in front of church must be very large so that the attendance must comfort, hence the town must be allows the large space”, and the major publicity is in the form of church: “…more power is the form of cross that must shown as the plane of holy basilicas of Rome and to this form it is necessary follow…”; it is certainly a treatise about the architecture, without technical dates, because Borromeo hasn’t knowledge about the architecture, but we can understand the wit of time, year 1577, when this treatise was published, it keeps the fight of Catholic Church against the Protestantism; whereby also the architecture has had its rule.

Alessandro Lusana  

 

 The philosophical pantheism: Schelling

In the chapter of Philosophy of art, where Schelling(1775-1854) he tells about general part of the philosophy of art, beyond the Platonism that very followed during the 18^th century in Germany, because also Kant(1722-1804) was a follower of Plato, but for Schelling i9n this chapter is also and very important consideration, this is the Luther(1483-1546) influence, above all about the consubstantiation, the pantheism of Luther is a reality, as Schelling followed the same concept but for the art, he says: “To build the art means determine its position in the universe. The determination of this position is the unique explication of art, the text says: “…we can follow everywhere, but alone for these positions that our object has ordered”; it is the other hide influence of Luther; because the prescription that the object has given are the rule of Protestantism ; in fact the following text says: “The absolute , this is God, whose we can say that the being, this is the reality follows immediately, this is for the mere law of identity, of ideas, or as God is immediately affirmation of herself”, and the pantheism ins present in the following lines: “If the being doesn’t  follow from the ideas of God, this is if his ideas not was itself that of absolute, this is the infinity reality, thence he would be determined by something that isn’t this ideas…”; it is Luther in version artistic, because  God is the principal factor of art, as the factor or cause of word is God and the following lines is more explicative: “ About dependent or conditioned something we can say that the being follows from concept;; for example the man has determined from  something that isn’t his ideas…”; it is influence of Luther, because God is universal and he has created the man, inasmuch he is a determination of God, as the art a determination of God that is to everything. The absoluteness of God is in the following lines: “God as infinitive affirmation of herself that includes herself as infinitively  affirmation, as infinitively affirmed, and as indifference for both, but isn’t something of these three”; these lines seem a war declaration to intellect, because seem very difficult, but they are very easy; the explication is the following: God is everything in the reality but nothing that we can call God, whereby the concept of relativism isn’t to God because he is everything but also nothing, because everything is created by God, but isn’t identifiable to something, because everything is relative to other and God is absolute, an example: a computer has determined from the worker that has built it, but the job of worker is determined from the matter the composes the computer, this tis the plastic, that is determined from oil, that is determined from the extraction; hence before that we can use the computer other workers and material are involved; it is because everything is relative; God is cause of everything but he isn’t everything, because the worker that has made the computer isn’t a computer, same for worker of oil, hence they are relative to the computer, because without computers the oil would be useful  fro other, the plastic same; God is beginning and end of everything; it is the strong influence of Protestantism, that Schelling has took from his family, he was son of a Protestant minister.

Alessandro Lusana  

        

 The motive of conquest: Napoleon

The motive of conquest of Napoleon, beyond the mere political lies, that today are truly false, other motive certainly more important then freedom is present  to the Revolution brook out for an economic crisis that has determined the Revolution, it is enough think that the paper money, printed from 1789 in France, already in 1793 it has had lost the valor and the inflation, and the inflation had overcome the valor of good took as guarantee, this is the covered bond; the France State guaranteed the pa%per money trough the ecclesiastical goods called, assigned,, but a growing inflation says that the economy has difficult and the France regard the tax of king Louis 16^th on the middle and popular classes were exorbitant, instead the aristocracy and the clergy were exempt; the principal tax of Louis 16^th  were the taille, a tax on the proprieties and income that have to be paid from member that aren’t aristocratic, the capitation, a tax that everybody have to be paid, often the clergy and the aristocratic class were exempted, the twentieh a tax of 5% on the income and on the real estate and commercial goods,  born as extraordinary tax became  stable, a duty on the sale, whose the price was different among the regions, and duties on the wine and foods, other duties on the goods; hence very much taxes on the producer class in France; in fact  some of principal tax of ancient regime have abolished , as the taille, the tithe and other duties;  but a question is important , why above all the taxes? Simple because  these were the motives of complaint, but in France; when Napoleon conquered the Italy, although the north Italy alone, the taxes grown, and much the taxes on the real estate, tax on the flour,  were grown the tax on the real estate and above all land register fro the proprieties, he has gown these taxes that the Revolution has deleted ; but why this growth of taxes? In opinion of historical men  it was necessary to finances the wars; but it is very incredible, because Napoleon in 1799 was one member  of triumvirate after that he had took Italy, hence he took above all the money of Italy, that he certainly given also the army but above all to France fro this he was the first consul and after the imperator, because the money of the France came and this gain has guaranteed by Napoleon; and this fiscal oppression has determined the break out the revolts, as in 1797 in Verona, in 1799 in Arezzo, in Lugo, small town in north Italy in year 1796, and finally in 1799, a revolt that deleted the Partenopean republic;  we can think that  these revolts have determined from lies regard the civil rights that have been betrayed, but it was absolutely erred, because the principal motive were the taxes that have to finance the France and the future election to imperator of Napoleon. But the richer country than other, this is the England, napoleon didn’t attack , why? Simple because the richness of England and its army were very impressive, hence the England could react very violently  and destroyed the France and Napoleon; it is enough to think that in France and Italy the 60% has employed for the agriculture, hence the poverty was dominant, for this the revolt.

Alessandro Lusana   

 

 For the France and for Napoleon; the battle of Nile

The battle of Nile fought the 1th  and 2th August 1798 near Abukir, Egypt, has determined the reaction of Napoleon(1769-1821) that for avoid the exclusion fro the French policy, he after the defeat after this battle, he gone back to France and he took the absolutely power, but the principal motive for this  radical change, was this battle and defeat. The England fleet was leaded from Oration nelson(1758-1805), that has short experience to naval battles, but he was “a natural born predator”; , in opinion of Lord St. Vincent, chief of the fleet of his majesty; this choose seems also absolutely right, since nelson has won; but this choose was determined  alone from the fair of the mentioned chiefs; because napoleon has won in Italy and he was taking the successes in much battles; hence a battle against Napoleon could determine the exclusion of these chiefs from the England policy, therefore an unknown chief as nelson was perfect, because the other chiefs would keep their positions; and the proof of this  mistrust is for the number of ships given to nelson, that were less than of Napoleon; inasmuch the chiefs previewed  a defeat. After the Napoleon’s defeat, every allies but will or not to be, when the new, this is the defeat of France, they tried other coalition against Napoleon; furthermore in France there were the conspiracy theorist that wanted the exclusion of Napoleon, in fact he embarked  and gone back to France. It is normal because when you have defeated, automatically you are the failed. Bu8t evidently Napoleon has understood that his period has ended; hence he managed a coup d’Etat, that has excluded the Directoire, this is the principal institution for the laws; a first triumvirate  was composed from Napoleon, Pierre Ducos(1747-1816) and Emmanuelle Sieyès(1748-1836), the members were three but the power has had alone Napoleon, and after the same was nominated consul for the life in 1802; the ideas of Sieyès were very determining for the develop of autocracy; because after some year of contrast  in the Directoire, swinging between the return to monarchy and the Jacobin extremism, but also the financial crisis: the paper money by now was very low, and the bankrupt was a reality, the inflation was very high, and the popular and the middle classes have has lost the possibility; the Revolution is going to be end, because the people would make other revolution, but against that of in 1789, fro the return to monarchy; in fact the Directoire has lied more  to the military power, and certainly it was a valid aid to Napoleon, and it explains to use the coup d’Etat, because after the defeat of Nile or Abukir, Napoleon would be excluded from every effective power; whereby the triumvirate was, fro the economic context , the minor harm. The economic and political frame has certainly aided Napoleon, but he has made very much.

Alessandro Lusana