Writer and ambassador: common destiny

The reader is essentially a spokesperson, this is an ambassador because he is bringer, and the writer is bearer of voice of somebody, that has been or somebody that isn’t, as the personage of a romance, the writer is an ambassador of author, life or died, or of a personage that is neither life nor died; but the personage or other writer, above all is he is died, gives his message and his instructions to a writer that is the author, and he translates the think or other on the sheet, and he is going to give it, after the publication, to the ambassadors of very much countries this is the public, that are ambassadors of their opinion; hence unique ambassadors of themselves is the public, that is going to be become ambassador of somebody when it has written something. The ambassador must be denaturalized, he hasn’t opinion, because his govern must gives the politic opinion to him; he has alone a formal duty, that is to refer the opinion of his govern, he is a contradictory presence; he exists because he is a body, but alone it, because the opinion is that of his govern; inasmuch he is alone a body, that represents something, the writer is same because he is represent of something or somebody, that gives to him the words, the think, and the writer gives the voice to somebody, real or fantastic, but the writer is and he remains a ambassador, because he speaks because other has given to him possibility of to speak. In fact when the writer hasn’t ideas, it means that his govern hasn’t given instructions, hence he can speaks to herself and to express his opinion, because he is waiting that his govern says something. When the accords between two States very good the silence is dominant, and also the govern of the writer is shut, therefore the mouth is closed and also the pen is stop. The stimulus is stopped because events don’t give ideas, whereby the govern is calm, because other questions are important; hence the writer is calm and nothing order is arrived; but the diplomatic incident can be always present, thereupon the imagination or fantasy can determine some tale, and the writer must pike the moment and the ideas, therefore a moment can be right; because the govern of the writer can awakes herself and give the instructions regard to something, that can become important, and it can become also a war; hence the writer become the ambassador and journalist, because he tells that the personage or personages tell, and he must refer it to other ambassadors, this is the public, and he must hope that opinion of his govern can be accepted from the other ambassadors, so that the peace can goes back, but the peace is going to go back alone when the war is going to be finish, this is when the romance or essay is published, inasmuch the govern of writer waits other occasions or other diplomatic incidents, and the writer or ambassador has had experience, hence can gives some indication to his govern, and he must change also his opinion, because other context is present.

Alessandro Lusana           

                

 Denaturalize

In some contest the denature is automatic, our behavior and language are denatured because the formal presentation is normal and protocol, this is in conformity to rules that are necessary to avoid accidents; for the language it is normal and the pronounce must be correspondent to common expression, but not absolutely in common acceptation, but through a formal presentation that must be correspond to the rule and roll that we have in that occasion; we are denatured, this is we renounce to our nature for a posture that is normal. In the theatre every word is denatured because the actor would says other begin from the oath, but certainly that he is saying is distant and long from the natural daily; hence it is the denature language, and also the unnatural behavior; he is in the protocol, that the public want, the public want the unnatural behavior, the unnatural language, unnatural reaction. The formal behavior is necessary to accord during the negotiation, but everybody must denaturalizes herself, because more important sake is present. During the interpretation an actor must denaturalizes herself, because he must fells the emotionalism of personage, and episode for a great actors, by now past, but exceptional, I mean Kirk Douglas(1916-2020), that after the movie on Vincent van Gogh (1853–1890) he has said, while he gazed the paintings of van Gogh in a museum of Holland: “How much painting I have painted”; in that moment Douglas has had denaturalized herself, and he has enters in van Gogh, because he was in that moment van Gogh; inasmuch Kirk Douglas was become the bearer of voice of van Gogh, this is of the denaturalized Kirk Douglas, in that moment was Vincent that spoke, and hence Kirk was alone the ambassador of his govern, inasmuch van Gogh. The writer is same thing he is alone the ambassador of a personage, that can be true or imagined but the author is denaturalized, why? Simple because he must be bearer of a voice that isn’t his, but alone of personage, that there isn’t, but that given to author his ideas, the sheep of narration because the protagonist of this tale, romance or essay is going to give the rationality and sense to whole history; inasmuch the author is spokesperson of the personage, or of his fantasy, if he is writing a romance, otherwise he is going to be spokesperson of other writer, philosopher or scientist; when the author is died, the free interpretation become very free, because nobody, can deny; more free than other when the personage is fantastic, because the rapport between States is dual, why? Simple because the ambassador of personage calls the rationality, and she given to its ambassador precise instructions, it is possible and is isn’t! And the personage after the contact to rationality gives the instructions to author, that is always the last, because he is alone the spokesperson, hence he must represent alone two governs, or even three, because after is also his style that want its presence, and it want, peer to other, a right consideration.

Alessandro Lusana      

 Muta verba

When we read something, it is the note for the shopping food, the masterpiece of literature, a relation to a conference, or a publicity on the poster, we can’t think that we are the voice of these texts, because they haven’t voice; the read of a document, that it is Middle Age or other epoch same process occurs, this is we are the voice and the life of books and documents; and if we think very well in fact it is a verbal interrelation, we are speaking to author, when we open a book the our dialogue to author is visible and audible; because while we are reading and we are hearing the voice of author, but the voice and the ear of author we are; bearer of voice and of hearing of author; the interpreter of a book or document or everything that is readable is a bearer of information, for example: during an examination we are the bearer of voice of author, because we repeat what the author has written; but rightly somebody is asking what is the function of adjective “muta”, this is mute of title? Simple because we are facing the examination, hence the author if he is again life, but it is depends from result of examination, because a killer can be very easy engaged, isn’t during the examination, therefore we are interpret of think, and more the author is died more is interpretation, because we are sure that nobody can ask to author his interpretation, because evidently to somebody the examination has had negative result, hence the killer has engaged already. The voice also in external rapports we are, when we are mentioning something through our memory, we are the bearer of the voice, and the author lives in that moment, a sort of reincarnation, the actor is same; because during the interpretation he is bearing the Hamlet, hence Shakespeare(1564-1616) has engaged a bearer that bears the voice of Shakespeare? No certainly but the voice of Hamlet; hence the actor is ambassador of two States England and Denmark, and he tells the will of twice the States through one voice but two nations, and his interpretation is heard from two people, the first is of the Denmark and the second of England, because the language is English, but Hamlet was Danish; the actor is an ambassador that must take order and will from his governs that are one the director and the second, more important than the first is product: one is England govern and the second is Denmark govern whose he is ambassador; and the is the third State is the public, that has thousands of ambassadors; for the writers is same thing; but now the product is editor and the second State is the argument about the writer is writing, because the argument want that his history and presence is tell rightly, and the public is the greatest country that has thousands of ambassadors, and everyone has his opinion, as the single ambassador has his opinion, but he must report alone the opinion of his govern and stop. Inasmuch the writer and the actors are tied to same destiny, this is the perennial mutism, because they must bring alone the other voice.

Alessandro Lusana                   

 Linguistic semiotic

When we in theatre see some representation and we don’t know the title of comedy or tragedy, we can recognize it beyond the words of script, that is interpreted; it is an example of semiotic code, that we can, here, think as the semiotic linguistic, for example we can read, or try do it, because today is very difficult and we need of specialist, an Mediaeval English text that is a perfect mix between Latin and Medieval English: “Mary: Ut quid mortem sustinit(So that the death held me)…payne(may  from paine, satisfaction) mary: Allas(alles, this altogether) pat men wende(he or men loveble)…”; the semiotic of the text said that this text is Medieval English and in fact is incomprehensible, because cleared influence Gaelic are present, and the origin of modern English is difficult, because the documents are very scant ; but we have considered a text stable and stopped; but the orator is mobile, and he is life; hence the device and duty is more easy, because we can heard a song and we can infer that the singer is European or American from the language, from the inflexion, this accent or sound of pronounce; and contrary to documents that have a mute voice, the singer can speaks; hence we can give question to the singer that is life, but the verbal exposition of something confess more than a single discourse, because it could be changed anyway; I can say something and other thousand hide, because are uncomfortable, hence it are dangerous; for example a politic man usually dresses what he has made, but never the problems that he determined, because it is uncomfortable argument; form this behavior we can recognize a politic, a business man and who has a responsibility; it is semiotic, human semiotic, that we use every day, and in fact our behavior change for the persons that we are meeting, and the linguistic semiotic is valid also for this occasions, although the political meeting are leaded form the precedent contacts and the final meet is alone the stipulation, other text of 1816 shows the aversion of Europe, or the European kings against Napoleon(1769-1821): “Similar to the condition of a man relieved of a most oppressive load, Europe gave a long sigh, and began to breathe…which had been established with such difficulty, disappeared, like the decorations of a theatre… Then sovereigns re-entered the palaces where acclamations, of which they were no longer objects, had but recently resounded…” and after much pages the translator uses an adverb that is used today in English but that is ancient; anyway this short text given to us two information: the first is that it is a politic text, in fact it is the session of Congress of Vienne, after the defeated of Napoleon, and that this text was translated in English during the 19^th century, because beyond the date, 1816, that is the year of publication, that is the first reference, because the second is the text and argument, this is Napoleon, beyond the pimps that has written this text, originally in French language. “Then sovereigns re-entered the palaces where acclamation…”, the third semiotic reference is the language, this the adverb: “Therefore”, that is used today frequently, and that belongs to Middle English, a word that has at last a thousand of years, and it is a word of Middle English, and the contest of translator was much formal because this word isn’t the common English, but more formal and more important is the negation, that we can read in following words: "Often, nay...", this negation today is quit, but to us it is interesting because it shows the search od ancient word to stress the tradition, hence also "nay", is useful; therefore, without commas because it is the consequence, the text needed of a translation more formal, and more cured; it is said to us that the text was political, that it was ancient, both to adverb and the date, and the arguments was alone the policy. Every semiotic signal has kept a information, to us is duty discover it through the semiotic.

Alessandro Lusana                  

 

 

       

 European fear: the Congress of Vienne

For much the Congress of Vienne is alone a meeting of ornithology or art history men or a casino ante litteram, this is before its time; instead it is an historical episode of the nations that have fought  Napoleon, hence the Austrian, Spain, England, Russian and other; the title of this essay want describe the fright that Europe has had, and the volume that has been necessary, translated from French to English is almost contemporary, because was publicized in year 1816, hence it has took the wit and the ideological party, rigorously against Napoleon, that it seems a childhood reaction after the fright that has avoided; the usual vent that after avoided danger is natural the gratification of wit; same reaction, certainly more polite and elegant that chiefs of States has had after Napoleon; rightly somebody can think that the writing was there in 1816, because this precision, to psychologic level is anomalous; but the writer in born some 157 years after this Congress, and a second congress in Vienne there wasn’t, because Napoleon, it seems can occurs, is died. Anyway we can understand this fright from some step: “Similar to the condition of a man relieved of a most oppressive load, Europe gave a long sigh…”, this step is very important because we can infer that Napoleon was very dangerous for the European monarchies, and the paragon is very inappropriate and mistook, because Napoleon made wars for the conquest, but he made it for stopped the will of reaction of European States, and stop. The text said: “The thirty. first day of March 1814 ! A day that will he memorable to eternity! No longer did Madrid, Vienna, Berlin, Warsaw, behold their former masters flying, and their conquerors planting their ensigns on their battered and degraded walls. The thunder has returned to peal over those places whence, for the past twenty years, it has never ceased to issue. In its turn, Paris has received its conquerors. They entered into the city that had conveyed terror, with its decrees, into every empire. He who for a long time had burst from the capital with the rapidity of the eagle and the strength of the lion, in order to seize, either as an easy prey, or as a trembling victim, every people in Europe, tamely submitted to the triumphant entry of the enemies he had produced, and whom he was less able to deceive than to conquer. He approached near enough to hear the cries that distinguished the overthrow of his throne silent and pale, he separated himself from the city he knew not how to defend, and which, for the happiness of France, he ought never to have revisited. Similar to the condition of a man relieved of a most oppressive load, Europe gave a long sigh, and began to breathe. Henceforward, all the revolutionary policy…”; although hide or scantly evident other note is present in the narration: “France, that has occasioned all this subversion, must be first quieted. This great body must be fixed, in order that Europe shall not vacillate: so much, even in its fall, does it preserve its influence.”; this step is more manifest of a fear of European monarchies, because in this step is mentioned the influence, it means that what is effaced politically is present in the wit, hence in the brain, above all the example, that has innovated the ideology and the policy in the Europe, and it was too much new, because Napoleon has frustrated centuries of history and domain, true or alone think, but certainly different, and the novelty attracts because it is something that nobody hasn’t seen; hence the will of knowledge is very natural. The elegant wit of Congress and its members, hence the continuity to ancient policy, also because a punitive intent toward the French have had effects very much different, and contrary to the original think, because somebody have solicited, in French, the respect for the nation, that when Napoleon was to power there was, instead now no; to be pitiless toward the French, have given the possibility to somebody for become from victim of this Congress to persecutor, but not certainly in Vienna but in Paris, where the people have follows the ideas of some instigator or demagogue, and if the Europe managed to defeated Napoleon in year 1815, now it would be more difficult, because the armies and weapons were employed for the first contrast to Napoleon, and the finances certainly not have enabled the contract so great; hence the French was the guilty but guardedly. Simply one note: this behavior that was pitiless the European nations have used after the first word war, they in fact humiliated the German, and the nationalism was a motive principle for the birth of second word war. In fact the text says: “A treaty recalled this country to its ancient possessions, and there it remained.”; the political strategy is evident, to avoid the humiliation, and to follow the fair treatment. The my ideas is confirmed form the following words: “On all sides were heard cries of justice, indemnity, peace, and the balance of power.”; the justice and other that is mentioned, enclosed the peace, is a lie, because Napoleon made the war but alone to conquers and after the peace, and for justice Napoleon is author of Napoleonic Code, in year 1804, and today used for some case in French, where the equality and freedom was dominant; hence the justice must be excluded, around the balance of power, the monarchy has had the power in their nations, not certainly autocratic as in Russian, but very extensive, that through the Napoleon code was limited, and it is the principal motive for these lies; but the confirm of my opinion is above all in the words: “…the balance of power…”, because form the power of European monarchies, now is mentioned the balance of power; same condition that the French Revolution has had through the National assembly; where the opinions and thinks were different, and the power wasn’t in a person or social class, but alone in the hands of electors; this balance of power is clear reference to decrease of power of monarchy.

Alessandro Lusana   

 

       

 The failure of an illusion

A French author Francois Furet(1927-1997) written The past of an illusion, and I don’t want certainly emulate this book but want alone take this title and change it very small, because I want dress the failure of an illusion, this is the failure of end of suggestion that the politic power must gives to itself for the his role, that is alone the administration; the Lutheran reform was a the failure of a suggestion, because it maned that also the Church could be attack, and that revenge of God didn’t occur, and this symbolic episode has determined a revolution in theological contest, why? During the centuries other polemical exponents and movements has worked again the Church, and even the change of the holy seat, from Rome to Avignon, that certainly has major importance rather that a sheet with 95 rules attached to a door of a cathedral; the instrument that has determined this change is likewise important, because a sheet is sufficient to mine the ecclesiastical Church it means the this institution can be fought and destroyed, the suggestion is ended. The Common of Paris in 1871, during the French-Prussian in 1871, Paris had its Common, this is the autonomy of manage, that followed to promises that the Thiers govern didn’t keep; this revolt lasted from 18^th March to 28^th  May 1871; but important is that this revolt has took for example the French Revolution, that has brought a change, very radical, in the political ideology in Europe, and above all the “desacralization” of a myth, or an institution, this is the Monarchy; the Revolution had given the certain that these institutions are alone false and kept from the suggestion that the people has, and stop; when this illusion is failed everything end, and the institution falls; other example, that I have mentioned above, is the French Revolution, 14 beggars attacked the Bastille for to robber the weapons in the prison, and the guardian, for direct order of governor endured the access; but after this episode the revolution burst; some word about this episode, that is nothing absolutely, in fact in historiography of Revolution isn’t remind, because it is ridiculous; but this attack although was irrelevant manifested to people of Paris that the monarchy was touchable, and not certainly unreachable, that has created the French Revolution was the failed of sentiment of desistence that the holiness of monarchy had created, something of unteachable and almost holy; this opinion failed when this attack shown of greatest cuck up that the monarchy represented; the monarchy as the aristocratic class were human, and they were mortal, and the king was a foolish and coward. The last example is the Bolshevik revolution that has destroyed an institution that was already died, as the Czar power, that by now was alone nothing; but in Russian were the reforms that has determined the failure of power, these reforms, type the abolition of slavery, but alone for the defeats that the Russian army has suffered in war of Crimea; but this cunning political strategy, that wanted alone eliminate a danger that was the Republic, but it manifests the weakness of the Russian czar, because the people could rebelled to these defeats, and it have destroyed the monarchy, a State that must avoid a danger is already a died State, because to avoid a danger it means that the State can’t front a danger, hence it is a failure and no certainly a State; therefore the czar Alexander 1th brought reforms because he wanted rescued the failure of Russian, that was already failure, because if was sufficient a man, Lenin, to organize the revolution, that has also the support of army, as Khomeini in Iran, that has asked not lost its identity for to use occidental customs, Khomeini involved the army and organized the revolution, but the Iranian State was already died.

Alessandro Lusana    

 A bristle and a pen and a letter: Raphael and Baldassarre Castiglione

This essay want consider a letter of Raphael from Urbino(1483–1520), after the correction of Baldassarre Castiglione(1478-1529), Italian man of letters, that Raphael for thank made the portrait; anyway the content is alone matter of this essay, and I have seen a exaltation of classic culture, although Raphael known paint perfectly but he hasn’t knowledge about the language and Italian grammatical, hence we can think that this letter was written directly from Castiglione rather than he has alone corrected, but some step can enables to us understand the work of two brains, one deviser as Raphael and other literature as Castiglione, anyway the step said: “…because considering from the ruins, that we can see in Rome, the divinity of those old wits, I don’t esteem out from rationality. We believe that very much things to us seem impossible, instead to them were very easy.” This step allows to us consider the exaltation of Raphael of ancient architecture that in Rome were dominant, the judge that the painter has expressed: “We believe that very much things to us seem impossible, instead to them were very easy.”; it is the suggestion that Raphael and other has felt in front of the Roman ruins, and he has seen something that isn’t; as we can deny that Raphael has read the Treat on the architecture of Vitruvius, because he died in year 1520 and the first translated edition, from Latin to Italian is in year 1521, hence he hasn’t read Vitruvius, and I say it because other step reports: “…and reading the good authors confront the works to books; I think to reach something about the old architecture”, regard this affirmation we can’t doubt, but we must doubt, and deny it as a cock up very legendary, the text continues: “And it in a point gives to me a pleasure, for the knowledge of so excellent thing: and also great grief , because I am seeing almost the corps of that noble country, that has been queen of the word”; here Castiglione could intervene and inform Raphael that the time was past, but a personal memory of Francesco Petrarca(1304-1374), that in his letter written from Rome he has written: “I not amazing that Rome has governed the word, I am amazing because it has made it so late”; may we can think that Raphael didn’t knows the Protestant confession that from 1517 was present in Germany, because other step says: “…I am obliged to explain, every my small forces, so that more than it is possible stay alive of imagine, and almost the window of this, that is country of every Christian; notation regard other steps is necessary to limited the logic that Raphael and Castiglione have used for this letters: “The modern builds and of in our times are very famous, both because they are new, and for the style that isn’t so beautiful  in the time of imperators…”; we could ask to Raphael and Castiglione: “What are the buildings of Roman empire further the Domus Aurea, that during 16^th century was again under earth? What buildings today are again whole and visible? Because in Rome aren’t now as during the 16^th century”, but this letter is corrected and certainly also written by a letter man, Castiglione, that evidently around the art history was very low expert. The following text is alone a technical explication about the architecture drawing, but very boring.Anyway it is a document about the 16^th century and it is important because we can value the level of knowledge that the both literature man and a painter have had in that century, we can think that the knowledge then were limited, certainly but the men of letter known the history for the ancient sources, that hasn’t always excluded reference to builds or art, hence they haven’t knowledge about the artes.

Alessandro Lusana

 

 

 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    

            

 

 

 

    

 Platonic essence

The Platonic essence I mean that the real essence of everything, that Plato(427-347) seen in essence; this is in  the nature of everything, I take typical example that Plato used, this is the essence of a horse is “cavallinite”, the nature of the horse, that for Plato is the correspondent ideas in the word of ideas, he thinks that it is the nature of the horse, and Antisthenes(436-366 b.Ch), cynic philosopher, that answered to Plato: “Dear Plato I see the horse but not essence of horse”, because for Antisthenes alone that is visible exists, other is alone the fantasies. It is certain but we can think that Plato with essence of horse or everything meant the essence but both that of word of ideas and that real, because the translation of in the real word become a concept material; hence the essence is real and no certainly abstract or alone ideal, as the real is everything that is in the word of ideas. I want alone add this my opinion to common concept of Plato as an idealist philosopher, this is that thinks the real word as a translation of ideal word, it is the mean that I think for idealist, and no in Hegelian sense; for me Plato think the translation od ideal word in the real word, but this translation, becoming real, must become also concrete; therefore also the cavallinite is real, and it is the real essence, and we can think it so, the concrete essence, this is the together of characteristic of everything, that in human gender are much, for example a stone is different, from other, for his nature although both were stones, for the man is same but our characteristic is in the character, in our wit, in our brain, that is the source of our wit; the difference is in it, this is in our nature, that is formed from the education, from the social context where we are born, and other; it is our essence, and I think that Plato has considered the nature of man and of everything but thinking to real essence, this is the translation in the concrete word, that is the real representation, although imperfect, but speculative of the ideas word; hence also the essence is an translation and also it becomes real; thereupon when Antisthenes critics Plato, saying that he doesn’t see the essence, for Plato the essence is evident; because in a man or horse the essence is evident in the external characteristic, that is the form animal or human, but after the formal shape the essence is internal, and Plato considers it as the nature of word of ideas, this is the true nature of everything, that is hide until it is expressed evidently, that is the nature of something, whereby neither Antisthenes neither other can see it, because Plato has considered alone the interior part of everything.

Alessandro Lusana       

         

 The nascent States

The birth of States in USA is summary descripted from Philip Mazzei (1730-1816) he begun with the Connecticut, he says, but I want also stress that the merchant of colonies was well present, and it is motive of the end of “revolution”, because the England needed alone the harbors: “A colony of Connecticut have to his origin to Massachusetts for the same motives of Rhode Island and his birth is same of epoch . During the year 1636 a great number of persons, disliked above all for religion, they quit, with their ministers Newtown, Dorchester,Watertown and Rocksbury, and they come and stopped on the bank of river Connecticuct, where they founded the cities of Hartford , Watersfîeld, Windfor, Springfield , and Ceux, and they were met out of borderline of Massachussets and they will meet in Hartford, and they agree about the way for the govern, and they will voted the judges. The year after some emigrant from England made the same thing in New Haven, that they founded on the bank opposite of Long Island. The two small colonies of Hartford de New Heaven continued to be governed separately, until they were reunited with the name of colonies of Connecticut, fo0r the document of Charles 2th in 23th April 1662. Around the foundation of New Hampshire. Among the big names of taxes on the merchant of captain Mason had reached among the different times from the assembly of Plymouth, and that are the source of eternal process, he has reached one in year 1629, and that he given to whole state of New Hampshire, and today is valid, and a part of near colonies near. An other name both his and that of Ferdinand Gorges agreed for a part of country given before. The 19^th August 1635 Charles given a paper to mason for gratification for the same country enclosed of 1627, and more to him he given the right of govern and bestow the honors…”. About de foundation of Maryland. The Lord Baltimore Se Guillaume Penn, founders of colony of Maryland and Pennsylvania were the first that reached the papers that the king of England given. Among who is passed from England to colonies for the religion cause, the knight George Calvert and the secretary of State, after Lord Baltimore. During the end of reign of James 1th he come to Virginia with somebody of different sects, that have had the same motive for exile. They being the zealous Catholic, but they were bad received for the adherence to Anglican religion, hence he turned to England, for asked to Charles 1th a paper through he can extent the Virginia state beyond the Potomac river, borderline that the residents haven’t crossed…this paper is dated 1632…The residents of Virginia protested again the dissolution of their territory, but they could not to avoid it. Lord Baltimore called his country Maryland to honor of Mary, marriage of Charles 1th, and he called to govern Léonard Calvert, his brother, Jeremy  Hawley and Thomas Cornwallis…During the civil war in England(1642-1649), Oliver Cromwell(1599-1658) got away to Lord Baltimore of his jurisdiction, and after Charles 2th given back it…”, and after with successor of Charles 2th got away again this power alone for religious motives, this power he took again during the reign of William 3th d’Orange(1650-1702), but a limit there was, this is that he must be the represent of a Protestant govern”. The important question is that the States by now freely nascent, and the real court of England was very tolerant toward the religion, and with William d’Orange it is more evident, because the politic sake overcomes that religious, and the symbolic act is a side of submission to king of England: “The kings wanted set new clauses on the papers that attests to their favor the right of reign and domain. For the example that to de Baltimore confirmed the oblige that every year have to give two arrows of Indian to the castle of Windsor”, it is could seem a cock up because a country that have had the fire weapons why needs of Indian arrows? Simple, absolutely nothing, but the homage was important because it attested the predominance of royal power also in the new word, it was alone a formal gift, that given to d’Orange the possibility of substitute de Baltimore with other if this homage there wasn’t, but evidently the motives for substitution of de Baltimore would have been other if he has been a very bad governor, but he was a very good governor, hence the formal homage was necessary to ascertain his fidelity to laic crow and no to religion. Mazzei as enlightenment took a principle of solidarity between the States, that then aren’t so, but he has stressed this moment: “The people made quick progresses in Maryland for some good motives. The Virgine given the food to emigrants until they took alone the necessary. The borderline toward the Indians were very narrow, and to residents in Maryland it wasn’t difficult kept the peace to them”. The history of States would be long and boring, also because without interest, but I want evidence that the England was interested alone the power of commerce. And after the “revolution” unique interest of England was alone it.

 Alessandro Lusana