Defeatist to living room

In a villa in country, Alfred, a professor of philosophy usually meet his friends, among them nobody has the same ideas, religion or aesthetic preference, in fact the living room of Alfred was the fixed appointment to argued one other and after everybody come away happy because has had the quart of hours of glory. In that meeting was one new professor of philosophy that was called Socrates, because both in examinations in front of student he give the questions very logic, because his sake wasn’t alone teach the philosophy, but indicate the way to think, his name was Ulysses, in fact in University he was loved from students but hated from colleagues because he attracted students and the students of other course didn’t attend their lessons because Ulysses has his lesson, furthermore the requests of thesis were very much. He was judged very bad form other professors, but interesting was that he was exempt from envy or wickedness or equal sentiments. In living room everybody were seated and they spook about polity, economy and other, and Alfred turned to Ulysses, after an hour of these deep discussions, and Ulysses glazed Alfred and answer to demand of Alfred, that invited him to participate, Ulysses thanked Alfred and after commented: “Habitual defeatists to living room”, and he got up and greeted everybody, Alfred stopped him through a cry: “Where do you are going?”, and Ulysses: “Among five minutes you come on me and my opinions, hence I want anticipate the exit”, and Alfred: “Here the discussion is free!”, and Ulysses that doesn’t the hypocrisy turned toward Alfred, and: “Do you attended a special course of fakeness or it is spontaneous?”, Alfred was very amazing because Ulysses has always received the offense or hinds but he has never reacted, Alfred invited him to seat, and very faired for this reaction asked what he wanted say, and Ulysses: “You are usual defeatist to living room, this is usual radical chic, this is nothing absolutely, any is your political think”, and Charlies, one guest: “What do are saying? I want know your think”; and Ulysses: “You are previewing the end of Occident and the end of our civility, but it is fake because the lost or lack of values is simple dynamic of history”, and every guest gazed him, and Anne, a woman professor: “What do you mean?”, and Ulysses: “I will use the same way that I use for my students, this is with questions”, and in fact Elisabeth, other woman professor, commented: “Your nickname is Socrates and it is normal that you give questions”, and Ulysses smiled and give the question: “Do you are believer?”, and Anne: “No!”, and Ulysses: “If we were in Middle age we can justify everything through the will of God”, and Annie: “But the Middle age is finished”, and Ulysses: “Yes, but if a man of Middle age was here he would comment that the war, the poverty, the richness and other are alone the will of God, or no?”, and Anne: “Yes!”, and Ulysses. “Why?”, and Alfred: “Because during Middle age is t is the predominant think”,  and Ulysses: “hence we have lost the values, because we don’t justify everything through the will of God, whereby this loss is will of God or no?” and Elisabeth: “No certainly because God isn’t”, and Ulysses. “But during Middle age it was unique justification”, and Barbara, other woman professor: “During Middle age yes, but today no”, and Ulysses. “Thereupon we aren’t in Middle age”, and George. “No, we are in 2026, and the Middle age is ended”, and Ulysses: “Hence time is past?”, both Anne and Elisabeth looked one other, and gather: “Yes”, and Ulysses: “Time is past therefore also the values of that period or era, or no?”, and everybody: “Yes”,, and Ulysses: “Time is past, and values are past or no?”, and Anne: “No!”, and Ulysses: “I repeat the question: do you are believer?”, and Anne: “I have answered, no absolutely!”, and Ulysses: “Hence you have lost the values because you aren’t believer, hence for you God isn’t”, and Anne: “No, I aren’t believer but I have other values”, and Ulysses: “I am come from Middle age, you don’t believe that God exist, whereby you have lost every values, because I am man of Middle age, and for me alone God is the value, therefore you have lost the unique value”, and Annie: “You think it because you come from Middle age, but now we are in 2026, and your Middle age is finished”, and Ulysses: “Whereby now is allowed lose God?”, and Anne: “Certain!”,  and Ulysses: “Why?”, and Annie: “Because time is different as the context2, and Ulysses: “Whereby time is past”, and Annie: “Yes, it is past and stop, please”, and Ulysses: “The context is different because, I explain it to you and other, because the sciences, technology, and general progress in every field is improve and it progressed, hence the values that I, medieval man have had, now are past, it is right?”, and Annie: “Yes”, and Ulysses: “Among a hundred years our values are going to be  history, and our values are going to be past”, and George that gazed Ulysses: “Certain it is the history”, and Ulysses: “Clever George, it is history, therefore isn’t decadence or loss of values, but is alone a change of values, that we now don’t understand because we are other generation, and for us these new values are strange but it aren’t lost but alone change, among hundred years the values of present generations are going to be old, and in some living room they may are going to be same words that we are saying now, this is that new generations has lost the values; in stead the values are alone changed, because the technology and sciences are progressed; hence the values are a context of time, that is tied to progress; today we can give our friendship to everybody, because it is allowed for Facebook, and we can speck and write to thousands of persons; in 1926 it was impossible, because the computer there isn’t, and the way to know somebody was different; thereupon you are defeatist to living room, because our values are already overcome, as we have lost the values of our grandfathers, because it don’t belong to our generation; this defeatism is alone a posture and stop. The Monday students have to set an exam, and Ulysses seat among students because he has a nephew there, and the woman professor was Anne, that was hearing Laura, nephew of Ulysses, and she spook around the decadence of values, and Anne: “Laura the Middle age is past, for you my values are died, as for your nephews your values are old”, Laura gazed hers and commented: “But during lesson you have said different things”, and Anne: “Yes because I didn’t know a person, but I have known him, the time passes and from Freeday to today time is past.”

Alessandro Lusana  

        

 

 

Speculative physics: the method of Aristotle

How said in this essay is pure obvious, but it is a philosophical method, or better the Aristotle method, the speculative philosophy that now is applied to a science, this is the physic, the philosopher says: “Since in every field of research exist the principles or causes or elements, the acknowledge and the science are from the from acknowledge of these, we in fact think that we know everything alone when we have known understood the first causes and the first principles, and, finally the elements, it is evident that also in science of nature we must research that are principles. It is natural that we begin from the principle that we knowable better from its nature, but it aren’t the same thing, this is the knowable for us and knowable absolutely. For this we must work through this method, from that is less clear for nature but clearer to us…”; it is simply obvious and it isn’t certainly a great discovery; but what I want stress is that Aristotle uses this method, very simple and obvious, this is speculative, also the science, that today is very complicated from new discoveries, it is the history, but Aristotle has given a method, because it is was the first argument of Stagira philosopher; give the way absolutely valid, and simple, necessary to acknowledge. And this hypothesis is clear  for following words, likewise obvious and for this clearer, but Aristotle was teaching a method: “To us are clearer and evident the things gather, and alone to second moment we manage, through the analysis, we can distinguish the elements and principles.”, it is normal criterion of inquiry but Aristotle indicated the method, this is that was very interesting to him, in fact: “For this we must inquiry from universal to particular: in fact to sensation is immediately knowable the whole, and the universal is the whole, because it contained very much things as side. It occurs also for the names in regard to their definition: it indicate something in its whole and through indetermination, as the name “circle”, the definition of it after specify for the single side…”, and the following words are majority clear: “Also the children in first period of life call father every men and mother every women, and in second period they distinguish everything to particular.”, Aristotle want alone give a method, for this he is so simple, because a method must be very simple, and above all it is must teach with clearer examples, so that every men can learn what is the method. I think that this simplicity is from the example of Socrates, that Aristotle known alone indirectly, but he was pupil of Plato, that was pupil of Socrates, hence Plato could have spook about the Socrates during his lessons, the estimate of Plato for Socrates is evident from his dialogues, where Socrates is always, or almost always protagonist; Socrates hence could, indirectly I repeat, taught to Aristotle the logic and easy method,. Other important thing that we must consider that Aristotle in precedent words has explicated one principle very fundamental for his method, this is from universal to particular; it is the specific criterion of this philosopher, and the rightness of my opinion, in regard the teaching of method, is evident in these words: “For this we must inquiry from universal to particular…”, it is the method that Aristotle used every time, and after the students of Aristotle have took to explain, less clearly than Aristotle, a principle of methodological philosophical of Aristotle.

Alessandro Lusana          

 

              

 

 

 

 

He was asking

He: philosopher

Common people

A man in a great city given questions and the people avoided the answers because considered him a crazy, he asked

 He :The war is right or failed.

Common people: It is failed certainly.

He: Why?

Common people: Because very much men and women are going to die.

He: But men and women are going to die also during the peace.

Common people: Yes but the war is contrast of nations and enmity

He: But enmity we have also during the peace, when we lament to somebody, and we are in war but our nation is in peace.

Common people: Yes but everybody says that the war is very bad.

He: Thereupon if everybody says that the war is very good, the war would be very good.

Common people: I no idea.

He: Why? Because nobody has said to you what is common opinion?

Common people: No, absolutely!

He: Do you have an opinion?

Common people: Certain!

He: What is?

Common people: In my opinion you have broken the balls.

He: Yes, but you haven’t answered.

Common people: Fuck you (he goes away)

He;(to other person)I give to you same question and I want…

Common people: I know and I can say to you that every would answer so because is common opinion and if you aren’t common people, you never are going to accept, because also the who is uncommon people is following a rule and the role, because it is alone a part of theatre.

He: But the principal motive for my exclusion is that I am common people, and I am bearer of common opinion, and I am despised for my courage and strength, because nobody, in conformity of current morality, nobody says it because it isn’t moral accepted, it is alone necessity of simulation, because the weakness of contemporary man compels to follow the moral dictate, but the morality is alone temporary, because tomorrow is going to be other opinion or morality, certainly hence everybody follows that.

Common people: What can gives strong to human gender?

He: The sureness that we can took from different way, through the read, the gymnastic, the speech to other, and awareness that if other aren’t going to follow us, it is very scant important. And the sureness is alone a dynamic compensation, it is alone the object or everything that can calm our wit, it is the force, the capacity of front difficulties, and the difficulties of common people is overcome the morality.

Alessandro Lusana      

 

Michelangelo’s speculative poetry

The rhymes of Michelangelo are very poor, he is better and universal as artist, but as poet is very scant; anyway, he isn’t born as poet, and he hasn’t the necessary culture, hence we can apologize him because the compensation to this lack is compensated from arts. The poetry although is poor we can identify some character that can gives to us some interest as the speculative poetry, the first question is what is speculative poetry? It is in literary critic isn’t, but it is alone the description of reality through some poetic word, but he has took directly from Dante Alighieri(1265-1321) this is from Divine comedy, because the steps aren’t in Italian of 16^th century, some example, here (I have translated the poetries of Michelangelo and the word is set in Italian and translated in English): “Much years fassi(it makes) much happy in a very short hour it compels and worry herself; and for or famous or ancient offspring other are proud s’inlustra. These Italian words are took directly from Dante the second is from Paradise chant 14^th verse 132, and the first is also from Dante from Hell Chant 23th verse 63; because after proud, he followed: “…in a moment it is obscured this is in Italian is imbruna, other word of Dante that he has used in Purgatory Chant 4^th verse 21, and continuing: “Mobile thing isn’t under the sun it doesn’t death and changes(cangi) the fortune; but the question is normal, where is the speculative character? It is in the whole sense of this sonnet, because these verse say, I have summarized the sense, that is that these are persons that has been happy for years and after these persons compel and worry themselves, and for famous offspring they are proud but after they are obscured; this is the sense of these verse, but the comment is that the poetry are very scant, Michelangelo has took from Dante and in English it isn’t but in Italian the distance from the Michelangelo’s and Dante’s language is very clear; anyway beyond the differences in regard the language, the sense is purely speculative, because it is normal phenomenal of history of humankind. Other sonnet says(it is alone a summarize): as a bird can save himself from net and after die for worse death, so love has saved me for much years and during old age he has wins me, other speculative poetry, because it is occurred to Michelangelo but can occurs to everybody, because the man can ignores the love and after falls in love passionately, but it is normal nature of men, hence it is the speculative poetry.

Alessandro Lusana       

 

Platonic Michelangelo

We can’t think that Michelangelo Buonarroti (1475-1564) known the Platonic philosophy, he was an artist, and he was very distant from this will, also because to read Plato was necessary to know the Latin or ancient Greek language, and he didn’t known neither or other, he written the poetry, or at last tried it and one sonnet expressed a concept that after the critic of art has took and used much times, it says: “The very good artist hasn’t concept that an marble alone surrounded in itself  for its excess, and alone to it come the hand that obey to brain”, these poor verses can seem alone words without a sense, but the experience of sculptor that Michelangelo has made, inducts him to consider that the sculpture was already in marble block, and the matter that surrounds the sculpture is alone more matter that the sculptor must remove, because the work is already in the block; this concept is very fantasy as Platonic, the verses that we have read are a heredity from Neoplatonic academy, that Michelangelo attended and where he, after the store of Ghirlandaio(1448-1494), he learned the sculpture, hence the frequentation of this academy has allowed to him of learned some philosophic concept, that he has used for this sonnet, written on 1538-1544; because it is a translation very synthetic of an ideal word of ideas of Plato, and the sculptor is alone an instrument necessary to pick up the sculpture, fortunately this sculptor was Michelangelo, because we can admire his art, but on philosophic level, the nature of this think is alone the academic think, and it is reproofs also from the following of this sonnet, that is dedicated to Vittoria Colonna(1492-1547), after these words he turned the attention to Vittoria, the woman that he Platonically loved, but after the read of following of sonnet the first question is: “So what?”, because. “The hell that I escape, and the good that I promise to me, in you, beautiful woman, dive and proud, so it is hide…”; the question is same: “What cock so what?”, answer: “Absolutely nothing” would answer Michelangelo, . “but some memories of Platonic philosophy is came and I a wanted send this sonnet to a cultured woman, hence this Platonic think was necessary, also because I am Michelangelo and not certainly Dante Alighieri(1265-1321), whereby I am an sculptor, painter and architect, no a poet”. This valuation of this sonnet learns to us that of Michelangelo is certainly better study the sculpture, the painting and architecture rather that study his poetry. Anyway I wanted alone consider that the concept of matter that surrounded the sculpture is a Platonic concept, and following Charles Baudelaire(1821-1867) “the remain is literature”, and it is alone literature because the critic of art is literature, thereby we can also say: “The remain is alone critic of art”.

Alessandro Lusana     

             

 

Futuristic William Morris

The read of New from nowhere of William Morris(1834-1896), a romance, is a fusion of the present and future, because the protagonist is from other time in a almost contemporary British, a bridge of 2003, in conformity of opinion of a boatman that brought the protagonist, that is called from other personages as guest, certainly a reminiscence of Homer(6^th century b.Ch) from Odyssey, when Nausica met Odysseus and she called him ξένος, this is foreign, because Odysseus doesn’t remember his name, whereby the classic culture of Morris is ascertained; but there is other as the alone hint the polemic against the industrial society, the protagonist, that here I preferred call him so, tells: “The soap factors the chimneys  that vomited the smog, were disappeared; and also the mechanical laboratories, and foundries of plumb…”, it can seems a futuristic representation alone and stop, but we must think to polemic of Morris against the industry that lacked the craftsmanship production of human nature and artistic personality, because the industry was the depersonalized the artistic works; it is certainly true, but “tempora currunt”, this is times are different and the progress is present always, therefore the Morri’s polemic is very childhood, because stopped the progress is stop the history, that is impossible; anyway the future time of Morris is manifest in other step, the protagonist turned toward a direction and he seen the bridge whose above, and the protagonist asked how much years has this bridge and the boatman answers: “ Not much because it was built, or that last opened to traffic, in 2003, before the passage was possible on a wooden bridge.”, we can think that Morris has though a future without industries, that is very utopic think, that is alone a Morri’s dream. The other polemic, very good hide but present, although alone hinted is in step when the protagonist want pay the boatman, and he asked how much is the tariff, and the boatman was amazing and he asked: “How much? I don’t understand what you are asking to me. You are asking about tide?...”, other literature memory, because this lacked tariff is evidently from Voltaire’s Eldorado, when two guests wanted pay the launch with a ingot of gold, that they have picked up on ground, and the host smiled and comment. “it is very strange that you want pay us through an our stone”, because the gold in Eldorado, from title is evident, the gold was very outclassing, but it is also a polemic against the easy gain, and the hint polemic follows for comment of boatman around the money of protagonist, because he said: “Your money is strange, but not certainly ancient…”, and he advised the protagonist to give these moneys to a museum; it is the future of Morris, where the money and industries  aren’t; he has thought as an ideological follower of artisan art, in fact he hasn’t thought that unemployed don’t  live for alone air, but they want eat something sometime. Morris is likely to read but absolutely distant and distinct from reality. The craftsmanship must be protected but it not means that the industry must be destroyed, the progress and hence the history is continue.The polemic around the industrial society continues because Morris’s protagonist bought objects in some store, but he doesn’t pay; it is simply absurd, certainly, but it is alone the continuation of polemic that he has begun with hints, that now become more clear, because he doesn’t pays, and it is a sort of anarchism well hidden, this is the absence of money, I think the practice, likewise utopic of Pierre Joseph Proudhon(1809-1865), that theorized the banks of people, where aren’t money but object that were changed for other object, one object was given and other took, this exchange eliminated the money; in fact our protagonist took a piper and tobacco in a store but he doesn’t pays it and he given nothing; hence it isn’t the exchange of Proudhon, but the protagonist recognized that he hasn’t money in carriage and the driver asked what occurred and he confessed that has forgotten the money, but the driver insured him because it isn’t necessary; thereupon it is  the utopic Proudhon and his bank of people. Other step Morris compelled the indolence of some social class, in fact he hints: “it says that during fist times of our era there are much persons sick of indolence, because they were the direct descents  of the class social the during dark times compelled other to work for them…” it is the polemic for industrial society and for worker’s condition. The utopic Proudhon continues his hidden utopic wit, because the protagonist hint to prisons that in the London of future, that imagined from Morris in this romance hasn’t prisons. The craftsman is some pages after, because during the journey, the protagonist seen some fabric and the driver explained that one fabric works the ceramics and glasses, but the worker work all to their pleasure, it is the polemic to industrial society  

Alessandro Lusana 

    

 The prestige

We usually have got custom that the prestige is determined from the wealth, hence richness and the rich homes, cars and other that can stress our prestige, because we tie it to material life, certainly it is the concept and habit that we consider, but some example of history can think that other typology of prestige, and above all historic prestige is possible; the first example is Socrates (b.Ch.399), Athens philosopher that drunk the hemlock after the condemn of a tribunal, where he defensed herself, but for political questions, that didn’t inherent to him, wanted that he died; Socrates certainly wasn’t rich, actually he was very poor, and in fact Cicero(106-46 b.Ch.), called Socrates as callous feet, because he didn’t wear sandals, because he could not buy it; Socrates are more 2000 years that his think is studied and very much is written about his sacrifice, from ancient Greek. Other example, Diogenes(412-323 b.Ch.) cynical philosopher, that in front of Alexander Magnus(356-323b.Ch.), when the last asked if he needed of something, he answered: “Move from sun because it isn’t your again”; Diogenes is known above for this episode, and some book that now is lost; but he as Socrates was very poor, he in fact lived begging and he lived in a barrel naked. An Italian painter Tommaso di Ser Giovanni di Mone di Andreuccio Cassai(1401-1428) called Masaccio, for his look very poor, is a father of painting Renaissance in Florence, and he is remembered always in art history as the principal painter of glorious season of 15 century in Tuscan, but he was certainly more poor and precarious in his cloths, why he is remembered, from his cloths or for his style? May for his style because we can know him alone for description of Vasari, very summary, but we haven’t known directly Masaccio, and his style didn’t tell to us his clothes. Vincent van Gogh (1853-1890) has sold a painting alone during his life, today one painting has cost of 80 millions of dollars, but from auto portrait we can see that this painter was very poor, but with one painting of van Gogh we could buy a house and other. These personages that I have summary descripted, are died very poor, but today nobody considers that they lacked of prestige, and this motive doesn’t determined the despise to them, but it is alone a characteristic but nothing that is important. Today we can be richer and very prestigious but after our death we are going to be forgotten for ever, and we are rich in confront of mentioned personages; we should think, but the prestige is tied to richness or no? But this think nobody is going to have, because it is an apologize of ourselves, because personages mentioned have made something instead we have made but certainly the daily works, hence nobody is going to remember us.

Alessandro Lusana      

                                               

 

The Janus man

Janus was a god of Roman mythology; it was also the name of access or exit, a gate or door that a man could open to go in and open to exit, whereby it represented also the past and future, in fact it has two faces, one to right and one to left; this is the present and past. This is alone mythology, certainly but if we consider that this character of this god is merely human, and may an anthropological origin of this god is possible, and may the Roman has took from reality, from human reality; because we are projected toward future, because every days we are building it, we build our occasions, we build motive for enhance our future, but we consider, for this, also the past, the past experience, because also it are necessary to think our actions; we consider both positive experience and negative, always valuing the context where we make something, and alterations that wile are occurred in regard past experience; the human nature of this god is directly reportable to behavior of mankind; the experience is past, therefore is time became, and we can consider it because it became, for the future instead it is going to become, thereupon it isn’t experience, as the present isn’t experience, because in that moment when something is happing we can think it but effects aren’t clear, because it is becoming now, thereby the end of this moment isn’t, hence the end is future, and we should look the face of Janus the gaze toward right, but after the that it is became we can gaze the left face. The study of history, art history, philosophy and other disciplines, no scientific, gaze alone the left face, because it turns alone the past, but the experience is alone necessary to consider summary the exit of some action, because the historic man consider that framework is different; therefore the present is necessary to value how much is altered the context in regard to past; our chance is very limited because the future is impossible to foreseen and thereupon we can consider alone the past, because the present is already visible. In military strategy the past can be useful because allows think a strategy to win a battle, but the generals must consider that the technique od armies and tool for war are very different, therefore to use the strategy the tactic used form Athens in battle of Marathon, today could be a defeat before the fight, and one general that has decided to use a similar tactic may could manage the traffic but no certainly a battle. It is alone an ascertain that human gender is always turned to past, this is the left face of Janus, because we can, also personally know much better, and it is necessary to calm our wit.

Alessandro Lusana       

            

 

 

Presumed think about the painting: Roland Fréart

The think about the taste of writer about the painting is note, and it is note above all for Vasari Life’s, that has privileged Michelangelo(1475-1564) on other painters and artist, and he has privileged the Tuscan artists on other; but that this opinion came from France it is may strange; Roland Fréart de Chambray(1606-1676), French writer is an author of treats about the architecture and painting, but alone a theoretical, because he has never drown something or painted or other artistic task. A his famous treatise is about the Perfection of painter, that he has written about the classic painting, and it represents the extreme try to defense a pictorial classicism that is a very representation of selection of painting between good and wreck; but we can analyze some step: “It is a question very curious to know because the painting is so fall from high perfection where it was…to seen today the weak tried of its factures in confront to ancient very admirable and of this today is alone the widow…”, he came to Rome during 1640, and in Rome, although the painter is very much, of ancient painting isn’t something, hence it is the judge of somebody that has seen alone the ancient sculpture, and no certainly painting. More ridiculous is second step: “For me I haven’t doubt that the principal cause of this decadence  is alone the despise that during the ignorance and barbarism of reigns of low empire, that has so degraded it from ancient nobility, that from the first grade that it has had among the sciences now is work more vulgar, that shows very good the failed of intellects during last centuries…”; the founder of Futurism, Filippo Tommaso Marinetti(1876-1944), loved repeat: “The words in liberty”, in regard the poetry of Futurism, now the words in liberty are, but de Chambrays isn’t the futurist is alone a burk in liberty, very free, because the confront to ancient painting he could not make because isn’t ancient painting, as above said, in Rome, and the scant ancient painting is today in Pompeii, but it was discovered from 1748, and Fréart de Chambray was died, fortunately, because it is wickedness? No it is despise for incompetence and presumption, that in these treat are predominant. The specialist of ridiculous follows his research, because for think and therefore to write these balls is necessary a research very demanding, the step: “The painting has had this disgrace that every written of ancient painters, and books of teaching while more excellent painters in ancient has given to public for understanding of their art are buried by time…”, this propositions I think that is punishable through the capital pain, because it is the ball more great that history has heard, never and never a painter during ancient time has written a treatise about the painter; in fact Fréart didn’t mention the titles, very cunning, but these words demonstrate also that Fréart hasn’t read Vasari and other painters that in stead has written about the technical art of painting; thereupon we are read an ignorant that speaks about arguments that didn’t know, very compliment.

Alessandro Lusana     

.

 

Tempora currunt: Bernini and Heraclitus

I want stressed in this essay a concept that unifies two matters, that can also interpenetrate, through the Aesthetic discipline but now have took the different matters although it have took same physic greatness, this is the time. We are costumed to measure the time with clock or the smart phone and other, but the time of art we are costumed to consider during the centuries and never momentary; I want devoid the attention in a particular moment of sculpture, this is the Baroque, and his major exponent that is Gian Lorenzo Bernini(1598-1680); we must consider different sculptures, The David and Goliath(Fig.1)both in Galleria Borghese Rome, Italy, datable 1623-1624; Bernini took in a moment precise the actions of two protagonist, and for better understand the concept that I want express is necessary to a confront to David of Michelangelo(1475-1564), in Florence(Fig.2), datable1501; the David of Michelangelo is the moment before that the Biblical hero kills the giant, because he gazed the arrive the Goliath and he is took in the moment when he is toking the sling, and Bernini took the moment of David when he is throwing the stone and the sling; we have considered always the gesture very realist strictly to baroque art and the classic style for Michelangelo; but the critic hasn’t never considered the time, no certainly the years or century past between these two sculptures, but the human time between these two actions, that is the Heraclitean time, this is of Heraclitus(b.Ch.535-475b.Ch.), because prescind to the century and logic time past between these works, I want consider alone the momentary of these two actions, this is the concentrated glance of David of Michelangelo and the explicit action of David of Bernini, because between the take the sling of Florentine David(Fig.3) and throw the stone(Fig.1), are necessary other actions, this is pick the stone, that David has took on ground, that in conformity to Biblical tale David has picked in river and took the sling he come toward Goliath; the comment are: “Yes but so what to Bernini and Michelangelo?”, the connection is in the time; because neither Michelangelo and Bernini has represented the whole biblical tale, thereupon we can alone read the Holy Bible to know what is the actions that while are occurred; but concentrating on the specific actions of these two David, time is past, because the first action of David is gazed the Goliath(Fig.3), and after load the sling, action that nobody has represented, but we can imagine, and after to aim and throw the stone, until here nothing of original, because these are two moment  of an action; certainly, but I want consider that time that is a Heraclitean concept, this is; the action of Florentine David is a moment, but after, although Michelangelo hasn’t represented it, we can imagine that David has took the stone and loaded the sling and after he has thrown; but this action requires time and the time, although for these actions is very limited, time passes, and it is a concept purely Heraclitean; this is the David of Bernini(Fig.1) has loaded the sling and he is throwing the stone instead David of Michelangelo is again concentrated to arrive of Goliath, but time that is past between these actions is Heraclitean because these are two distinct moments that require time, whereby the Heraclitean time is passing, this is the πάντα ρεϊ, this is everything passes, hence the time between the actions of David(Fig.4) are distinct and want time, therefore Heraclitean aids us with is philosophical concept, this is πάντα ρεϊ; and the last notation; in Galleria Borghese is other work, now painting, that tells the end of this tale, this is the David with head of Goliath(Fig.5) of Michelangelo Merisi called Caravaggio(1571-1610); we can use the same concept, after the decollation of Goliath, time is past, thereby the πάντα ρεϊ of Heraclitus is again valid, time that we can imagine but that is passed, whereby we must think that time among these three actions, although very scant is past; this is a connection between the Bernini and Heraclitus, that are lived among more than a thousand years of different, but the concept of time is valid also in this moment, albeit between sculptor and philosopher are past a millennium. It is attests that the concept of Heraclitus is true because both is time some moment of David or centuries between Bernini and Heraclitus πάντα ρεϊ is always present.

Alessandro Lusana  

   

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

                

 

Dialectic logic: the stoicism

The other essay about the dialectic, that for me is fight, verbal, physical or other, because alone so we can grow, our opinion, our thinks, and we can think what other has said, also to change our opinion, but for Stoicism, this is that philosophical school born in ancient Greek about 300 b.Ch., founder was Zeno, in opinion of Stoic, that name is from the Stoa, in ancient Greek, this is portico of building where was the school, they anyway this school wanted the first consideration of moral problems, also on daily life, this is the Epicurean ataraxia, this is the absence of passions hence the calm life in medium need without obsessions or utopian will; they has divided their teaching on three address reference, we consider alone that regard the dialectic: the dialectic is logic, this is the science of hypothetical think, whose introduction expresses an objective date, thereupon visible and immediately understandable, for example, following the Stoic dialectic, and the system of their think in regard the evidence of their dialectic, that must begin from evident premises, this is: “Now is morning hence is light. The light isn ‘t now therefore is night”, they identified the dialectic as the science of true and false and that isn’t true and false; it is the deny of the syllogism of Aristotle that in stead wanted the true premises and premises probable that he has used for his syllogism, for Stoic all must be or true or false or neither; it is impossible because something must be or true or false, other isn’t, but the Stoic has though something that become true also in absurd expression, how? Simple they, and it isn’t philosophy but an motive of originality and stop, because the clarification of this judge is ridiculous; in fact the neither false or true is that word in proposition that is single, for example, man, or animal, extern from a contest isn’t true or false, because hasn’t premise and conclusion, hence it isn’t neither; but it is logic, for this isn’t necessary the Stoa is necessary alone the animal intelligence. The difference and origin of this dialectic logic is in the difference between Aristotle and Stoicism in regard dialectic; because the Stoic used the anapodictic concept, from ancient Greek αναπόδεικτος, indemonstrable, because it is evident, as now is morning hence is light, that above we have read; but the origin of this criterion to demonstrate something, has origin in Socrates, because he begun from evident and elementary proposition that after became pure logic, because took from reality; the think of Stoic in regard dialectic is Socratic, purely and merely Socratic.

Alessandro Lusana   

       

 

 

 

Politic plays

A company of tourism organized a visit for tourist in Saint Helen Island, where in 1815, died Napoleon, and Richard very impassioned of history booked soon this visit. In the day of departure after all necessary checks, he was excited; and he was reading memories of Saint Helen Island of personal doctor of Napoleon; and he some steps was interesting but other was very boring, anyway he wanted know more about this jail and its guest, hence he read this book. Arrived to Island one warden welcomed them, and he hailed the group and he accompanied about the island, he explained the nature, the homes of very scant residents, among 4300 and 5200 citizens, and he indicated the capital of Jamestown, and after he accompanied the tourists to principal attractive of island this is the residence of Napoleon, Richard followed the group, and in a room, gather other, he was impressed from simplicity, almost poorness of this room; a window, very great looed the sea and the light was very sheening, he approached to the window and he looked the sea, very admirable, and while he was concentrated in this bliss, he heard from back a voice: “Can I know are you?”, he very soon turned toward the voice and he seen a man that dressed a military uniform he was high meter 1,69, black hair and gazed Richard with attention that was typical of military. Richard excuse hem and asked if he was an actor or other, the military gazed him and asked again: “Can I know who are you?”, Richard followed the with of this interpretation and asked: “I asked to you who are you?”, and the military answered: “Napoleon Bonaparte”, and Richard said his name and after that the Napoleon was seated also Richard seated on a stool. Napoleon looked the window and after, without gaze Richard: “I must admit that the policy is always similar, certainly with modern tools and strategies but the fundamental actions are equal”, and Richard: “Why?”, and Napoleon: “Because the egoism of nation is equal, and it is right, because a chief must think the first to his people, and after other; but now the politic man works above all to herself and after for the nation, but…”, Richard interrupted this judge and : “Who are these politic men?”, and Napoleon: “Every, also because the politic is a play among the states, that in first plane of politic palace row and give the boats and promise war and destructions, it is in first plane, but after in basement they make the accord so that the wars don’t occur”, and Richard: “Why?”, and Napoleon: “Because the people isn’t now what was in my time, when the faithful was sure, now people is informed and thousand among journals and magazines explain the politic and the actions and because the actions happen; every strategy is note to print before that it is used, and the today lead a nations, because it is aware of his power, the democracy has given it to people”, and Richard: “A question: why do you say used and not think? A strategy is used certainly but before it must is though, or not so?”, and Napoleon: “Yes it is so, but I have said used on stead think or though because the contemporary strategy, is false to everything”, and Richard. “Why?”, and Napoleon: “Because nothing state wanted the war, and it are declared alone when it is indispensable; every chief knows perfectly that nobody want the war or fight, because the people is grown up and now is no possible but certain that the people is rebel to a decision of chief; I have to work through wars and actions because I have to give the importance to people, but giving the image that the people was the principal my think”, and Richard: “It was not certainly”, and Napoleon: “My principal think was the French and other is literature”, and Richard: “But you have founded the republics in Italy and…”, and Napoleon: “Strategy, alone strategy, but in 1796, when I have invaded Italy I have given the new politic model of politic, apparently, but truly a wanted alone the conquest, because the first think was the French, I repeat, today unique interest is herself, but during my time was not the tools that today you can use, because then were other generations and other costumes, today if I present myself through speech or ideal speeches, may somebody have time to blow a raspberry, because nobody believes to politic”, an voice on the open door said: “Majesty your medicine”, he was the doctor that has in the hand a flask. Napoleon greeted Richard and gone away. Richard made same and on the fly he rethought what Napoleon has said, and arrived to final stop, he wanted greet the pilot, and he gone in the cabin and he gazed the pilot and he greeted him, and the pilot turned to Richard and he recognized Napoleon, and asked: “But you was in Saint Helen Island, what do you making here?”, and the pilot: “Somebody must lead the airplane, as the states, nobody believes to politic, but majority votes, why? Simple because nobody want responsibility of command, hence who are available to this position is very fit, and I am available to lead a empire or an airplane”, and Richard gone out form cabin and after soon he reentered, but the cabin was empty, and an hostess approached to him and asked: “What do you are searching?”, and Richard: “Napoleon”, and hostess gazed him and: “Napoleon is died in 1815, if you can go out, please, because the fly is ended, thank you”.

Alessandro Lusana                                

 

Classic Rubens

Peter Paul Rubens(1577-1640), was an one of major German painter, he was German to birth, because is born in Siegen, Westphalia, but the art critic considers him as Flemish painter, anyway two origins both cultural and birth that excluded totally a series of documents both papery and painting; because the address of Rubens was merely realistic, because Flemish to culture, but in Italy, from 1600 to 1608, he has painted in Italy and he has study also Italian works, we can are sure about it for some drawing that is directly emanation from Universal judge of Michelangelo(1475-1564)(Fig.1), we must not consider it as copies from Michelangelo but suggestion that Rubens has took and translated diversity: a figure of man(Fig.2), is directly suggestion from the nudes on vault of Sistine chapel(Figs.3-6), that evidently Rubens has studied and has took, as good idea for eventual painting, the painters seen a determined painting, or others thing, and they keep in the brain imagines, a catalog necessary for execution of their works, it is normal for every painter and sculptor, architect or artisan, for literary the catalog is the mentions. Other figure(Fig.7) while posture is very different but the model was the Christ of Judge(Fig.8); and other male figure(Fig.9), that has followed directly the nudes(Figs.3-6); other drawing with naked man from the back(Fig.10) has took from a figure of Michelangelo in same painting(Fig.11); beyond the posture of Christ(Fig.8), Rubens has took also other posture(Fig.12), the arm is from Christ but the posture outspread is directly from this figure, hence Rubens has gathered two postures of two figures; it is catalog that I have mentioned above; a perfect gather of two figures and the while postures, is for two figures of God(Fig.14), that Rubens has took to a figure from the back but with left arm opened(Fig.13); Rubens has took the figure of God from the back, and has took also the opened arms of God figure on right; but certainly to him hasn’t rested indifferent the posture of Eva(Fig.15). These considerations about the classic address of Rubens, that in art critic is a true oath, because Rubens was Flemish and stop, are valid also to other drawn figure(Fig.16), the posture is directly took from the fragmentary sculpture, called the torso of Belvedere(Fig.17), and for the legs of man Rubens has took the Moses(Fig.18); the influences of classic culture is evident also from painting, a figure of Hercules(Fig.19) Rubens has took again the posture of Christ(Fig.8), but for body very statuary he sees to painted sculptures of Judge(Figs.20-21). It attests that a painter must follow the will of costumers and he must took everywhere the suggestions necessary to his painting, the canonical address we have given, but they were above all artists and after also classic, naturalist and other.

Alessandro Lusana  

  

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

Fig.10

Fig.11

Fig.12

Fig.13

Fig.14

Fig.15

Fig.16

Fig.17

Fig.18

Fig.19

Fig.20

Fig.21