Blush Maybelline Mousse Swatche

and culture of indifference and the school Summerhill

Many years ago Gary gave me a book by Alexander Neill, Summerhill entitled , published in Italy in 1971 (Editorial Forum, Rome) and written in 1960. I am still grateful to Gary for this gift that touched me the mind and heart. The book is now found only in a limited edition ( boys happy Summerhill, Red, Novara, 2004), but also deserves to be read.

What is striking in the pages of Neill, written in a sober and simple terms, is the love of children together with a sense deep respect and a genuine intellectual curiosity. Love is a rare gift and can only benefit the relationship between parents and children or between teachers and pupils, but only if combined with the ability to comply with the spontaneity of children and young people and to understand individual development, can bear fruit remarkable.

Neill has demonstrated in his school (founded 1921) that children have the ability to "regulate" that is, grow and socialize in a non-destructive. They need acceptance, love and respect, but not rules or indoctrination about good and evil. When you see destructive behavior in children, uncooperative, apathetic, there is need for "educational interventions" traditional, because in such cases the interventions have already been there and have already given those results. Even in education in the strict sense, the school should therefore provide incentives, encourage interest and research, encourage the study but not "indoctrinate." In any case should not punish or instill guilt.

Neill's ideas are simple but deep and are also quite well known internationally, but does not really affect the educational process because, to be applied, requiring more than a theoretical knowledge, a sensitivity that few have. Undervalued for years in the 60s Neill has been a great appreciated by scholars and young people. He also received an honorary degree from the University of Newcastle, Exeter and Essex (see http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk/pages/asneill.html ).

Neill has carefully studied the psychological development of individual and opposed the Freudian idea of \u200b\u200bthe destructive impulses in revising the pedagogical ideas of Wilhelm Reich, with whom he has been in contact. If the Reichian theory states that the destructiveness is a neurotic reaction and not an aspect of human nature, the educational practice of Alexander Neill demonstrates this idea in practice [cf. the POST Physics Education and Il controllo dell’infanzia e del traffico ].

Dopo la morte di Neill, la scuola di Summerhill ha continuato le attività e continua tuttora a svolgerle. Si veda il sito http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk/ .

All’inizio del libro, Neill scrive alcune frasi che voglio riportare. “I giornalisti la chiamano la “Scuola-fai-quel-che-ti-pare” suggerendo così l’idea che essa ospiti una banda di selvaggi primitivi, indisciplinati e maleducati. Mi sembra necessario, di conseguenza, scrivere la storia di Summerhill il più onestamente possibile. E’ naturale che io non sia imparziale: tuttavia mi sforzerò di mettere in evidence both its strengths as his weaknesses. The advantages consist in the presence of free and healthy children whose life is marred by fear and hatred. It 'obvious that a school that forces children to sit in the pews brightly forcing them to learn unnecessary materials, in most cases, is a bad school. (...) Summerhill was founded as an experimental school. Now it no longer is: now is a school demonstration and demonstrates that freedom works "(pp. 9-10).

The book is important not only for educators but also for parents. Many issues that are discussed in schools are similar to those that parents deal with children within families. E ' pure importante nonostante sia stato scritto da mezzo secolo. Sulle questioni in cui si intrecciano nodi affettivi e problemi conoscitivi il mondo ha la strana capacità di progredire alla velocità delle lumache, mentre solo sul piano della ricerca tecnologica procede speditamente. Il libro è stato uno dei miti degli anni ’60 e ‘70, ma resta ancora importante. Dato che i sessantottini non hanno costruito il “mondo migliore” che sognavano, pur avendo fatto tesoro di Neill e di tanti autori “rivoluzionari”, oggi siamo nella posizione di dover ancora costruire buoni rapporti interpersonali e sociali. Infatti abbiamo alle spalle quattro decenni di “controriforma” che ci hanno fatto piombare in un mondo di non-cultura politica, di demenzialità televisiva e di ignoranza totale per tutto ciò che riguarda lo sviluppo psicologico e affettivo delle persone.

Anche se in alcune pagine si sente che il libro di Neill è stato scritto in altri tempi, la sensibilità e l’intelligenza dell’Autore riescono a far passare idee comunque interessanti. Ad esempio, oggi che l’interruzione della gravidanza è autorizzata e che i profilattici si vendono nei distributori automatici, certe considerazioni di Neill possono far sorridere, ma già ai suoi tempi egli riusciva a ragionare in modo rigoroso e a parlare senza mezzi termini di “malvagia moralità” (p. 272) a proposito dell’ipocrisia e del perbenismo.

For these reasons, the pages Neill affect us like a caress, shake us and make us loose, but we are also thinking.

Silvia

Set Up Pokemon On Mac

Notes on Henry's comments on his book "Free from civilization"

This Post reported responses to the interventions of Henry Marcellus, Gaetano, Elisa and Gianfranco which together form the recent post about the book Posts "Free from civilization" . Some obvious harmonies have made possible the interest of the blog for the book of Henry, however, both Marcello interventions, Gaetano, Elisa and Gianfranco, and these responses Enrico also show significant diversity of views. The debate on these issues could then be long, but we prefer to give the last word to Henry and then leave open the questions examined in the next post to return to the "more usual" topics of the blog.

(Marcello, Gaetano, Elisa and Gianfranco)

on Intervention OF MARCELLO

Dear Marcello,

thank you very much for the compliments that I have addressed. It is always a great satisfaction to be comprehensible and "interesting." Concerns or issues that remain open to the questions addressed to me in LIBERI DALLA CIVILTA' è pacifico (il mio libro non ha certo la pretesa di rispondere ad ogni quesito possibile), e dunque mi stimola l'idea di dibattere a proposito di tali questioni. Vorrei però fare chiarezza su una cosa che ritengo importante. A me, come persona, non sono mai piaciute (e non interessano tuttora) le pure speculazioni teoriche, gli intellettualismi, i cerebralismi e, soprattutto, non vorrei che i lettori potessero pensare che il mio libro fosse intriso di questa retorica o la incoraggiasse. Con questo non voglio dire che il tuo intervento dia credito a questa mia preoccupazione, ma siccome è facilissimo cadere in equivoci e fraintendimenti (tanto più se si fa uso di parole), vorrei solo evitare che il lettore che si approcciasse per la prima volta a questo blog senza aver letto il mio libro pensasse che LIBERI DALLA CIVILTA' si inserisse in quella categoria di saggi colmi di considerazioni pleonastiche e di questioni di pura “lana caprina”.

Consentimi dunque di fare la precisazione che segue. Per quanto nel mio libro abbia cercato di tenere aperto lo sguardo ad ogni possibile prospettiva d'indagine (una critica organica alla civilizzazione lo imponeva), e per quanto abbia dunque trattato di filosofia, di psicologia, di antropologia, di biologia, di medicina, ecc., LIBERI DALLA CIVILTA' non è un libro di filosofia, né di psicologia, né di antropologia, ecc. Non è insomma un libro “specialistico”, but a book that I have endeavored to make as simple and understandable. A book that I like to call "popular", whose purpose is, is not to make a display of wisdom, but to allow everyone to have the desire and the good heart to read it, you can find some ideas to increase their critical awareness to the gloomy world is killing us. My only aspiration is indeed to see a more widespread determination to "resistance" to the civilization that is resistant to the practice of devastation all around us every day is presented as the quintessence of freedom and happiness.

How did you regularly noted, moreover, I always speak of civilization and not of our civilization, and I talk about why I refer to the civilization and culture to our Western ways. I mean, that is, a process that was developed about ten thousand years ago with the birth of agriculture and that, wherever it arose (and expanded in the world), he did stands on some characteristics unshakeable. If we look at civilized history, whatever the different connotation of costume that civilization has changed over time and space (from ancient Mesopotamia to the modern Western society), it has always been characterized by the presence of a single common denominator: il distacco dell’Individuo dalla Natura e l’affermazione di un dominio del primo sulla seconda. È per questo che l'agricoltura è considerata (anche convenzionalmente) l'atto di nascita della civiltà.

Con l'agricoltura, infatti, l'essere umano realizza fattivamente questa separazione: inizia cioè a concepirsi non più come un “Io” connesso a tutto il resto, ma come un “Io” separato dal mondo e dominante verso di esso. Con l'agricoltura, insomma, la natura cessa di essere un “soggetto” e diventa un “oggetto”: un qualcosa di diverso dall'Umanità e destinato ad essere sottomesso da questa (sottomesso = messo below, put to good use).

are the things you use, not people. And when we are using the subjects (which happens more often in the modern world) is because our civilized mentality has taught us to even conceive of subjects as they were objects (objectification). The objectification of nature, then, is the very foundation of civilization: from our own as of the Toltec, from our own as that of Egypt, from our own as that of ancient China, Polynesian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Mayan, etc.. If we want to investigate the source of the crisis of our time, with the values \u200b\u200bof this reifying process we call civilization that we must take, not with individual Western ways rather than Islamic ones, Indochinese, or Kurds.

What is dragging us towards the destruction of the world is not the our civilization, but civilization. As long as humans have lived in harmony with the natural environment being considered as an integral part of that indivisible whole that our mentality reifying called "Nature", there were neither arbitrary nor lust for conquest. Why is not the hunger that gives rise to war if the relational fabric of the community is based on mutual aid, the closeness and mutual aid. What mother does not share with your child the only piece of bread? What lover would not do the same with their loved one? Of course, in the world "dell'arraffa-grabbing", the "take-all and fregatene of others," the "be smart and make your personal interests," a piece of bread would emerge an endless war. And since we live immersed in economic thinking "dell'arraffa-grabbing", the "take-all and fregatene of others," the "be smart and make your personal interests," we can no longer even conceive that there is another way non-civilized living. All the more, then, if you begin to shake the specter of the "death" (hunger). Even the threat of death, however, is not able to crack even the slightest feeling of those living in nature, knows that death is part of Life. It is we, once again, that living in an artificial existence canned that enhances the loss of all contact with reality through the illusion of freedom from pain (medicine), aging (technology) since the end of life (religion ), we fear death like madmen. And to avoid it would be also willing to kill ...

civilization has made us so dependent on our wasteful lifestyle that we can no longer detoxify. This is the problem. Civilization is doping, and we, who live just drugged by pseudo-comfort del mondo civile, sappiamo bene quanto sia difficile disintossicarci da queste abitudini. La civiltà è drogante perché ogni passo che noi facciamo lungo il suo percorso di domesticazione, ne diventiamo sempre più dipendenti. Cento anni fa la luce elettrica non esisteva; oggi nessuno potrebbe farne a meno. E quando fra cinquant'anni tutto dipenderà dal funzionamento delle centrali nucleari saremo disposti a credere allo stesso inganno che ci costringe anche oggi alla catena: vale a dire credere che il nucleare sia indispensabile alla nostra vita. Il nucleare, come l'elettricità o la macchina, non è indispensabile alla nostra vita. È indispensabile alla civiltà: a questo enorme e infaticabile processo autoinglobante che sta portando all to the destruction of everything.

is this awareness which I think is important, not what "balance of nature" or the idea of \u200b\u200bevolution is linear or not ...

On the other hand, even in these purely theoretical considerations, the conditioning civilized that we experience every day, quietly, is all too evident. The concept of "linearity" for example, is a concept typically geometric, so civilized. In nature, nothing is straight, let alone if it can be a process. In the history we know that different populations of hunting and gathering that are dedicated to agriculture have been the go back to the nomad. Questi particolari, però, non incidono su quella che potremmo definire una valutazione generale, la quale ci dice che il processo di civilizzazione è un processo tendenzialmente unidirezionale, condizionante, spinto verso l'autodistruzione.

Lo stesso vale per il concetto di “equilibrio”. È solo la nostra mentalità scientista che lo vede come sinonimo di “perfezione”. Quando dico che la vita paleolitica è stata in equilibrio armonico con la natura per almeno due milioni di anni, non voglio dire che la vita primitiva fosse un Eden. C'erano senz'altro dei problemi, e immagino che fossero anche tanti. Ma erano problemi rapportati alla capacità che gli umani hanno di affrontarli e (sperare to) solve them. Faced with a leopard you can always hide (if you know to run fast), you can always groped to climb up a tree (if you know climbing), it can also deal with it (if you are strong of their prowess Physical and body). Of course you can fail in order to save himself, but was not totally at the mercy of the danger. Today, however, the problems we are thrown upon the artificial world in which we survive are mostly resolved by ourselves: What can we do about the catastrophe represented by the tide of oil is leaking from BP's platforms in the Gulf of Mexico and that is turning the sea on a funeral? What can we do against the outbreak of a nuclear reactor (every year, hundreds of nuclear accidents around the world)? What can we do about the fact that the economy contemplates the existence of cyclical monetary crisis? None. We've turned a world "measure of Nature" in an alien world to ourselves and to nature, and what we can do now is to just suffer the consequences, or try to bring the world to "measure of Nature." I see no other viable solutions.

non-civilized life was not an Eden, but it was a life worth living because each individual has of himself and had not been deprived of its ability to sort and put at the mercy of a machine or decisions of the specialist on duty or a government. We do not realize it, but in the civilized world we have lost the use of the feet. If we take off our shoes are no longer able to move .... We do not realize it, but in the civilized world we are no longer able to provide our own existence: we can no longer recognize a puddle of water from a polluted, no longer able to distinguish a poisonous mushroom from an edible; we are no longer able to protect us from the cold to fend for themselves, to recognize berries, roots and other plant nutrients essential to our ... In short, we become "disabled". As was written in the civilized world "we are like chickens in battery: If you stop the flow of feed, the scenario is the collapse. " And the more we become dependent on the flow of feed, the more we will be forced to accept the decisions, rules, restrictions and abuses of those who control and manage these flows. This much more specific, the more we become dependent on technological processes of the civilized world, the more we will proclaim themselves to be ensnared by religious and ideological right-wing or left-wing parliament, the more we will be delighted in theoretical speculation ends in themselves instead of organizing the daily struggle the causes of our imprisonment (civilization), the more we turn away even the ability to imagine a different world ... And I say, dear friend, with no desire to be controversial, but only because this is my main concern: that by dint of Artificial quietly, lightly to separate from reality, to say the majority of chickens in battery making the real reality the virtual one, we've got to just lose the ability to imagine a natural world in which to return to live. It is in this sense that I hope my book will be of help to someone.

on Intervention of Gaeta ELISA

Dear friends, I save each fitting being quite clear that I have sincerely appreciated the respect that I have expressed in words.

The fact that we can make an instrumental use of a thought or analysis (especially if collected in a text) is not a problem that comes with my book. I agree with you when you say that the Revolution is not made with the incense and prayers, but by carrying out activities and initiatives. But I believe that concrete steps should be clear that these should detract from the value system that you want to "revolutionize" does not legitimize it indirectly. If we think that the parliamentary left is different from the right and see it as a "problem" that the Left lost much acclaim from having to support electorally, we are not questioning nulla del sistema in cui oggi viviamo, quello cioè che ci espropria delle nostre abilità di genere per metterci al servizio della tecnologia, dell'economia, dell'esperto di turno o del governo. Che cos'è un politicante (di destra o di sinistra) se non uno specialista che dovrebbe occuparsi della nostra capacità di pensare gestendo la vita di tutti? Cosa cambia nella sostanza (e sottolineo nella sostanza) se ai comandi della devastazione del mondo si trova Berlusconi o Bersani? Il governo progressista americano di Obama ha forse messo in discussione la logica militare che ne fa lo Stato dominante al mondo? Ha forse cessato di sostenere quel sistema truffaldino che ci tiene al guinzaglio e che chiamiamo Economia? Si è forse impegnato per combattere la mentalità tecnologica che sta riducendo il mondo ad un grande schermo con la massima risoluzione d'immagine?

È ovvio che essendo ogni persona diversa dall'altra, anche ogni partito (che è solitamente composto da persone) sia diverso dall'altro. Ogni partito, infatti, utilizza pratiche e sistemi d'imbonimento differenti. Ma il problema è che queste pratiche e questi sistemi sono finalizzati TUTTI allo stesso obiettivo: governare, dirigere, amministrare gli altri; imbonire insomma! E per quanto le attività dei diversi politicanti possano apparire caratterizzate da metodologie differenti (e spesso lo sono, non c'è dubbio), si iscrivono tutte quante nella stessa logica di soggezione e dominazione. Non c'è alcuna possibilità di fare diversamente: se si vuole governare qualcuno lo si deve sottomettere, costringere (se non si adegua spontaneamente) e punire (se si ribella). Governare è un po' come mettersi ai comandi di un computer. Come ogni persona che si siede davanti al computer fa tutto quello che si deve fare per accenderlo e per entrare nei relativi programmi, anche ogni politicante che si siede ai comandi di un dato Paese fa tutto quello che si deve fare per amministrarlo secondo i valori del mondo civilizzato in cui vive e che lo ha messo in carica: sostenendo l'economia, la tecnologia, la cultura, la paura, la pratica del dominio.

Quante rivoluzioni si sono susseguite in the history of civilization? Yet the process distancing and reifying we call civilization continues to proceed undisturbed encompassing everything and everyone. Why? The answer seems simple: why no revolution has really put into question the paradigm of the civilized world, nor its core values. Every revolution, in reality it has simply legitimized the basic assumptions, renewing and ever: he argued that the economy has relied on technology, has used the fear and the culture to tame, has preserved the anthropocentric ideology and the consequent logical domain (on the Nature and our nature), has supported and defended the principle of division of labor and specialization. In short, every revolution, instead of working to get the world to return and become a world "measure of Nature", and has kept it as it is today: a "measurement system". Consequently, every single living being has always been kept away from the possibility of determining it.

As we said at the beginning of the blog in the world we live in. People do not count, nor the reports nor the subjects, and counts of Economy, Technology, Culture ... In a word: the system. If the system is what counts, is the system that should be preserved, and we all become subordinate to that priority. If today we were transformed into ingranaggi di questo Grande Meccanismo che ci sovrasta, che si nutre di noi, che ci usa e ci consuma fino allo stremo per poi buttarci tra i rifiuti quando non siamo più Efficienti e diventiamo “vecchi”, è solo perché nel mondo civilizzato ciò che conta è appunto il Sistema (la Megamacchina).

Nei fatti, lo vediamo bene quotidianamente, la nostra vita non è più nelle nostre mani, ma in quelle dei politicanti (e del loro racket del consenso), dei medici (e del loro business sulle malattie), degli economisti (e dei loro ricatti monetari), dei tecno-scienziati (e delle loro manipolazioni genetiche che hanno raggiunto anche la vita umana)... Dobbiamo allora riportare la nostra vita nelle nostre mani! Prima lo faremo, prima fermeremo la catastrofe. Ogni altra soluzione di ripiego rimarrà una soluzione di ripiego.

Carissimi Gaetano ed Elisa, io ho grande considerazione umana per le posizioni che avete espresso, ma vi chiedo: pensate davvero che la raccolta differenziata dei rifiuti possa cambiare la struttura del mondo civilizzato? Senza voler polemizzare sul fatto che ogni raccolta differenziata viene poi compromessa nei fatti all'atto del conferimento dei rifiuti nell'inceneritore (e che dunque raccolta differenziata di rifiuti vuol dire anche inceneritore...), sono assolutamente convinto che l'ammasso di rifiuti che produciamo ogni giorno non sia il problema , ma il sintomo of the problem. Would not it be more appropriate, then, begin to wonder why we produce much waste? We would see that the problem would lead us straight to the issue of consumerism, which finds its justification in the industrial that has meaning only in a world where people do not matter but things, the movement of things, the administration of things , the wealth of things ... Thinking to solve the waste problem while preserving the logic that produces them, it seems simply meaningless.

On the other hand, pulling the strings of decomposition in this universe knows how to preserve their power, even without blocking (formally) the criticism of himself simply to meet any opposition "effects" of the problem rather than its "causes", and that's it. Stuck in muddy ground of criticism of the effects, animate us to determine how to dispose of, control, reduce, move, prohibit, hide ... And while the causes of our continued impoverishment and everything will remain untouched as ever: democratically undisturbed ...

Medical science is not master in the art of solving problems. In fact, it just teaches us to deal with the effects of the disease. We have the fever? Well, the fever should be removed ... Too bad that the fever is not the cause of the disease but an effect, just a symptom. In essence, fever tells us there is something wrong in our bodies and we have to try to understand what the problem is and then groped to remedy.

Similarly we look evil in the world just trying to mitigate its effects. It is the governments (of any color possible), the tycoon, the scientists, the "technicians" who teach us well. We think the only meeting in Copenhagen in December 2009 where the Department of Earth have come together to talk about global pollution limits. Set limits to pollution worldwide is how to work to try to reduce fever. The pollution is in fact a symptom of an underlying problem: there is something wrong in our system, so much so that it produces pollution (symptom). As long as we take care of setting limits to pollution (and not to struggle to return to a world that produces no pollution), pollution will be justified and will not go away ...

If we are sick we have to look at the causes of the disease, not to worry just to hide (or resize) the symptoms. Empty the garbage under the rug will not make the room clean and, by dint of throwing garbage under the rug, the room has become so saturated that is about to burst ... We want to continue to seek a new carpet?

We think the serious problem of air traffic. Yourself you have rightly raised as a priority problem. Do you really think that issue is resolved "substantially reducing the number of flights? And the noise? And the routes of animals affecting all aircraft? And the issue of chemtrails? And exploitation (human and environmental) that lies behind the construction of an airplane?

Again what prevails in our way of seeing things is the anthropocentric perspective. We migratory birds do not give a damn. You know you! For two stupid birds! What I do not understand is that our life depends also on the flight of those two "dumb" birds. And if you block that route, indirectly we also hurt ourselves. Why in the world we live in we are not islands: everything is interconnected. And if civilization has taught us to perceive themselves as separate from everything (and dominant), we in fact we are all inseparable parts of this, and any migration route that will prevent, any land paved, every river that might contaminate each animal vivisection , knock down every plant that will be a bit 'of life that we take to ourselves.

Unfortunately our civilized mentality that does not allow us to see what we have seen for millions of years (when we lived on the non-civilized). We keep thinking of it as the master of nature, as that nature was in fact a Ireland insignificant to our mail service. We do not realize that everything is connected to everything, and that we are not masters of anything. In the words of Ishmael , the wise gorilla protagonist of the novel by Daniel Quinn, is not the world that belongs to us, we who belong to the world. And as long as our mentality is not coming back to be like the primitive (which well cover the above assumption of interconnection), we will continue to destroy, to devastate, to pollution, deforestation, to abolish, to kill ... according to law. Maybe with a good measure of ecological parliamentary left to the government that will explain it ended the era of classical economics (the ugly and capitalist) and the era of the Green-Economy: the clean, renewable, sustainable ... the "green" in short, as the dollars are green justify ...

As I said at the beginning, I do not seem controversial, and indeed I must thank you for the intervention because it allows me to express what I think. If I insist, therefore, in referring to your words is not for pedantry, but because I seem to be full of food for thought. You say it's better the policy of "small steps", the "least worst".

The problem, in my view, is that the policy of "small steps", by imposing to target the few energy that we have the objective of "small step", tends to lose sight of its overall purpose. I make a very brief historical example to make myself better understood.

the late nineteenth century, in Italy, after years of increasingly heated discussions and comparisons, the Socialist Revolutionaries were separated from the reformist socialists who, in 1892, come together in the Italian Socialist Party (PSI). The reformist socialists believed that the political struggle (for a world of free and equal) would be a "small steps" even entering the institutions to tackle them from within, and supported the need to show up at the polls. The Socialist Revolutionaries (gli anarchici, tanto per intenderci), ribadivano invece che questo stesso obiettivo (una società di liberi e di uguali) potesse essere raggiunto solo evitando di passare per il tramite di un governo socialista (che sarebbe diventato ben presto un governo come tutti gli altri), e operando al contrario tra la gente, per una diffusa sensibilizzazione sulle problematiche di volta in volta portate all'attenzione pubblica. Ritenevano, insomma, che la battaglia politica dovesse farsi fuori dalle istituzioni, senza compromessi; e questo proprio per evitare di essere fagocitati dalle istituzioni stesse e trasformati in strumento del potere.

I socialisti riformisti si presentarono alle urne (1882) e riuscirono anche ad eleggere un loro deputato (il bolognese Andrea Costa, ex anarchico approdato alla causa dei “piccoli passi”). Grandi esultanze celebrarono questo evento e mentre gli anarchici continuavano a guardare la svolta con preoccupazione, continuavano anche a ribadire il fatto che aspirando ad entrare nelle istituzioni, i loro compagni socialisti riformisti avrebbero prima o poi perduto l'orizzonte dell'obiettivo finale (una società di liberi e di uguali) per occuparsi di istituzioni, con tanto di possibile scalata al potere (alla faccia dei liberi e degli uguali). Non ho bisogno di andare oltre nel riportare i fatti storici e per dimostrare quanto avessero ragione gli anarchici. Tutti sappiamo come sono andate le cose nei cento anni successivi, con il PSI al governo and Craxi (and its depredations) ahead of all the disappointments of the socialist reformers.

After changing the goal (from the "general" than the "small step"), it usually ends with him losing the original objective to pursue other things .... until it is lost completely. Today, just to conclude the above example, we know that the historical part of the PSI supports even the right and is part of Berlusconi's fascist parties that lead the fascist government of the "leader" Silvio ...

seems to me that accepting the policy of "small steps" is nothing but a symptom of a yield, and yield inevitably leads to sconfitta. Purtroppo, lo dico guardando prima di tutto a me stesso, cadere nella trappola dell'arrendevolezza è molto facile nel mondo iper-controllato e addomesticato in cui sopravviviamo. La civiltà, insomma, ci costringe quotidianamente a una vita talmente addomesticata e servile che anche i nostri atteggiamenti tendono a farsi sempre più docili. In questa resa alla conformità dimentichiamo solitamente che oltre alla Libertà (valore di cui si fa sempre un gran parlare, politicamente) esiste anche la Dignità. Nel mondo dell'utilitarismo, delle attenzioni al “proprio orto”, delle preoccupazioni individualistiche, non siamo più in grado di fare battaglie per affermare la dignità dell'esistere. Ci accontentiamo in fact the lesser evil, the little there is, of what can be achieved right away, forgetting that what you can get is often not immediately achieved, but granted. And I say this with great bitterness, because all are victims. Yet, just touch us in love just because they react as free and dignified individuals, showing how the politics of "lesser evil" is just a surrender to the imperative of not-want-change-anything. An example of the paradoxes that take from the shelf, I can make my argument even more clearly.

Suppose that one day show up at our door a madman in uniform that you notify us of this decision disturbing: "From today, it was decided that she should take ten blows per day. I shall myself every morning at 8:30 to beat her for duty! "What would we do faced with such a choice? We will probably at work to try to get that brute who simply come to trim "only" eight blows per day, or pretend not to be touched? I am convinced that our dignity we would communicate immediately to do everything possible to avoid being beaten. Yet those who deny that it is better to take eight blows that take ten?

Everyone is obviously free to do whatever they want with their life, but I am convinced that if we put in that situation instinctively we would try to fight for that nobody can beat up by decree. We may also fail in the enterprise, there is no doubt, but the choice between a life devoted to menial barrel morning to the extent legally living and the prospect of not being beaten, most of us would opt for the path of freedom, dignity. And we are not interested to know that, scientifically speaking, eight blows per day trimmed to an individual of our age would not exceed the maximum margin of tolerance to the slap of the human brain, and thus the damage of those beatings do not have any immediate repercussions on our health. We would not be beaten, period!

Struggling for an economy Green, for a technology with low environmental impact, for democratic politics, for the collection of waste, reducing the number of flights, we are doing is fighting for only eight slaps.

course, my example is only apparently paradoxical. Why the slap in fact, receive them for real. Only that there are printed directly on the face: we come to a third party, through the suppression of daily living and the destruction of the natural world. Nature, that is, continues to take thousands of blows per day (enough to be on the verge of collapse) and we, what can we do? Invest our energies to reduce un po' il numero delle botte?

Io non ho pretese di convincimento di nessuno. E rispetto le vostre opinioni e di chi la vede diversamente da me. Non sarò però al fianco di chi, consapevolmente, operi per legittimare questo mondo di sfruttamento e di morte. Io voglio impegnare le mie energie affinché la Terra, le Persone, gli Animali, la Vita non la si tocchi più! E il mio riuscire nell'intento credo dipenda anche dalla volontà e dall'azione di tutti coloro che non abbiano già gettato la spugna...

SULL'INTERVENTO DI GIANFRANCO

Caro Gianfranco,

sta nell'ordine delle cose che opinioni, valutazioni o teorie non appaiano convincenti to someone. It is a pity that there were people able to imagine something "better" because of the origins of agriculture. Also your theory, moreover, as suggestive, it does not seem conclusive. If everything had been born with the emergence of a fear in emotional contact and fascination for power, does not explain why agriculture would be developed only after ten thousand years ago, in many different contexts and with no contact with each other (fertile Crescent rather than the Indus Valley, New Guinea, rather than ancient China), and in a limited period of time, including just between ten thousand and five thousand years ago (for the last "arrived" in the Americas just five thousand years ago). In short, because only in that period and not in another, in that much more extended period of two million years of the Paleolithic? If it was all due to a "stoned" by someone, because many of these "someone" who had no contact with each other and were separated by thousands of miles away, stoned together in those five years and not before?

On the other hand, your argument assumes a sort of "existential absolute perfection" (heaven on earth you call it) before the advent of civilization justifying the existence of hunter-gatherers. In fact, if it is true that the parents of a baby human being will inevitably make mistakes in raising their children, this was also true for hunter-gatherers of the Paleolithic (which were also human beings), which did not indulged agriculture for at least two million years. Anyway, even gatherers who still resist the genocidal invasions of the civilized world are certainly mistakes in raising their children, nevertheless, their communities continue to grow in a balanced, rewarding, peaceful, enviable, and not "stoned "...

I do not think that the cause of the birth of agriculture is due to regions that have imagined, and I still believe much more plausible the religious cause (after the development of symbolic culture). About one thing, though, I agree completely: as you say, "whatever the reasons for the initial turning point, we must accept that the vessels are already broken and we need to work on the pieces to do what is possible today." This seems to me the real issue on which to reflect, discuss, act.

Henry

Making A Sunfish Sail

spoke on the book "Free from civilization"

With these three measures of Marcellus, Gaetano / Elisa and Gianfranco, the preparation of the blog wants to seek some further reflection on the book by Henry, presented in POST Free from civilization (Whenever possible) . Only for convenience we have avoided the form of "dialogue-hit-and-answer" which would have required a lot of exchange of mail among five people before the establishment of a text "shared". So in this post we have collected some frequently asked reflections "and in a later post we will collect the responses of Henry.

INTERVENTION OF MARCELLO

Dear Henry, I can only

I applaud the work you have done with "Free from civilization." I agree with you on the development of degenerative this civilization and I will not even repeat in brief Heads analysis produced by you, because verification of the consequences we are experiencing is immediate and daily.

I remain, however, some doubts.

The first one I was born from your point of almost constant to civilization, and then from your assume that the alternative to this civilization is the non-civilization, because this is the only one. It 's definitely one for what is given us to live now, but it' s only possible ?

I do not think that this doubt is purely speculative because it keeps well with the other two. It 'almost indisputable fact that man farmer rappresenti una degenerazione rispetto all’uomo raccoglitore-cacciatore, e anche qui non sto a ripetere le implicazioni culturali, politiche, economiche, e prima ancora psicologiche ed emotive (in una parola, sull’intera vita umana ) che si possono leggere nella tua peraltro godibilissima trattazione. Non sono però sicuro che il movimento degenerativo:

1. sia iniziato con l’agricoltura;
   
2. se è iniziato con l’agricoltura, perché è iniziato.

Il vaglio delle ipotesi mi ha portato ad alcune riflessioni che possono aprirsi anche oltre il tema dell’incivilimento. Da profano, provo a spiegarmi meglio.

from step 2.

A P.. 39 a Bushman, one of our co-evo non-civilized, questioned replied: "Why should we dedicate ourselves to grow as long as there are so many nuts mongongo on earth?".

I agree with the Bushman, who in the hypothetical turning point from non-civilization to civilization could be alternatives in these situations:

a) have become more stupid, and do all the work to get things could get for free, and trigger the degenerative process of sheer stupidity or error;

b) have become more evil, and make the effort to create surplus, so rich, quindi avere più potere, quindi poter sfruttare e dominare gli altri e poi tutto il resto, per lucida malafede;

c) essere quello di sempre ma con pochissime noci di mongongo.

Trovo che (a) non sia realistica. Possibile all’interno della variabilità individuale, ma praticamente impossibile a livello collettivo a meno di ipotizzare una involuzione dell’intelligenza umana. Anche se personalmente non ho difficoltà a mettere in dubbio i dogmi darwiniani ed accettare anche momenti involutivi, credo che l’uomo, come elemento naturale, agisca complessivamente all’interno del sistema di minima spesa di tutta la natura.

(b) ha quasi lo stesso problema di (a): because all that is evolving towards a greater evil? To tell the truth would not be out another plane of existence for humanity: a plan of the soul or the collective mind, related but not identical nor deductible by the plan of evolution (Darwinian or not, it does not matter) of the body, namely ' soul or mind are not products of a body part (brain?), but its existence and the body is the only interface to the physical world. In this case, agriculture would be (and then this civilization) to be the effect caused by the human condition (degenerate than the optimum non-civilized) and not vice versa.

remains (c). Se le noci di mongongo che crescono spontaneamente non bastano più per tutti, le alternative alla morte per fame sarebbero state la competizione e il conflitto per assicurarsi le noci a scapito di altri o iniziare a coltivarle, innescando comunque un movimento degenerativo.

Inoltre rimane sempre in piedi la domanda, “perché se la natura è in armonia, poi la rompe e non produce più noci a sufficienza”?

Trovo quindi che il “problema agricoltura-innesco incivilimento mortale” fotografi una situazione già mutata, cioè siamo già al sintomo (uno dei primi) e non alla causa della malattia di questa civiltà.

Credo che tutta la matter can be summed up with "man the hunter-gatherer is in harmony with nature, then it no longer is." So

or changed man, and if it was in harmony with nature, have changed for reasons "extra-natural", that is along a different plane of existence, as previously mentioned.

O has changed the nature, meaning that there were many more mongongo nuts, and then man adapts. Just as the baby naturally in harmony with the world, then being in a world not just beautiful, does what he can: neurotic. And so the vicious circle.

At this point, dear Henry, I agree with you in considering this civilization as well as possible and inevitable is just a fantasy that we need an alibi.

Inevitable indeed, but only then, and now editable.

Just like our neuroses and fears unfounded (adults) are a response (almost automatic, child) is no longer appropriate to the problem (today) is no longer a danger.

today as I am what I am good thanks to what's wrong (or once did) there was in my life, I see a path nell'incivilimento, soffertissimo, self-consciousness of humanity.

I do not welcome that, but I think that some "compassion" for our children we can help humanity to avoid the pitfalls of the "rebellion" or escape in the adoration of the myth of the "noble savage" to search for the inner motivations for a real change in real life.

But we remain on the balance problem that breaks.

balance, understood in the sense of life, can not be understood as the absence of disturbances, because this corresponds to death. Nor is the presence of two perturbations of opposite sign which cancel, because this is stasis, that is still death.

That life moves in a succession of disruption of a different, sometimes overlapping (ie, acting at the same time) but never a zero-sum. In every moment life is always biased in some ways, then maybe a correction occurs, but the process is not achieved equality stops. Even in electrochemical cells, never attained the full balance, otherwise the end of the vital functions: if the difference in electrical potential between the inside and outside of the cell membrane will cancel the nutrients and toxins can not enter be expelled. This is true both in the microscopic world and in the macroscopic, if all the masses in gravitational equilibrium of the universe were the Earth would stop to turn around the Sun and 'stress of life because life is stress, but without advancing any theory that sees stress as "pepper necessary" for an "exciting and challenging life," because in these cases ( such a hectic work) usually it is a justification for rationalizing a series of avoidable stress (there are no jobs frantic) that for some deeper reason you do not want to face (see POST Competition, pride, capitalism and social dementia ). The idea of \u200b\u200bbalance is also the idea of \u200b\u200bjustice, namely equality, but the sum is not zero in finite time ever, that is exactly what we experience in our lifetime, or in the historical course of a century or a millennium. On a very long time we see more easily compensating movements such as landslides, economic crises and so on. and this suggests that equality is possible only in the eternally long time. This, in fact, is the idea of \u200b\u200bkarma, which includes actions, reactions, compensations that end only when the individual employees (male) ol'individualità collective (humanity) out of the cycle of rebirth (of finite lives), and live Timeless in the plane (where time does not flow, ie infinitely long). This

longed to reiterate that the situation of balance where everything works "as expected" is probably a mirage in the future and a myth in the past.

And once again, not to justify the current situation and resign themselves to it. The amplitude of the "degeneration" is reached very great, but I see something in this sad but physiological.

To clarify the physiology I mean, I try to take a step to the side of the idea of \u200b\u200bequilibrium, ie to that of evolution, keeping the key point that the sequence of perturbations of opposite sign suggests that the phenomenon is the basis of the oscillation and that life is the sum of multiple movements oscillating.

From the book, but I could not understand it clearly, I think your idea of \u200b\u200bevolution is linear . Even if you believe that there is a decline with the progress of civilization, it is considered that there is a movement from primitive to modern.

That is, before the primary there were other men (more) primitive, or, according to Darwin, even other animals (still) non-human (which are actually the most harmonious for excellence), and then there is a transition from the most to the least happy, linearly.

Unfortunately the signals of archeology, a little 'less standard, but "not too alternative" are other tipo.

Sia nelle caratteristiche fisiche degli umani, che del loro progresso culturale e tecnico.

Un esempio per tutti:

Sono state trovate diverse mappe sicuramente autentiche del ‘400 e inizio ‘500, probabilmente copiate da altri originali più antichi, che riportano le coste di terre allora ufficialmente ancora “non scoperte”, con un dettaglio e una tecnica incompatibili con le conoscenze dell’epoca. Per un primo studio delle fonti, consiglio la lettura del libro di G. Hancock, Civiltà sommerse (Ed. Corbaccio, 2002), di cui riporto un brano (pag. 9):

OTTAVA SQUADRIGLIA DI RICOGNIZIONE TECNICA (COMANDO STRATEGIC AIR) AIR FORCE OF THE UNITED STATES

Westover Air Force Base Massachusetts

July 6, 1960 SUBJECT: Admiral Piri Reis map of the world II

A: Professor Charles H. Hapgood,

Keene College,

Keene, New Hampshire Dear Professor Hapgood

,

your request for evaluation of certain unusual features of the world map of Piri Reis in 1513 by that body, has been granted.

The hypothesis that the lower part of the paper is the Princess Martha Coast of Queen Maud Land and the Antarctic Peninsula is reasonable. We believe it is the interpretation paper most logical and probably the correct one.

II geographical detail shown in the bottom of the card in an extraordinary way agrees with the seismic profile carried out on the surface of the ice cover by Swedish-British Antarctic Expedition of 1949.

In an attempt to find this explanation should remember the fundamental geological and historical facts: 1

The Piri Reis map, which is an authentic document, and in no way an insult, was built in Constantinople in the year 1513 AD

2 It highlights the west coast of Africa, the eastern coast of South America and the northern coast of Antarctica.

3 Piri Reis could not have acquired the necessary information on this region from contemporary explorers because Antarctica was discovered only in 1818, more than three hundred years after he designed the paper.

4 The coast of Queen Maud Land cleared of ice that appears in the paper is a colossal puzzle because the geological records confirm that the latest date would have been recorded and mapped in terms of a thaw is the 4000 BC

5 I can not find the date first where it was possible to achieve such a feat, but apparently the coast of the Earth Queen Maud remained in stable condition to thaw for at least nine thousand years before the advance of ice cover to swallow completely.

6 The story does not know any civilization that had the ability or the need to detect the coastline in the period in question, namely between 13,000 and 4000 BC

In other words, the true enigma of this paper of 1513. not so much the fact that it includes a continent only discovered in 1818, representing part of the coastline of that continent in terms of thaw, which came to an end six thousand years ago and have not been confirmed in more.

How can you explain this? Piri Reis gives careful attention to the response in a series of notes written by himself on the map itself. Informs us that he was not testing for the original map and drawings. On the contrary he admits that his role was only to compiler and

"This indicates that the coastline had been detected before it was covered by ice caps. At present the pall of thick ice in that region is about one mile.

absolutely do not know how we can reconcile the data on the card in question with the presumed level of geographical knowledge in 1513.

HAROLD Z.

Ohlmeyer Lt. Colonel, U.S. Air Force, Commander

Despite the measured tone, the letter of Ohlmeyer is a bomb. If the Queen Maud Land was taken before it was covered by ice, the work must be original map back to ancient times. When, exactly?

The scientific tradition has it that the Antarctic ice cover, in its present size and shape, has millions of years. A closer examination, this review reveals a serious flaw, so serious that we need not assume that the map drawn by Admiral Piri Reis reproducing the Queen Maud Land as it appeared millions of years ago. The best recent documentation indicates that the Earth's Regina Maud e le vicine regioni mostrate sulla carta attraversarono un lungo periodo senza ghiacci che forse si concluse definitivamente solo circa seimila anni fa. Questa documentazione, su cui torneremo nel prossimo capitolo, ci esonera dal gravoso compito di spiegare chi (o che cosa) fosse in possesso della tecnologia necessaria per realizzare un accurato rilevamento geografico dell'Antartico nell'anno, poniamo, duemilioni di anni fa, molto tempo prima delle origini della nostra stessa specie. Ma poiché la rappresentazione cartografica è un'attività complessa e civilizzata, ci troviamo d'altro canto obbligati a spiegare come sia stato possibile realizzare un'impresa simile anche solo seimila anni fa, una data che precede di molto the dawn of the first true civilizations recognized by historians.>>

Since the '400 is not known that there was no technology to detect the coasts in that way, especially on a continent that still did not know existed, There are two solutions:

1. the presence of a culture parallel to that of '400 of which we know nothing and who has developed a technology poderosissima, of which there is nothing left;
   
2. before our civilization there existed a ' other with a capacity comparable to our today, of which there is nothing left.

The (1) is not very likely, but no matter. These observations lead us to consider both the possibility of alternative extinct civilization (and it should work as a warning and encouragement to undertake the changes in ours) is that the first-tives are not really the first.

Fritjof Capra, in a book (The turning point , Feltrinelli, 2003) that you put yourself in your bibliography, in keeping with its holistic view, argues (and not just personal intuition, as now you begin to understand even in the more "official") that the lineage is not linear. Capra insists on non-linear, with moments of rise and fall, virtually every aspect of the universe in the long, long, short and medium term.

Some aspects are then resumed declining in slope, and so on: that the speaker, but less explicitly, oscillating line.

not get to talk about cycles, which are instead the Vedas: our age would be "turning point" from the Kali-yuga (fall, degenerative) in Satia-yuga (the rise, regenerating). The last yuga eons of time and are repeated. Within each yuga there are other shorter period of oscillating motion regarding other aspects of creation, and other variations in other characteristics "shorter" and so on grafting.

Quibble if they do not care hours are the same as looping in a "deja vu" or not, but to establish that finding a beginning is very difficult if not impossible. Could use effectively, so find the perpetrator guilty of civilization that makes us suffer, at least comforts us a bit '.

The Vedic civilization (not the Hindu which you refer, but the sages of ancient Rishi) seems to have been in equilibrium, even in harmony with the subtle energies of the universe, then it is no longer was (and is become Hindus).

There is talk of a science of life, Ayurveda (And all the technology that today we would call medical preparations for the diagnosis and treatment), which is not cured diseases, but the preservation of health. There is talk of a

Agriculture (eccoci!) Vriksha Ayurveda, where the plants were cultivated by reciting a mantra, because the mental connection between man and nature was crucial.

spoken but also one of aviation, airships, of terrible explosions, destruction (some sources see http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Vimanas.htm References #%% 20from% 20Ancient 20Literature ).

I realize that I'm also getting into the minefield of the new-age fantasy, but the suggestion dell’umanità che ciclicamente perde e ritrova armonia è in sè armonica. La perdita dell’equilibrio è intrinseca all’equilibrio dinamico, cioè è vitale.

Non voglio buttarla sul fatalismo, anche se l’idea di karma (che mi affascina e su cui mi propongo di ritornare) offre la possibilità di coniugare l’inevitabilità della degenerazione e della distruzione dell’universo con la libertà di generare e costruire del singolo individuo.

Caro Enrico, arrivo al dunque: gli approfondimenti possibili del tuo lavoro mi sembrano i seguenti:

a) nella NOSTRA storia evolutiva resta da chiarire perché si è passati da una situazione a "happy balance" to a situation of "involution unhappy" began with the use of a particular type of farming,

b) we can put this particular involution (that of the last 10,000 years) in a broader context, it probably IS it is only an appendage of a larger story, it is not to be anchored to dichotomies (such as "good times-bad times") or inconclusive rebellions (such as "do not vote if you do not have the Aboriginal").

said that it remains useful to understand the plot of the many plans of this civilization and remains confirmed that PV is preferable to oil, which reduced fuel consumption is better than photovoltaic, etc.. and that a de-growth and de- civilization are not synonymous with barbarism again but on the contrary, recovery of humanity.

INTERVENTION Gaeta and ELISA

Dear Henry,

try to do some reflection on the personal use you can do a book like yours, that has been designed and written in an intelligent and heartfelt. We do not propose to argue, as you are careful exposition and very balanced in its conclusions, but we would like to highlight two possible "lines" of thought that may develop from tue pagine: una a nostro avviso ragionevole e costruttiva ed una inconcludente, pseudo-progressista e snob. Nessun invito quindi a “correggerti” ma a puntualizzare e “prevenire” eventuali usi “impropri” del tuo lavoro.

La “nostra” civiltà si è sviluppata in un certo modo ed è arrivata a questo punto. Possiamo rimpiangere l’arco e le frecce, ma siamo qui a diecimila anni dall’opzione “agricoltura sì/agricoltura no” e siamo alle prese con ben altre opzioni. La lettura di pagine che dimostrano in modo convincente che non abbiamo davvero guadagnato un tubo ad avere più medicine e un fisico indebolito o ad avere aeroplani e non avere una meta, ci riporta comunque alle scelte di ogni giorno da farsi con il nostro fisico rattrappito e con la pubblicità delle Agenzie Viaggi.

Il pericolo di un uso poco saggio del tuo contributo è di tradurlo in “ideologia”, cioè in uno schema di idee sballate anche se più “umane” di quelle “padane” o consumiste. Il rischio è, cioè, quello di avviare una lotta personale “per la primitivizzazione”. Per intenderci, non vediamo niente di male nel fare delle vacanze in campagna anziché a New York o nell’andare in bici anziché in auto o nel gestire un “orto sinergico” senza usare zappa e concime. PURCHE’ queste cose siano intese come giochi (nel senso bello del termine), e non come “impegno”. La società non cambia affatto se io ho un orto rivoluzionario. Cambia di più se tutti fanno la raccolta differenziata e soprattutto se si riduce sensibilmente il traffico aereo (che costituisce una delle maggiori fonti di inquinamento del pianeta e di cui non parla nessuno). E’ più raccomandabile un altro uso del libro: un uso “critico” e mirato a comprendere meglio l’intreccio fra economia e cultura nel nostro mondo, accettando che comunque questo è il nostro mondo e che è nostro compito cambiarlo nei limiti del possibile.

A noi non piacciono i “rivoluzionari dello spirito” troppo schizzinosi verso policy to do something concrete. "Those who say ...-Whittaker-revolution part by the newspaper ... and smiling down at sunset, burning incensini, to recite poems collected in gift-box and feel very" spiritual "and" free of compromises. " The result, in these cases is that the fascists continue their work and the opposition (or whatever it is) has even fewer votes. We already have the "inner revolutionary" who think only of their fucking kundalini and "external" last minute that they send everyone to fuck off as left and right "are equal" (false idea, because right e sinistra sono cose diverse anche se i partiti di destra e di sinistra possono essersi avvicinati: cfr. il POST Destra e sinistra come categorie politiche ed etiche ). Il mondo, in questa condizione attuale, non migliorerebbe sicuramente con altri “rivoluzionari primitivisti” che con snobismo disimpegnato e con lo sguardo di chi la sa lunga pensano in pratica ai fatti loro (cosa legittima) credendo però di attuare una nuova modalità di “impegno”.

L’impegno vero è quello che produce risultati per chi ne ha più bisogno e che produce risultati, magari minimi, da oggi. Ora, trattare con rispetto i bambini non equivale a fare politica, ma almeno produce risultati significativi (un’intera vita migliore per loro e migliori intrecci fra le loro vite e altre vite), ma girare in bicicletta è solo un passatempo e NON un impegno ecologico, almeno finché non cambia il tipo di produzione e di commercializzazione delle auto nel paese e nel pianeta. Tu hai il merito di non istigare a questo vizio mentale del “grande rifiuto”, ma le tue affermazioni sul “non accontentarsi del meno peggio” meriterebbero qualche approfondimento. Se concorderai con la nostra pignola puntualizzazione ne saremo felici e se dissentirai, temo che resteremo della nostra idea.

INTERVENTO DI GIANFRANCO

Caro Enrico,

penso di non be the best person for further information on the origin of civilization or of that civilization. You certainly underlines the interweaving between the economy (in the sense of all the modes of production and not just the latest) and culture (in the broadest sense and not only "ideology" of the term) is enlightening, as well as disturbing. Above all, the references do people remained in the margins of this crazy line of development and then remain anchored to the life of the ancient hunter-gatherers are intriguing. And solicit questions about why ten thousand years ago we were fools to give up such an earthly paradise. The various theories that you mentioned in response to my last application does not seem convincing and I regret not having a tucked-based theory of geological or archaeological data.

The only ground on which I have reasonable certainty is the subjective side of our shared insanity. On this side, it is clear that when we do act for fear of destructive choices and feel in particular, fear of pain. The idea that "if we do not check to fall into temptation and sin" is a nonsense of the priests, because when we hurt we're actually controlling. Our destructiveness "original" does not exist, pace of the popes, of Freud and many others. In practice we do things destructive because we continue to get away from ourselves, as children do when they are alone in having to manage the pain. When

with our attitudes refuse a good social character we have already rejected ourselves to "save us" (ie differentiated) by deep emotions and "uncomfortable." The rigid person "who does not ever ask" continues to avoid the pain (an ancient and devastating) to request and be disqualified. Then maybe you construct a mythology of literary or philosophical misanthropy, but in fact, continues to prevent the childhood experiences that were unmanageable. On the contrary, the person "in need" che chiede favori a tutti, anche quando potrebbe arrangiarsi, continua ad evitare l’esperienza di chiedere cose importanti (sul piano affettivo) nel modo in cui nell’infanzia decise di sostituire quelle richieste con stupidi capricci più facilmente accettati perché di tipo “pratico”.

Come ho cercato di chiarire nel POST Evoluzione biologica e irrazionalità , la nostra infanzia è troppo lunga per non includere esperienze dolorose e per non essere contrassegnata da forme inadeguate di accudimento da parte dei genitori. In pratica, la lupa più squinternata, nei pochi mesi in cui deve accudire i piccoli lo fa dignitosamente, mentre la femmina human most responsible over the years inevitably errors with your puppy of a man. So I tend to think that in ancient times civilization arose from greed, irrationality, which is rooted in fear of emotional contact. In other words I think that humans abandoned their harmony with nature gradually, that is becoming increasingly rigid, detached and irrational ("armor") and thus becoming "sensitive" to the allure of power, control and dominion. Probably, if up to a certain point, our ancestors have lived basically good, with certain limitations, to a certain point in time have experienced more limitations and have translated in practice these social-organizational and internal changes. Inevitably, they then suffered the effects of this and rationalized the destruction of their daily life and nature in which they were immersed.

today who does not want to keep in touch with painful situations are stoned with his career or with alcohol. Before the invention of the careers and spirits, someone has probably decided to stoned a field plowing and planting their tents in a definitive way. The idea is not easily provable, but it seems more reasonable than those of scholars who have listed.

said that, whatever the reasons for the initial activity, we must accept that the vessels are already broken and we need to work on the pieces to do what is possible today.

Holographic Will Example

Frank Capra film and compassion

" Masse is a good time for the flock, unacceptable, insulting, degrading. When I see a crowd, I see a set of free people: where everyone is an individual, each with a king or a queen, each with a story that could fill a book, each an island of dignity. "

Frank Capra (1971), The name above the title - Autobiography, trans. com. Lucarini, 1989, pp. 287-288.

Frank Capra (1897-1991) had all the qualities to be named "the director of our blog," despite some questionable aspects of his conception of society that I will present. He also has all the characteristics of an author "eternal" which, beyond the inevitable dating of his works, speaks to "all", the old men of today, his contemporaries, those of us who have seen his films on TV and adolescents naturally attracted to a different kind of film. He emerges from an interview in 1985, also translated as a way of making films his strong attribution of value to human life. He accepted the suggestions of all employees, but assumed responsibility for all their work (subject, final script and director) and gave its "fingerprint" for each film to be developing certain types of content, the actors pretending to be, back in the '40s, an absolutely spontaneous acting, because he wanted His films bring the real life and real problems of real people.

The fixed points of Capra-thinking are

a) a delicate perception of the inner reality of human beings

b) a strong emphasis on moral commitment that binds men among themselves

c) a clear idea (albeit simplified) of the company as a community of people.

The first two aspects through all the films, even the most "light" and fun, because it is the constant reference between the two characterizes the idea of \u200b\u200bthe man who gives us Capra. The sensitivity of the Goat for the various facets of subjectivity balance his ethical conception avoid a fall into moralism. On the other hand recall the commitment to the other balances the emotional charge of his films avoid a fall within. A perfectly balanced synthesis of these two aspects is realized in the best-known films of Capra: 's a Wonderful Life (1946). His son Frank Capra jr. said in an interview 1991, this film was the film he had always wanted to do, because fully developed a theme important to him: "This theme, as each life affects the lives of others has always touched more deeply than any other idea that had ever had. "

I would say a few words about this work that was a great success initially, but that over the years has been increasingly appreciated. With the inclusion in the story of an innocent angel, funny, but clean of heart, to be exact a "second-class angel (without wings), which is deserving, in fact, the wings, Capra manages to treat a slight theme definitely "Heavy" as the thought of suicide at some point in life when everything is falling apart. On Christmas Eve, the main character (James Stewart) is physically rescued from the river where it was thrown and then is heard with attention. The moment you declare that his life is worthless and would prefer never to be born, is heard and a chance to see what would become the country where he lives without his small but effective contribution to the community. His brother died a child without his providential intervention, the wife would not have married, his children would not be born and the country would fall into the hands of a greedy rich man that he had actually opposed arranging soft loans to people without means. Seeing all this, he understands that even if his life had seemed foolish at a time of particular personal vulnerability, however, had the sense that he had given to it: he had built strong relationships and positive friendships and family and also had a positive effect on the lives of many people. Just the unique experience of meeting so many people, familiar without being recognized and observe their life in a social structure quite different from that to which he had contributed, she asks him to give him back his real life and give him the ability to deal with "men" the difficulties which had wanted to avoid. Indiscutibilmente commovente il finale: nell’attesa del suo ritorno, la moglie, gli amici e tutte le persone che aveva negli anni aiutato, avevano unito le loro forze per tirarlo fuori dai guai.

Il terzo aspetto del Capra-pensiero per certi aspetti è ingenuo, ma per altri aspetti tocca quel piano profondo che caratterizza la vera dimensione della politica. Tale aspetto affiora in varie opere, ma è centrale nel film del 1941 intitolato Arriva John Doe (commercializzato anche con il titolo I dominatori della metropoli ). Il film non è uno dei migliori di Capra e giustamente viene definito “prolisso, verboso, retorico” nel Morandini ( Dizionario dei film 2009, Zanichelli). Tuttavia lo spettatore viene “catturato” dallo sviluppo della narrazione. Si può dire che il film può rafforzare un “buonismo” di tipo conservatore negli spettatori più sprovveduti, ma può anche sollecitare interessanti riflessioni negli spettatori colti e capaci di “mettere da parte” l’interclassismo del regista, che in fondo “salva” il liberismo proprio denunciandone gli sviluppi “disonesti”.

La storia inizia con una trovata “geniale” di una giornalista (Barbara Stanwyck) motivata a non perdere il posto: pubblica una lettera (inventata di sana pianta) di un lettore disoccupato (John Doe) che preannuncia of wanting to take the life of "protesting" jumping from the roof of City Hall on Christmas Eve. (Note that the idea of \u200b\u200b"suicide pre Christmas in this film the theme of the movie's a Wonderful Life ). It triggers a manhunt in the city: people that want to offer a job or who are willing to host it ... the local newspaper and increases sales. The journalist does not miss the place and is charged with finding a person willing to embody the fruit of his imagination. Of course, you have dozens of beggars hoping to get some financial support or a job and one of them, a former baseball pitcher with a provincial team, unemployed and hungry (Gary Cooper) viene scelto per raccontare la sua storia e denunciare le ingiustizie subite dai “poveracci” come lui, a tutto vantaggio della tiratura del giornale locale. Il finto John Doe ed il suo amico (un mendicante “convinto” che detesta le lusinghe del denaro e vede con diffidenza tutta la situazione), vengono ospitati in un Hotel a spese del giornale, ma gradualmente la serie degli articoli prende una direzione imprevista. Nei (finti) testi di John Doe la giornalista inserisce brani del diario di suo padre (una persona che quando era in vita aveva portato avanti iniziative filantropiche) e la semplice protesta diventa, iorno dopo giorno, un appello alla solidarietà umana, alla disponibilità verso chi ha bisogno (di money, help, companionship). Born in the country of the Working John Doe and a rich Scrooge is part of the game supporting (and financing) movement arose out of nothing, rooted in the whole territory of the United States. This has, of course, personal ambitions (including political) and eventually will be met with the ex-bum character and immerse yourself in now willing to get serious and to advance the message of solidarity repeated in many public meetings.

The plot twists are continuing at a rapid pace in this film that, after half a century is still strangely present, perhaps because a movie is timeless and deals with fundamental issues of politics, while incorporating the simplicity fondamentali con cui molta gente riflette sui problemi politici.

Il primo punto da evidenziare è il mito interclassista del movimento John Doe (e del regista): cioè l’idea che si possa aspirare ad un mondo migliore senza mettere in discussione la logica del profitto e quindi il liberismo. Tale mito, razionalizzato nella dottrina sociale della chiesa cattolica e nel pensiero di tanti progressisti moderati, è in realtà un velo che occulta e in ultima analisi rafforza lo sfruttamento economico. Capra esplicita nel corso del film, anche se con le migliori intenzioni, questo mito, parlando del “popolo”, degli “umili”, senza mai mettere in discussione le spietate leggi fondamentali del capitalismo. I John Doe many are designed as individual and not as a class or a part of society. Hence, in the film says, "If spingessimo in the same direction at the same time move the world." Populism "humanitarian" side also touches deep soul, but impossible to understand the roots of exploitation are not only nell'avidità "excessive" by some, but in a "system" that allows both economic injustice standard, and injustice " excessive ".

Today, this ambiguity is the current session. In our country, which has remained free structure, many cards were reshuffled. The ruling class is not as defined as in past. New rich do not have a factory, but a simple chair occupied after regular elections and pillaged by the chair who really have the factories, but they are happy to be extortionists in exchange for favors. Old rich are unforeseen difficulties if they do not want to compromise. New rich do not have productive capital, but financial capital and multiply their wealth through a simple transaction, without taking direct advantage of workers regularly employed. Nouveaux riches, when corruption has become "organic" production system, have a role in the production chain, but still be able to collect crumbs to live in luxury. In this confusion of the surface, many "new poor" do not understand or do not want to understand more and feel "poor" instead of "exploitation" feel "consumers in distress" rather than "Class" and aspire to get better after giving up individually to improve the company together with the other . Not only that the traditional parties "deployed" and oriented to represent the class of employees, representing more than anyone, "dialogue" with the reactionary parties and the prospects to changes in the interest "of all."

In a world that is based on exploitation as it once was, but that has changed the face and in which those who fought the world has "lost face" there is a resurgence of populism and "apolitical" that can confuse all of the waters. The populism of "Scrooge"-would-be-dictators can be unmasked, but the confused anti-populism of Scrooge is a new problem that threatens to end the project can still be a better society and egalitarian single complaint of corruption, the "misrule "and" wastes ".

If, after these reflections, we examine the ideas of those who are not naive and who are also on the right side and understand that should not be questioned only corruption, but the economic structure to its roots we often see the opposite mistake: we see competent people who speak sensibly of creeping coup, questioning the roots of liberalism, which clarify the plots between finance capitalism and industrial capitalism, but which does not affect people's feelings. More easily touch the feelings of people who ride their reactionaries man nightmares "average" (ie the negative side of John Doe) and picking up votes as "nonsense local" one ("Po"), confused with fear (" others ", the" different ", non EU), or seduce with the myth of" all together "in a shared hedonism and television justified. The progressive movements and leftist ideologies do not commit these crimes, but no longer able to touch the strings of deep and positive feelings of the people. I'm not saying, then, that they must water down their programs (if they have) in a confused populism, but should involve the people on the ideal plane, moral and emotional, that should give direction to the need that we all build together to many others a better society [cf. POST Dreams and policy ].

Frank Capra came to build his career as a director, starting early from the need to liberate themselves from poverty and then stroking personal ambitions: first studies, graduating in engineering, then in the search for a job, then, not finding ways to work as an engineer, accepting the challenge of world cinema. However, if its initial efforts were motivated by the need to assert itself, that of maturity have been motivated primarily by a desire to explore people's hearts "not by force of logic but that of pity" (Autobiography, cited. P . 446).

E 'own piety, pietas , which held together the personal and professional experiences of this man keen, creative and extremely easy. It 's the pietas which gave depth to all his plays (including to the most exhilarating and comic), as well as its moral, religious and political. You may agree or disagree with his religious conception of man or his adherence to the liberal democracy of the United States, but just his heartfelt belief in the value of the person to prevent his falling into the moralism and religiosity of his naive patriotism of falling into conservativism.

Unlike most intellectually sophisticated scholars and writers he has found a way to transmit immediately and emotionally touching his conception of the person to millions of people and create a "beneficial contagion" from which humanity has not yet " healed " and from which I hope will never heal. It 'been able to "expand our soul" by making us laugh and cry, but still making us laugh with a light heart, "the spirit, humor, laughter is the hope, promise, light, taste, smell that animate days of our pilgrimage on this earth "(Autobiography, cit. p. 537).

Gianfranco

Buy Bearded Dragon Online

Emmanuel Mounier and Personalism

There are authors who decades later are still relevant for their ideas and directions they suggest. Orwell [cf. POST George Orwell and totalitarianism ] is one of them, and no accident has highlighted the generation grappling with fascism and can inspire even the "generation of the Web."

There are other authors who instead have been milestones, without whose contribution is not who we would understand, but from which it hard to carving out a summons, because all their thinking "generally illuminating" is also dated radically: we can be borne in mind Karl Marx and Wilhelm Reich.

Today I have to say a few words about Emmanuel Mounier (1905-1950), an author of this last group, it should be noted that in an age like our own disaster in which the concept of person has been expunged from the political lexicon. Today groping in the void between conceptions man (pseudo) scientific and political conceptions of "technical" or superficial or "mafia." In this fog in which all cows are gray, some reflections on the themes and authors "fundamentals" can shake the indifference or resignation, although it can not give us recipes that are readily applicable to the political situation of the moment. Mounier, we may collect from an idea to relocate in our area and be treated with care because he produced valuable results, namely the centrality of the concept of person in psychology and especially in politics.

A policy that is not reduced to bureaucratic administration of a partnership between citizens, that is not detached from reality and ideology that is not the nightmare we are mired in reactionary is (and should be) a realistic plan and fair coexistence between people . That is, between individuals considered in their totality and in their value.

in psychological and philosophical Mounier attempted an ethical and spiritual foundation of the concepts of person and character. "My character is not what I am in the psychological sense in which a snapshot would fix all my tasks, all my lines already well marked: the form of a movement directed towards a better future to be pushed" ( trait , 1947, trans. com. Ed Pauline, 1949, repr. 1990: 90). This mingling of psychology and spirituality is the strength and the weakness of all thought of Mounier. Strong point, because, in his way, he speaks of man as a being on the road, a bundle of potential to be developed and expressed. Weakness because today we need to distinguish between what is empirical and scientific and what is the project or proposed to be carried out both on a personal level, both interpersonal and social. Yet, in its way, as in their own way all the thinkers of the current "humanistic" of Marxism and revolutionary strand of Catholicism, Mounier reminds us that people non sono cose, oggetti, “masse”, ma sono realtà cariche di esperienza e quindi sensibili, vulnerabili, capaci di esprimere il meglio o il peggio di sé e quindi da trattare con il massimo rispetto, anche se la politica si occupa dei loro aspetti o dei loro problemi più “materiali”.

Non a caso, in politica Mounier ha promosso con entusiasmo e concretezza dei laboratori di cambiamento che ancor oggi possono essere di stimolo per quei (pochi) politici non rassegnati ad amministrare il presente o a riformarlo nei dettagli. Tentando di definire o circoscrivere il concetto di personalismo, Mounier si è espresso nel 1947 in un linguaggio austero, ma anche toccante. “Questo nome risponde al dilagare dell’ondata totalitarian, it is born, and against it, and emphasizes the defense of the individual against the oppression of the structures. Under this angle viewing is a risk bringing in old individualistic reactions are happy to adorn a new coat of arms: the deliberate intention from the beginning we have associated with 'Community', but a sign is not a complete qualification, and when we remember the highways of our philosophy of man, we see that the person is not a cell, even in a social sense, but a summit, from where all the ways of the world "( What is personalism? , 1947, trad. com. Einaudi, 1948, repr. 1975, pp. 13-14).

Il concetto di “ personalismo comunitario ”, per quanto sviluppato in un altro contesto storico ed in un altro ambito problematico, è proprio l’ingrediente che manca oggi, nel nostro paese, per una rifondazione della politica in senso autenticamente democratico, egualitario e libertario [cfr. il POST Destra e sinistra come categorie politiche ed etiche e il POST Sogni e politica ]. Tutti gli autori che hanno in qualche modo spinto “in avanti” la riflessione politica, liberandola dalle pastoie dell’economicismo, hanno in un modo o nell’altro thought of politics as an effort to meet the needs of people in a society as a community [cf. POST Terzani, a policy of head and heart ].

For this reason, beyond the religious roots of his thought and all its limitations, we decided to include Mounier between "friends and teachers" of our blog.

Gaetano