(Onora il padre e la madre) Di decreti e altri sadomasochismi.

«Se vuoi sacrificarmi ti avviso che ci sono tribunali anche all’inferno, e ti conviene tenermi dalla tua parte.»

Non ricordo per quale assurdo motivo decisi che Sedlacek sarebbe stato un avvocato. Forse perché, quando è nato, avevo a che fare con la categoria. Che non sopportavo. Non concepivo allora forme d’avvocato molto diverse da quelle che incontravo tutti i giorni, e che corrispondono all’evoluzione dei colletti bianchi VS colletti blu: i primi hanno i soldi e lo status a loro favore, ma ci rimettono con un fisico che fa diventare i secondi amanti migliori nelle pause annoiate. Mi risultava tragicomico il vedere questi uomini costretti nell’eleganza da completi ad agosto, sudare senza potersi togliere la giacca nell’opprimente calura delle aule, e vi vedevo decadenza: della sostanza a causa del coatto mantenimento della forma.
Ci sono lati divertenti.
Come l’art. 5 del Codice Deontologico Forense, che proclama (con il solito solenne tono di certe disposizioni) che "l’avvocato deve ispirare la propria condotta all’osservanza dei doveri di probità, dignità e decoro".
Sono anfratti interessanti del noioso campo della giurisprudenza, perché rivelano la base assolutamente ambigua dei fondamenti del diritto. Intendo – cosa diavolo significa "decoro"? "Complesso di valori e atteggiamenti ritenuti confacenti a una vita dignitosa, riservata, corretta". La definizione si va a sovrapporre alla dignità già citata, che è la "considerazione in cui l’uomo tiene se stesso e che si traduce in un comportamento responsabile, misurato, equilibrato" – e si aprono i paradossi, per cui è dignitoso solo colui i quali principii vanno a corrispondere con quelli presupposti nel parlare di un "comportamento responsabile, misurato, equilibrato" – qualsiasi cosa ciò significhi.
Ho studiato da poco per l’università il paradosso caratteristico del linguaggio specialistico che in ambito legale viene adottato, e che si basa sul fatto che deve apparire quanto più univoco possibile nell’esprimersi (e il solenne tono a questo serve), mentre gli avvocati hanno un lavoro proprio perché i fondamenti delle leggi sono ambigui.
Ma comunque.
Sedlacek accetta con precoce serietà il proprio destino ("Cosa vuoi fare da grande?" "L’avvocato.") per quel moto che Musil descrisse da qualche parte, quel qualcosa che fa sì che da una certa età in poi non sia più la sostanza dei lavori per come li immaginiamo ad attirarci, ma il loro status – e, così, entrando in uno studio che stupisce per la propria bellezza, si cerca quale sia la carriera che ci porterà in quello studio.
Lo studio da ottenere di Sedlacek è corrisposto ai sorrisi che la madre dispensava ad alcuni adulti – solo alcuni, pochissimi, in grado di smuovere la stima nel cuore di quella donna così salda su se stessa da far divenire il suo giudizio una cartina tornasole. È l’ottica dell’elitarismo, che divide il mondo in sfere tramite giudizi. Ognuno ha i propri criteri. Quali siano quelli di Jarmila, sono taciuti e compresi da lei e suo figlio – solo lui potrà, se vorrà, rivelarveli.
Sedlacek adolescente, approdato alla giurisprudenza inseguendo uno status, inciampa in una materia che non immaginava così interessante. Non parlo ovviamente degli articoli da citare e tutte quelle cose che giusto me fanno rilassare (un giorno capirò il perché), ma dell’intrinseco legame che c’è tra l’essere un avvocato e il detenere potere.
Sedlacek, nei suoi studi devianti, incappò in Bentham, che nel suo The Principles of Morals and Legislation scrisse:

Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne.

Una visione sadomasochistica del diritto dà ai pesanti codici tutta un’altra aura. Rende le ammende da pagare la traduzione post-vittoriana, e quindi riservata e pudica, di una sculacciata data a un bambino.
Il fatto che gran parte dei sistemi atti a garantire l’osservanza delle leggi si basi su questo meccanismo di "punizione come minaccia" rende gli esseri umani degli infanti incapaci di comprendere se non castigati, e dato che l’evoluzione storica non ha granché fatto evolvere questo concetto, la conclusione è abbastanza semplice, e parla – all’orecchio di Sedlacek – di un intrinseco masochismo condiviso da una consistente fetta di popolazione.
Ci sono poi altri succulenti lati, parlando delle pubbliche esecuzioni e punizioni, e quindi della reazione del pubblico – ma parliamo solo dell’entusiasmo con cui il pubblico si adoperava per potervi assistere, perché non possiamo sapere cosa avessero in testa. Sappiamo che spesso il colpevole rimetteva in scena la propria colpa, attore che recita se stesso con uno scarto temporale, e viene da domandarsi dove questi moti popolari siano finiti, nell’attuale mondo.

Cause I need to watch things die… from a distance
Vicariously I live while the whole world dies
You all need it too, don’t lie

(Tool, Vicarious)

C’è poi il domandarsi cosa accada all’uomo quando questi si trova spogliato da ogni aspettativa e dovere legale – cosa accada all’uomo quando, ad esempio, sa di non avere nessuno sopra di sé pronto a giudicarlo, perché è lui a dettare leggi. Per questa domanda finisco con l’interessarmi alla Münster anabattista, allo stupro di Nanchino, ai Paesi ex-coloniali che vengono abbandonati improvvisamente, a Salò di Pasolini. Ma mi interesso anche ai rapporti intimi, intimi per definizione, elitari, protetti da una pellicola che ne garantisce la privacy, all’interno dei quali le persone si sentono in diritto di essere molto più capricciose, emotive, crudeli di quanto possano fare nella sfera pubblica. Per questo mi è interessata la Rete nell’epoca in cui era difficile risalire alla persona che vi accedeva (o perlomeno ciò le persone credevano), e trovavi antri in cui incontrare esemplari umani più sfacciati, volgari, patetici e dispotici di qualsiasi creatura si sia mai incontrata.
Non è semplicemente una questione di inibizioni – le inibizioni sono solo la conseguenza di tutto un sistema, e svaniscono quando il sistema svanisce.
C’è chi crede nell’intrinseca tendenza al bene dell’uomo, chi in quella del male. Lo Zeitgeist insegue la prima, e nelle pubbliche richieste di fondi per sostanziare gli aiuti a bambini di [Paese africano devastato a caso] non vi dicono che, se non aiutate questi bambini, un domani sgozzeranno il vicino a causa del non essere stati inseriti in un sistema che li educa al bene come valore assoluto. Il male ontologico finisce in film di nicchia, che possono permettersi di far gustare le opzioni più crudeli che l’essere umano può attuare quando il suo carattere profondo è libero di agire.
C’è Maurensig che, in La variante di Lüneburg, parla dello sguardo contemplativo, estasiato delle gazzelle che osservano leoni divorare altre gazzelle. Ne parla per spiegare l’asservimento dei prigionieri nei campi di concentramento. Sedlacek avrebbe condiviso – Sedlacek condivide, quando osserva il prossimo schiacciato dal potere altrui. Non è la gazzella divorata che contempla, ma il leone, che in quell’attimo manifesta appieno il suo potenziale potere.
L’ascia che il boia fa calare è manifestazione del potere del Re che si abbatte sul colpevole – riportava Foucault. Il Re è santificato, il boia – conclusa la sua funzione di avatar – è ripudiato socialmente, reietto, a-sociale.
C’è la sindrome di Stoccolma, che Anna Freud spiega con l’identificazione con l’aggressore. Sedlacek concorderebbe – ma sognatevi di vederlo arreso al suo aggressore, specifica. Io non la comprendo, pur rimanendone affascinata; vorrei comprenderla, ossia entrare nella mente e nell’intestino dell’affetto da tale sindrome e poter quindi godere di tale posizione, ma i pochi paradigmi in cui la vita mi ha scagliato mi hanno piuttosto visto scalciare ciecamente.
Sedlacek, invece, ha vissuto esperienze diverse, e all’ennesima persona che si sottometteva senza lamentela all’autorità – fosse quest’autorità un Sedlacek adolescente o chiunque altro – ha cominciato a credere all’innato masochismo di alcune persone. Non riesce a crederci fino in fondo perché, come me, piuttosto si farebbe ammazzare (e non per scelta data da ideali, ma per reazione cieca). Per questo diventa paranoico, come tante autorità assolute che – così doviziosamente servite da troppi – cominciano a dubitare di tutti.
Sedlacek, per motivi che vorrei rivelarvi tramite la narrativa che scrivo, decide di partecipare ai rapporti di potere, che sono ossia i rapporti squilibrati che richiedono un carnefice e una vittima. Io, invece, ho smesso – ho smesso per nausea, per paura del contagio, perché intravedo nel carnefice debolezze comuni alla vittima, quando il carnefice ci prende gusto.
E, poi, differentemente da me, Sedlacek è abilissimo nel creare e mantenere segreti.


(Stacchetto pubblicitario: ricordiamo ai coevi che il racconto Onora il padre e la madre con Sedlacek uscirà a dicembre in edicola nella raccolta L’ombra della morte, direttamente ordinabile al numero verde 800-834738 – perché tutto questo sproloquiare all’inizio doveva corrispondere a un fare pubblicità, ma io sono io e la speculazione mi sottomette con mio gran gusto.)

Annunci

17 comments

  1. I leave you alone a moment and look what happens?
    [le inibizioni sono solo la conseguenza di tutto un sistema, e svaniscono quando il sistema svanisce.]
    I believe that they may vanish for a period, and we may relish the freedom of following our inner and hidden passions, but then something asserts itself, and we make a choice which path we want to follow, knowing full well that one will conduce to our spiritual degradation.

    [Münster anabattista, allo stupro di Nanchino]
    you often use these examples, but I think you forget that the people that where involved in both were themselves entangled in a system, the oldest of all, the pack.
    Where really “all” the inhabitants of Münster happy and enjoin the new status quo, or did they just follow the new leading party to not be thrown out from their city or loose the respect and friendship of people they new all their life (that maybe thought the same thing all along)?
    Where all the Japanese soldiers happy in doing what they did or did the just followed the orders and what they comrades did, afraid of being excluded from the pack if they where less than willing to do things that disgusted them.

    For me these two are just examples of cases when those in power give in to their inner passions and people follow them with a growing inertia, but I am convinced that most (of those that survived) had to live with the nightmares of what they did.

    [non vi dicono che, se non aiutate questi bambini, un domani sgozzeranno il vicino a causa del non essere stati inseriti in un sistema che li educa al bene come valore assoluto]
    The same could be said of each child that is born. Should we kill them all at birth? You can not foresee the path that each single will take in his life. But then, I am the first to disagree with humanitarian donations as just easy shortcuts to placate our conscience.

    [far gustare le opzioni più crudeli che l’essere umano può attuare quando il suo carattere profondo è libero di agire]
    A good example is the holy inquisition (a favourite of mine:). But in all these examples, people need excuses (religion/politics/other) for their actions.
    Take away the excuse and most will loose themselves, since these action go against their.. nature? Empathy? The good that tries to assert itself in their spirit?
    Nobody needs excuses to help his neighbour, he must only overcome his apathy, and the action will bring him joy, regardless his culture/religion/political views. (ok, spiritual joy, because it’s most probable that his neighbour will kick him in the teeth when he is not anymore in need of help, but we do not live in a perfect world.)

    Ho dear, it’s has been bit
    But you bring out the best (or you could say the worst) of my preaching nature, and for this I can not thank you enough XD

    1. So complicated.
      The fact is, as I tried to wrote, that’s impossible to determine who’s right – he who thinks that people are good by nature or he who thinks that people are evil by nature.

      [I believe that they may vanish for a period, and we may relish the freedom of following our inner and hidden passions, but then something asserts itself, and we make a choice which path we want to follow, knowing full well that one will conduce to our spiritual degradation.]
      That choice (the path to follow) is influenced by the contest you grew in – and here we are again. Call it a spiritual degradation, an intellectual waste, a what-ya-want – in any case, any choice isn’t made by a pure and unaffected soul, but by a socialized human being.

      [Where really “all” the inhabitants of Münster happy and enjoin the new status quo, or did they just follow the new leading party to not be thrown out from their city or loose the respect and friendship of people they new all their life (that maybe thought the same thing all along)?]
      It doesn’t matter – or, rather, what you stressed _does_ matter, because it’s linkable to my beloved “banality of evil” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banality_of_evil).

      [but I am convinced that most (of those that survived) had to live with the nightmares of what they did.]
      As ya wish, Sir.
      But some crimes are not considered as such by some cultures – that means that those who perpetrate them within the boundaries of such a culture won’t probably live any nightmare.
      Principles depend on cultures, and you know it – you can pretend that the whole world has to be converted because Christians have found the truth, namely, they act in the best way any human being would and would like to act.
      But this is religious colonialism, Sir.

      [The same could be said of each child that is born.]
      Of course.

      [Take away the excuse and most will loose themselves, since these action go against their.. nature? Empathy? The good that tries to assert itself in their spirit?]
      You take for granted that humans are good by nature. You believe things are so and so, but I didn’t write this entry taking info from my faith, I just wrote down logical thoughts (or so I tried), and nobody can demonstrate (to you or me or my/your neighbor) that human beings are good/evil by nature.

      [Nobody needs excuses to help his neighbour, he must only overcome his apathy, and the action will bring him joy, regardless his culture/religion/political views.]
      My ass, my blind Sir 😛
      Re-read Nietzsche. You DO know there what you say is just ONE point of view. Every fucking action needs “excuses”, namely “reasons”, and in your case your religion gives you all the “why should I”‘s and “why is that good”‘s that you need. But it’s, once again, YOUR religion. What about Nietzsche?
      And, actually, I don’t help people when I’m depressed – I would do so if helping people were the solution you portraited, wouldn’t I? But I don’t. Guess why.

      1. [The fact is, as I tried to wrote, that’s impossible to determine who’s right – he who thinks that people are good by nature or he who thinks that people are evil by nature.]
        For the bible (yes you new it was coming) neither.
        “razza di dura cervice”
        it never says that people are by nature good or evil but it sais that they are subject (from the very start) to temptation, that can bring them to their ruin.
        Evil is he who does evil deeds
        Good is he who does good deeds
        But we have got the choice
        The natural following question is: what’s good and what is evil?
        You tell me that:

        [That choice (the path to follow) is influenced by the contest you grew in – and here we are again. Call it a spiritual degradation, an intellectual waste, a what-ya-want – in any case, any choice isn’t made by a pure and unaffected soul, but by a socialized human being.]
        You are correct naturally, a few examples on your side could be:
        – The war loving Zulus.
        – The scoundrel gypsies.
        – The Aztecs with their bloody rituals.
        but then it is not only the society that influences people choices, its also personal events and the very ambient in which one is born.(that influences society evolution itself).
        But nonetheless in all societies there are some comportments/morals/sentiments that are considered good.
        Friendship
        Honesty with your kindred (gipsy’s do not rob gipsy’s)
        Love
        Etch
        This same view evolved in all cultures, even those that did not meet or interact for centuries, so it makes on think.
        Then there exists the affirmed morality of each culture, that’s all another thing (men shall not have sex with other men, thou shall not eat fish with the wrong fork etc. etc.) since it’s really of no consequence, because individuals can take conscience of it, ad change it regarding his own inclinations.

        [It doesn’t matter – or, rather, what you stressed _does_ matter, because it’s linkable to my beloved “banality of evil” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banality_of_evil).]
        Yep, but as usual I do not know if we interpret it in the same way XD

        [But some crimes are not considered as such by some cultures – that means that those who perpetrate them within the boundaries of such a culture won’t probably live any nightmare.]
        depends on the nature of the crime.. as for the “good sentiments” (if a can call them so) IMHO the same can be said of the evil ones.
        You cannot kill somebody without the deed having an effect on your soul (my opinion always). You can get used to it, even enjoy it with time, but fundamentally the first time you do it you will feel bad for doing it. (Except the usual serial killers, but you can’t take exceptions to counter the rule, and even them sometimes plead the authorities to be stopped)

        [Principles depend on cultures, and you know it ]
        Yep we agree on that one

        [you can pretend that the whole world has to be converted because Christians have found the truth, namely, they act in the best way any human being would and would like to act.]
        XD take in account that Buddhism, Islamism, Hinduism and Christianity fundamentally agree on what is good and what is bad. They do not agree on the entity to venerate and the ways to venerate him/it/her.

        [But this is religious colonialism, Sir.]
        No, only better marketing (even if the offer of the 70 virgins has really fouled up our acquisitions for a period)

        [You take for granted that humans are good by nature. You believe things are so and so, but I didn’t write this entry taking info from my faith, I just wrote down logical thoughts (or so I tried), and nobody can demonstrate (to you or me or my/your neighbor) that human beings are good/evil by nature.]
        As said before, I do not believe they are either good or evil, but I’m sure they are not logical..

        [My ass, my blind Sir :P]
        No respect!!

        1. [Re-read Nietzsche. You DO know there what you say is just ONE point of view. Every fucking action needs “excuses”, namely “reasons”, and in your case your religion gives you all the “why should I”‘s and “why is that good”‘s that you need. But it’s, once again, YOUR religion. What about Nietzsche?]
          I believe that if one (whoever) helps an old lady with her bag, he will feel well inside afterwards, regardless of his point of view.

          [And, actually, I don’t help people when I’m depressed – I would do so if helping people were the solution you portraited, wouldn’t I? But I don’t. Guess why.]
          Because that bloody bag looks really heavy?
          Never said that good = something in return
          A part of it is not expecting anything from it, If not you pass to the dark side, and start wearing a funny helmet.

        2. [but then it is not only the society that influences people choices, its also personal events and the very ambient in which one is born.]
          Therefore let’s say “social environment”. What’s the difference? I referred, and refer, to that part of life which consists in relationships between more than one human being.

          [But nonetheless in all societies there are some comportments/morals/sentiments that are considered good.
          Friendship
          Honesty with your kindred (gipsy’s do not rob gipsy’s)
          Love
          Etch ]
          If you’ve got my paper, that about Canada, read the chapter where I analyze the fact that every nation is of course different (the German, the French, etc…) but they all share, by definition, common traits, such as:
          – common culture
          – common history
          – et cetera
          These traits and those you wrote have got the same problem: their meaning is largely connotative, and as a consequence misunderstandings happen. So, your “friendship” is different from Nietzsche’s “friendship”. But let me use a wonderful example: “justice”. Without this word, many wars wouldn’t have happened.
          As for “love”… Lol. You know how I conceive this word, and the way I conceive it makes me behave the way I do, so that my “love” is the perfect antonym of the “love” of many people.
          Apply what I wrote about the “Nation” concept to the word “God”. Same process.

          [Yep, but as usual I do not know if we interpret it in the same way XD]
          Of course, your “evil” and my “evil” are different.

          [take in account that Buddhism, Islamism, Hinduism and Christianity fundamentally agree on what is good and what is bad.]
          WHICH Christianity? That of the Old Testament? You can say that nowadays many of these religions agree, but thank you Sir, do you remember that Europe has massively influenced the world, so that now I can’t mention examples of polyamory because your missionaries just DELETED that cultural practice?

          [You cannot kill somebody without the deed having an effect on your soul (my opinion always). You can get used to it, even enjoy it with time, but fundamentally the first time you do it you will feel bad for doing it.]
          I can’t agree, because I know only “civilized” people who live in a society which considers this action a sin (moral sin, I mean), therefore of course many of us will feel bad.
          But I do know that other cultures had (and have) different worldviews. I don’t know how much different they were/are, therefore I can’t state that “as a consequence people will feel bad”.
          I think you’re being blind – or, rather, that you don’t consider what you can’t live personally (or through your friends, or thanks to books).

          BTW, my sister is a Buddhist (there are many “branches” of Buddhism, don’t ask me the name of that my sister belongs to), and there’s no God to venerate.

          [I believe that if one (whoever) helps an old lady with her bag, he will feel well inside afterwards, regardless of his point of view.]
          That’s the point I don’t agree on, the “whoever” or “regardless of his point of view”. Let’s say that you’re wrong (of course I don’t know if you are wrong, I can’t) – in this case, as long as you keep thinking this way, you’ll never understand all those people who don’t feel well when they help the above mentioned old lady, because you can’t _conceive_ them. That’s a huge limit, isn’t it?

          [Because that bloody bag looks really heavy?]
          Lol, no. And when I help someone I don’t feel happy, I just think it’s the best thing to do since we live in a society and it’s better to help each other when possible. It’s logic.

        3. [but then it is not only the society that influences people choices, its also personal events and the very ambient in which one is born.
          Therefore let’s say “social environment”. What’s the difference?]
          None, it just had to empathies that you are right in saying that environment influences the way we act and also:
          [These traits and those you wrote have got the same problem: their meaning is largely connotative, and as a consequence misunderstandings happen.]
          And you are right, because language and misunderstandings of it, have generated divisions and conflicts from the beginning of time (somewhere I read it also brought to the bankruptcy of an ancient tower building enterprise), but this does not mean that the sentiments (I’m not talking about concepts as justice here) they are trying to express are not the same.
          You (if I have understood well) say that words shape sentiments. I believe sentiments are the same in all human beings, and words are an imperfect instrument to express them.
          [Of course, your “evil” and my “evil” are different.]
          As said before, evil is very personal. It’s something that tries to degrade each of us utilizing our own weaknesses and yes our own morals.
          Yes my evil is different from yours, but nonetheless it’s evil.
          What I’m saying is that words are sounds.. an instrument.. nothing more.

          [because your missionaries just DELETED that cultural practice?]
          Yep! And we also demonized old Pan, and the fork of Poseidon while we were at it XD
          I’ve never defended the deed’s of any church. They are run by imperfect men.
          What I wanted to bring to attention was what is fundamentally considered good and bad in these religions. And don’t tell me the Church was able to put his hand and modify scripts dating back millennia, putting false graffiti on ancient temples while it was at it..

          [I think you’re being blind – or, rather, that you don’t consider what you can’t live personally (or through your friends, or thanks to books).]
          But still all the people I’ve met (and there’s been a lot in my brief lifespan: Europeans, Russians, Chinese, Africans, Japanese, American and south American) all abide to fundamental sentiments in which I could mirror my own. The same books of ancient, old or contemporary writers depict manifestations of these same sentiments.
          Yes I form my opinion on what I see and hear, but I try to leave my mind open to other possibilities.
          I knew a missionary priest that lost his faith in his first days in Africa, after that a group of black men at nighttime entered the hut next to his and killed another missionary with machetes.
          Does this mean they had different fundamental sentiments and feeling than his own?
          I believe they simply hated his skin, his religion, his culture and for such they killed his body, but they fundamentally did not hate the man, that if deprived of the up said characteristics, could have become their friend.

          [BTW, my sister is a Buddhist (there are many “branches” of Buddhism, don’t ask me the name of that my sister belongs to), and there’s no God to venerate.]
          Yep, sorry, got carried away in a very catholic deity centered fashion
          I really was trying to bring the attention on the G&B matter.

          [That’s the point I don’t agree on, the “whoever” or “regardless of his point of view”. Let’s say that you’re wrong (of course I don’t know if you are wrong, I can’t) – in this case, as long as you keep thinking this way, you’ll never understand all those people who don’t feel well when they help the above mentioned old lady, because you can’t _conceive_ them. That’s a huge limit, isn’t it?]
          I do conceive those that don’t
          The question is what would make these hypothetical people feel well (and I’m not speaking of physical accomplishment)

          [Lol, no. And when I help someone I don’t feel happy, I just think it’s the best thing to do since we live in a society and it’s better to help each other when possible. It’s logic. ]
          logic would dictate that the old lady should be put down at 70° if not productive for society 😦

        4. [but this does not mean that the sentiments (I’m not talking about concepts as justice here) they are trying to express are not the same.]
          Actually, when I say “love” I think of sth like “input, understanding, freedom” – whereas many people automatically connect this word to things like “jealousy”, antonym of my concept of freedom.
          See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_theory
          The difference between us is:
          (You) Universalist view: “we understand the world in relation to a set of universal conceptual primes (language reflects these universal possibilities)”.
          (Me) Relativist/constructionist view: “our understand of the world is affected by available linguistic resources (language and thought are inextricably intertwined) i.e. our experience of the world is not given to us directly, but mediated through language”.
          I would have tons of ways to demonstrate that language does affect many things, more than we usually conceive, and we talked about it – even though not in technical terms – but the problem lies at the root of your worldview: since you _believe_ that the world (everything) is made of a set of given things (items, ideas, feelings, moral categories…), you always reply that “even though there are tons of words to say ‘snow’ in Finnish, they’re just shade of the same concept”, which is a view which takes for granted that the word “snow” is univocal and that a concept of “snow” (absolute snow, not relative snow) does exist. “Snow”, “love”, “God” – you always use the same logic. You believe that all peoples (and their languages) refer to the _same_ world we live in, and I don’t, because in my world many things don’t even exist (of course I cannot mention them).

          [As said before, evil is very personal. It’s something that tries to degrade each of us utilizing our own weaknesses and yes our own morals. ]
          Oh, man…
          If “evil” is sth very personal, then “it’s sth that tries to degrade YOU utilizing YOUR own weaknesses”, not “us” and “our”. Do u see the point?
          There’s an interesting essay which analyzes the word “evil” and finds no univocal definition of it. All the definitions have got a trait in common: “evil” is a [categoria residuale?], namely “whatever which is not good”.

          [But still all the people I’ve met (and there’s been a lot in my brief lifespan: Europeans, Russians, Chinese, Africans, Japanese, American and south American) all abide to fundamental sentiments in which I could mirror my own.]
          Yet, it’s still a generalization, because you’ve met just a few human beings, haven’t you? And I bet many of them come from that “globalized” culture we share.
          Furthermore, when we ask a question we superimpose the answer we expect on the question; I mean, when we stare at things we stare particularly at the details which will confirm our believes. That’s why I consider it very important not to use our own experience to deduce conclusions from. Just think of a Boer 200 years ago: every fucking experience of their life confirmed what they believe in (not all of them, of course), namely that God wanted them to have blacks as slaves.

        5. [The same books of ancient, old or contemporary writers depict manifestations of these same sentiments.]
          Ever heard of “literary canon”? “Cultural hegemony”? Like only the 4% of what’s been written is actually known by cultured people?

          [I believe they simply hated his skin, his religion, his culture and for such they killed his body, but they fundamentally did not hate the man, that if deprived of the up said characteristics, could have become their friend. ]
          You _believe_. I do. But you can’t just answer my questions and replies with a “I believe” as a conclusion – or rather, of course you can, but this won’t lead us to anything new, because I can’t work on a “believe” (“I believe all human beings are stupid” – “I don’t”), I can work (through words) on a logical demonstration.

          [I do conceive those that don’t
          The question is what would make these hypothetical people feel well (and I’m not speaking of physical accomplishment) ]
          If you conceive them as “bugs”, missionary/colonist, you’re not understanding them, but putting them into your scheme of reference and giving them the role of “the Villain” (“the Villain”, once again, as a [categoria residuale]).

          [logic would dictate that the old lady should be put down at 70° if not productive for society :(]
          And so?
          I’m not trying to be “good”, but to reason.

        6. [Ever heard of “literary canon”? “Cultural hegemony”? Like only the 4% of what’s been written is actually known by cultured people?] Yes! But if you use statistics you yourself are playing with words.
          That 4% is a huge amount of information. If you are saying that it is more available than the rest, I may agree, but the reasons are various (and not all retraceable to purposeful acts)

          [You _believe_. I do. But you can’t just answer my questions and replies with a “I believe” as a conclusion – or rather, of course you can, but this won’t lead us to anything new, because I can’t work on a “believe” (“I believe all human beings are stupid” – “I don’t”), I can work (through words) on a logical demonstration.]
          We are speaking of intangible matters hear.. I say believe, meaning: all my past experiences, my knowledge of human nature and the circumstances in themselves led me to believe that..
          I could say “I’m sure that” but as you said we will never know the truth in such things.
          But to be logic:
          Ex colony – country divided by bloody wars between black Muslims and black Christians – a powerful message to the opposition.
          As I said, they had nothing against the man.
          If they so enjoyed the act, they would have killed also the other missionary. He told me one arrived at the door, looked at him and then went away. Nobody in the village stirred until dawn.

          [If you conceive them as “bugs”, missionary/colonist, you’re not understanding them, but putting them into your scheme of reference and giving them the role of “the Villain” (“the Villain”, once again, as a [categoria residuale]). ]
          You misunderstand me! I was asking you, what would these hypothetical people find pleasure in. I could imagine them only as people that have closed their heart to others(remember that the old lady is just a general example for human interactions)

        7. [[Ever heard of “literary canon”? “Cultural hegemony”? Like only the 4% of what’s been written is actually known by cultured people?] Yes! But if you use statistics you yourself are playing with words.
          They’re useful to remember that we do not know anything – nothing more, nothing less. My memento.

          [We are speaking of intangible matters hear.. I say believe, meaning: all my past experiences, my knowledge of human nature and the circumstances in themselves led me to believe that..]
          The 2 ways are:
          1) Logic.
          2) Not-analyzable statement, statement which states itself (“I believe”, “I think”, “I’m sure that”).

          [If they so enjoyed the act, they would have killed also the other missionary.]
          It’s just ONE example. You can’t use 1, 10, 100 examples to state sth as a truth, that’s my POV. I would use those example to reason (ongoing process), not to build a belief (data already deduced and therefore taken for granted). We could list examples for years (“The man in Kosovo did so…” “Yes, but the woman in Colombia didn’t…” “But the child in…”)

          [You misunderstand me! I was asking you, what would these hypothetical people find pleasure in. I could imagine them only as people that have closed their heart to others(remember that the old lady is just a general example for human interactions)]
          Maybe the heart is not the central pillar of this discourse – of course I don’t know, there are so many options to contemplate other points of view.

        8. I was responding to your last post, when I realized that I had skipped completely the one in which you respond on my affirmation of evil and so on (And I that had thought I had won that one at least =_=)
          It seems that as usual it all comes to the fact that our view point’s differ completely..
          I will be back!
          Know it’s just too late, and I don’t have your hour less physiques. Good night

Rispondi

Inserisci i tuoi dati qui sotto o clicca su un'icona per effettuare l'accesso:

Logo WordPress.com

Stai commentando usando il tuo account WordPress.com. Chiudi sessione / Modifica )

Foto Twitter

Stai commentando usando il tuo account Twitter. Chiudi sessione / Modifica )

Foto di Facebook

Stai commentando usando il tuo account Facebook. Chiudi sessione / Modifica )

Google+ photo

Stai commentando usando il tuo account Google+. Chiudi sessione / Modifica )

Connessione a %s...