Does Herpes Have To Have A Prodrome?

A republic founded on television Giancristiano Desire













to Year Zero, but we are not year zero. All in all, there is not much difference.
twenty years we have to do with Santoro, Samarkand, the square, sandroruotolo, protest and the draft of direct democracy or democracy "live". There are twenty
sorbate Berlusconi, the lullaby cultural hegemony of the Communists, the allotment, the RAI-Mediaset duopoly (which many years ago was called Fininvest), the interference of the courts in the election campaign. It is a show already seen countless times. The political struggle and anti-political control of the television box
broke the boxes. Sorry for the excessive frankness of language, but this teleelettorale meatloaf has gone bad in real time,
However, we can not get rid of it. The big trouble is that the struggle for the audiovisual and virtual box invade real life and tends to believe that all power
- it would be better to call the state - is there, in those twenty-eight or thirty-two-inch analog and digital. We have become a democracy based on the television and can not be surprised if Italy slips into the bottom of all rankings of the world for economic freedom and morality. Busy as we are to see the world only in
tivvù we simply lost sight of reality.
Berlusconi and Santoro are the Big Brothers of our democracy. Make a small effort of memory. There seem to remember that the clash today is already aired a couple of times? Santoro can not remember when he opened his broadcast era - the green ray - Beautiful singing hello? And remember the call live
Knight, then president of the Council just like today, it was a swollen river and drew Santoro order of state television?
"Santoro - said the head of government is too passionate - I remind you that this is a public service and she is an employee of the public service." Perhaps, at the time everything seemed epic, perhaps, a bit 'all have the idea that we were fighting a battle postmodern critical to our freedom: one is freedom of criticism and commentary (and satire) and the other the freedom government from the attacks without interruption from the media circus, and circus-
judiciary. We all believe in lies. Because if they were serious things were, willingly or not, face and somehow accommodated. Instead, they change governments, change the board of directors of RAI,
change broadcasts and even - though it seems - the wires, but nothing changes in there and down here: Berlusconi and Santoro, perfectly level playing field, are still fighting among themselves and against us.
I wonder if there is another country in the world where there is such a thing as Cda Rai. I wonder if there is another country in the world in which both the Board of Supervisors and a level playing field and the ban of the talk show during the election campaign. There appears to be another democracy in the world with Berlusconi and Santoro. The Knight case is quite unique, not because there are no political television owners, but because
videocracy Berlusconi takes a long time and the logic that drives the theater television advertising Berlusconi has now revealed his bluff. Michele Santoro is also a rarity to Italian: every transmission living room TV is the popularization of Marxist false consciousness of those who govern and that, by definition, is guilty. Twenty years in a fist fight for control of video and
us who see them get angry and we are done with imbufalirsi believe their lies and virtual. We can not più.Vogliamo a country without a level playing field, without the board and supervision, without a prime minister who cares about schedules, without journalists, revolutionaries and decorated to the value antiberlusconiano.
We want what once was described as a normal country. But you can only see on television
.

Colour Dot Is Fastest Squash Ball

Reality by Peter Kingsley




















I. The final journey.

I will make a road in the wilderness, rivers in the steppe-Isaiah

1.

would be good to write these things before they are lost for two thousand years.
Please do not misunderstand. What I have to say is everywhere: in the air that we breathe in every falling leaf, every single object we see. Be aware of it and break the spell of fairy tale in which we are wrapped-that's another story.
followed by a strange tale: strange, because it is the story of the origins of our history life. If it were something else, if it were just things that happened in the past, then we would be free to continue to forget. But it is not, this story will not leave you alone and will not give you peace.
Very often try to convince us that we are living hard, fulfilling lives. But there is always something that troubles us, ambition, dissatisfaction are just a shadow. It will continue to tear our hearts until we will begin to recover what we lost.
Maybe you're tempted to believe this story. If you were to believe kindly let me warn you, as you could find yourself having to give up your beliefs. Mail at stake is high.
You may assume that there is a kind of happy island where you can get things in two different ways. But trust me, in my experience I can tell you: there's not much. If you do not want to abandon your beliefs, you just ignore what I'll say.
In both cases, it makes no real difference to me. My job is only to tell the story-that's all. And also: there are things that, once they have been told, can not be retracted.
They are written on the stones.
And what is written on the stone of your business. And you're the stone.

2.

Towards the end of the sixth century before Christ was born someone called Parmenides.
His homeland: a small town called Velia in southern Italy.
But if we are to understand the context in which Parmenides lived, is not sufficient to focus on Italy's south-indeed it is quite inadequate.
The city of Velia was born and built just a few years before the birth of Parmenides. The people who founded it was Greek by birth, and were known as Focei, Focea because they came from a city hundreds of miles away from Velia to the east on the west coast of Turkey. It was approximately 540 BC when the Persians drove the Focei from their old home town forcing them to wander in the Mediterranean, back and forth on and down, looking for a new place to settle and live.
The story of their wanderings in search of heroes, the heroes lost, of men and women with children that bind their lives to whether or not to respond to an oracle who speaks in riddles of Apollo is like a historical novel that dismissing it as they wanted to ignore the story invented. But a certain kind of discoveries here and there in recent years have shown how much truth it contains. And: when is the story of Focei, piece by piece, we must open our minds. For people like them, was a reality and fiction that we are delighted to report as the facts of the stories were the result of the invention.
In all this drama that brings the final arrival to Velia, in that brief period before the birth of Parmenides, a consideration that it should be kept in mind.
Focei is that the people were very, very conservative. After that they went to the west of Anatolia kept their ancient customs intact and unchanged for centuries, almost a thousand years. Even in their difficult situation, with the Persian army at their doors without a moment to lose or waste, their priority was to recover every single object that would help them keep track of their religious traditions without interruption, wherever they were able to go.
might seem a little important, not worth much attention. But our story is pretty crucial.
Focei I may seem a small people, small. But appearances can be deceptive.


3.

You may be wondering why I worry and worry, with these details.
Everything to do with Parmenides.
This man has played an extraordinary role in the West, almost inconceivable: shaping the world and the culture in which we live.
chances are good that you've never heard of Parmenides, and there is a reason for it. Has always dominated the strange tendency of scholars to keep him behind the scenes-even when writing him. There is something in the Parmenides, which transcends our understanding of family patterns.
a long time now Parmenides has been recognized by experts and historians as the founder of logic, the founder of rationalism. And as you can see from this expression, not just a question of who assumes special significance for scholars of the past. Nor is it because of its importance in laying the foundations of philosophy and science, the whole process of modern education. What is really at stake here is the more critical of everything.
deals with the origins of our Western culture, how we think and reason. And this is something that touches us all deeply.
Discuss with reason and logic is quite simple. But understanding what they are, catch a glimpse of what to hide, it's something completely different. The fact is that what we have done to describe logic and reason is only a trick, considering them as what they are not.
Company is one of those things-as-common sense that everyone is assumed to know its meaning. Even as children we are told to be reasonable, forcing us to do what others want. We are all convinced they have a clear idea of \u200b\u200bwhat the reason. But there's no one there has the. More
you feel closer to more the idea becomes vague. And the more you feel to get close to people who claim to be very rational and more are being irrational. We live in a world of shadows without realizing it, or understand what is happening. We
logic, which is also not what it seems-or what was once. Originally it had nothing to do with complicated formulas and calculations bizarre. His intent was to arouse awareness: to tap into and transform every aspect of human beings. What we now consider how logic can be likened to a baby who is distressed about the importance of the shoes of his mother. With our endless debates and scholars over the last two thousand years on religion and rationality, logic and science are no longer able to grasp the reality and we act like babies. Now is the time to start to grow.
The people whom you want to talk about in this book is not imaginary. And do not come from Central America or India or some far more exotic paradise of the East but from the roots of Western civilization. They form the roots of our Western civilization are the sources of our culture. Slowly, gradually, they have been misrepresented. And, as a consequence, we can no longer understand ourselves.
We are all part of the story: this is a book of which we are the pages. The
implications of this misunderstanding are extraordinary. So important, all-encompassing, that we can hardly fathom. Perhaps the easiest way to describe the situation would be to say that two thousand years ago in the West, there was a gift-and we childishly we threw away the instructions. We knew what we were playing with. And, as a result, Western civilization could be nothing more than a failed experiment.
The writings of Parmenides, and others like him, survive in fragments. Scholars have devised all sorts of games with them. For centuries they have continued their experiments twisting and torturing these fragments until does not appear to provide a way exactly opposite to the original. Then continue to endless disputes about their meaning and putting them on display as exhibits in a museum.
Nobody really knew what they were important.
Although these fragments survive in crumbs and pieces, they are much less fragmented than ourselves. And much more than words, death. (Even though They survive only in bits and pieces, they're making are less Fragmentary Than We Are. And They Are Much More Than Words-dead page. 21). They are like a priceless treasure-mythological object that has been lost and abused and needs to be rediscovered at all costs.
But this story is not mythology or fiction. It is straight line. Fiction is like being seated dreaming about a gold mine of gold, is all that happens when you forget that.
There is absolutely nothing mystical in what I'm saying.
is very simple, very realistic and practical. We are inclined to think of having your feet on the ground when we deal with facts. And yet the facts do not in themselves have no meaning: it is very easy to fail to extricate themselves with the facts as it is easy to get lost in fiction.
They have their value, and we must use them-but use them to go beyond them. The facts alone are as if they were on top of a gold mine and scratch the powder remains in the same place. (They Have Their value, and we haves to use-but use Them Them Them to go beyond. Facts on Their Own are like sitting on top of a goldmine and scratching at the dust around Our feet with a little stick-p. 21).
All of our events, as all our reasoning, are just a facade. This book is what they have held, the fact that there is hidden. Behind this hidden treasure we find our true home, our heritage, and what we must be prepared if we want to recover it. (All Our facts, like All Our reasoning, are just a facade. This book is about What They Have covered over, about the reality That lies behind. It's about the buried treasure That is our birth-right, Our heritage, and about what We have to be prepared for if We Want to reclaim it-P. 22).


4.

closer we come to Parmenides, the more everything becomes a stranger to us.
The trouble is that we have long since lost the ability to learn from what is alien to us (The trouble Is that we lost the ability to learn from strangenesses a long time ago).
We're scared, our beliefs are challenged, and we feel more involved, the more we feel threatened. This world has become much easier to create a refuge, a fictional world, see only what we see and ignore everything else.
Most modern translations of what Parmenides said to have little to do with the meaning of his original greek. Almost every year there are pages and pages published on the Parmenides-interpreted in the light of contemporary issues and interests, in a continuous division. While it is essential that seems completely disappeared. (Pages and pages are published about HIM HIM Every year-interpreting in the light of contemporary issues and Interests, endless splitting hairs. But what is essential is Most Completely left untouched).
Is there any basic reason that had to be hidden, the essential points that you can not set aside. Absolutely we do not have other options. How can we delude ourselves in the eternal culture and civilization progress. Despite our love for toys creative and destructive, we're going to nowhere. We are like someone who has grasped the handle of a door. The only immediate possibility is to begin to retrace our steps - it's free themselves from misconceptions about our past and what we are. (We are just like someone who has caught a strap on a door handle. The only way forward is to start by going back-is to detach from the misunderstandings about Ourselves and Our past about what we are).
On the basis of the fragments that he wrote, Parmenides is considered as the inventor of logic. And now here we encounter something strange. There was no need to write in poetic form. He could easily use a rather dry prose.
is certainly true that for a long time, he was dismissed as a bad poet. But this view is based on pure prejudice.
dates back to the old belief, formulated for the first time clearly that Aristotle's logic and poetry have nothing in common, and if anyone is worried about finding the truth would be able to become a poet, the result would be a disaster.
The problem is that the poem of Parmenides is by no means a disaster. Some modern scholars have been close to throwing its fragments have a new look and realized that he was able to create a poetic form beautiful and thinner than any language, not just the greek. Again: Parmenides set aside as a poet derives from the assumption that the purpose of poetry is entertaining. As we will see gradually: the Poem of Parmenides had a very different purpose.
And then, regardless of the manner in which he chose to express themselves, one wonders what he actually meant. Certainly
wrote on logic, but only in the central section of his poem, in the second of three parts. Somehow, he flew on the first set and quickly you forget the last part. As you have noticed an important aspect of learning to think requires the ability to focus on one aspect and neglect the whole. Parmenides
explained in detail how he managed to learn his knowledge. Kindly send us suggestions on how we should prepare ourselves if we want to get closer and understand what he has to say. It gives us clear warnings about the dangers, the obstacles we may encounter. But nowadays no one has the patience to take ol'umiltà these indications and warnings seriously. The men rushed right over what Parmenides said on logic, and have become so confident in their ability to ignore the instructions fail to realize how they remained hopelessly tangled.
Our culture has become that which makes us more comfortable, but understand themselves disturb us because the world we live in has been turned upside down.
With Parmenides can not be take shortcuts. Just need to start from the beginning.


5.

And Parmenides all starts as meditating, or scratching our heads, but as such:

The mares that lead me to where I want to ask my
proceeds after the goddesses who guided me along the way
legendary god which leads one who knows
through the boundless unknown and obscure. Still later I was led
and mares, Mindful of the path, led me
pulling the cart, and young women showed the road. The axis of the hub
emitted a hollow sound,
scorched by the pressure of the two rotating wheels
placed on both sides; girls, daughters of the Sun,
who had left the abodes of Night
to head toward the light, his hands raised
night the veils from their faces.
There are ports of the path of the Night and Day,
held securely by a lintel and a stone threshold;
rise to the heavens with giant doors.
And the keys that open and serrano, are firmly held by Justice,
which always demands what is due. And with sweet words the persuasive
noticed the girls persuaded to remove without delay
the bar, the doors closed. And as the doors were opened,
by turning now to one side and then the other, the pins
rods and screws in the empty bronze, opened an abyss. Rapide girls
balances held chariot and horses along the road.
The goddess received me kindly and took my right hand
and gave me the following words: "Welcome, young fellow immortal charioteers,
that you came to our house led by mares.
It was not malignant fate that led you to follow the path
so far from human trails, but Law and Justice.
What you needs is to learn everything, the heart of the well-rounded balance
Truth and opinions of mortals,
where you can not trust.
and still learn this: you must take to appearances
credit if everything is taken into account. "


Already in these early pieces of evidence you can see the entire poem.
A key factor in this strange thing that affects everything Parmenides-determining just how far this trip he might actually get, is desire.
The greek word he uses is "thumos", and "thumos" means the energy of life itself. It is the raw presence in us that we touch and feel, the immense power of our emotional being. Above is the energy of passion, appetite, craving and desire.
Since the time of Parmenides, we have learned so well to guard, to dominate, punish and control them. But with him it is what comes first, at the very beginning. And in this there is a deeper meaning, because what he is saying is that, left to itself-the desire allows us to go all the way where we really need to reach.
With passion and desire can not be any reasoning, even if we prefer to deceive ourselves by believing that there is. Everything we do is argue with ourselves about the form that our desire will be taking. We delude ourselves that if we could find a more satisfying work we would be more happy, but never will. We delude ourselves that going somewhere special we will be happy; but as soon as we got ready to leave and go somewhere else. We delude ourselves if we slept with the lover of our dreams would be fulfilled. And yet, even if we had succeeded, would still not be enough.
What we call human nature is not to say other than being dragged by the nose in a hundred different directions and then finally getting nowhere. But although there is no logic in our passion, it contains an extraordinary intelligence per se. The only problem is that we continue to interfere, we keep dividing it into small pieces, dispersing everywhere. Our mind is always able to corrupt the little things that we think they want rather than the character- the will itself.
If we bear our desire instead of being in search of endless ways to meet and trying to avoid it, we will begin to see what's behind the scenes. Opening a devastating prospect that flips a bit 'all in our concept: where realization becomes a limitation, completely transformed into a trap. It does all this with an intensity that confuses our thoughts and forces us to focus only on the present. (It opens up a devastating perspective WHERE ITS Everything Is Turned On head: where Becomes a limitation fulfillment, accomplishment turns into a trap. And it does this with an intensity That Scrambles Our thoughts and forces us straight into the present).
The poem of Parmenides is not for academics. Do not we learned anything in it. The word "student (scholar)" means, literally, a wealthy man or woman. Scientists are people who have plenty of time, even when they are employed: time to lose, time to kill. But understanding Parmenides is a serious matter. It requires the same intensity and urgency of which he speaks-the urgency of our own being.
So, there's not much time to waste.


6.

In this strange world of myths and mythical beings evoked by Parmenides may seem, at first, that nothing looks familiar to us.
What he is describing there is a Travel to the end of all journeys: a journey beyond any ordinary human experience, "very far from the path of men." But it is natural to want to reduce something unusual in terms more familiar. Basically it happened that a tremendous amount of energy was used to find excuses to travel.
has been set aside as a rhetorical device, an allegory, like a vague poetic attempt to describe how the philosopher leaves the confusion to clarity, darkness to light.
Clearly we are free to use any device trying to get rid of the journey of Parmenides. But before doing so, it would be a good idea to see what he has said.
And the fact is that there is nothing vague about this. Even when it seems vague, it is due to a very specific purpose. Each image plays a part in all entirely consistent. Every detail is contained in a particular context.
Parmenides is guided in his journey from young girls., The Daughters of the Sun They come from homes of the Night well known in Greek myth as the depths of darkness to the extreme edges of existence, next to the great abyss called Tartarus, where land and sky have their roots. This is where the known world joins the underworld, where all the opposites that we feel and experience while live meet.
This is the place where the sun comes back home with his family to rest.
Regarding the gates through which Parmenides is led along the paths of Night and Day, they open the gates to the underworld-separating the world familiar to us from the huge chasm that lies behind it.
and Justice, to guard the gates, is a familiar image again. She is the goddess who rules the underworld: the ruthless enforcement source, the source of all laws.
Regarding the Goddess greets anonymous Parmenides, there is no time to say something on them.
In short, the Daughters of the Sun came taking it from the world of the living to bring it back right in their world. This is not a journey from confusion to clarity, from darkness to light. Conversely, the journey that Parmenides we are describing is exactly the opposite. He is entering the heart of the last night where no human being can survive without God's protection. He is being conducted in the heart of the underworld, the world of the dead.
But there is a demand that had to be answered: a fundamental question.
What did it mean for a person of flesh and blood in ancient Greece-not a mythical or legendary hero-take a trip knowingly, intentionally into another world?
And in particular: how could anyone expect to get off or get to the underworld while still alive, get in touch with supernatural powers that lie beyond, learn from them, then return to the world of the living?
The answer is simple.
There was a special and reliable technique that was used by different groups of people to make the journey into the world of the dead to die before you die. It involved
isolated in a dark place, lying in an absolute silence, remaining motionless for hours or days. Sink in the silence before the body, then eventually the mind. It is this calmness that allows access to the other world, a world of absolute paradox, which leads a total and different state of awareness. Sometimes this condition was described as the very nature of a dream. Sometimes it was associated with a dream, although it was not a dream, but as actually a third type of consciousness is different, however, is the awakening of falling.
They used to use a technical language associated with the procedure, a complete mythical geography. And there was a specific name that the Greeks and Romans gave to this technique. They called it
incubation.


7.

When it has come to this fundamental connection between the journey of Parmenides and the practice of incubation, things start to clear. For example, when
Parmenides meets the Goddess that instruct you on everything, he can proceed on time according to a formula found in the rest of the poem, the Goddess immediately appoint him as a "kouros" word that can be translated as "young", "boy."
scientists frequently ask why, they devised the most unthinkable solutions. But the answer is very simple and yet very subtle.
was already known that the word kouros is not just about physical age. But drew on a complex of traditions and rituals associated with the courage, manliness, initiation, and in particular, with a journey of initiation to enter another world. This other
world is the world of the gods where the kouros is a source of nourishment and guidance that human beings are never going to give him, where if he is lucky, protected by divinity, they could meet the god who became his tutelary deity, teacher and guide.
And there would be another to be mentioned alongside Greek Parmenides.
His name was Epimenides who came from Crete, an island located in the western Mediterranean not far from the coast of Turkey. He, too, wrote in verse, an account of what he had learned in the underworld. It has often been noticed that-just as Parmenides, he felt it important to describe his meetings with the Justice and Truth in another world.
The legends concerning him Epimenides report that after these meetings became known for his role as legislator known as a reformer or something like that. This does not coincide with Parmenides, according to the most reliable sources, became a famous city for its own legislature. Instead, we'll see the importance of such a detail.
And the people on the island of Crete DESIGNATED Epimenides, in their own dialect, as "Kouros". This too, is much more than a coincidence. We learn that the ancient tradition of "kouros" in Crete had direct links with the ancient traditions of another place particular.
was Focea-the Motherland of ancestors of Parmenides before they sailed westward to settle in Velia.
But beyond the designation of "kouros, a reformer or legislator, there is a lot more.
Epimenides was also great reputation as a successful healer and a prophet.
It is said that he recited his poems for the sake of healing. The reforms launched by him found their origin in the prophecy: with his skills could see how justice was running in another world. And the purpose of these reforms was to heal the city as its inhabitants.
There was a word the ancient Greeks generally used to describe someone as Epimenides. It was "Iatromantis", a name that simply means "prophet healer."
And tradition tells us how to become a Epimenides "Iatromantis" after sleeping in a cave for years, making transporting as he lay there completely still, into the unusual world of justice and truth.
In other words, he learned everything he knew through the practice of incubation.

What Does Marijuana Do To Cataracts

Hannah Arendt: The Life of the Mind





















We are the world and not simply Appearing
it always means the other opinion and this opinion varies depending on the point of view and perspective of the audience. In other words, everything that appears, by virtue of its appearance, becomes a kind of disguise that may indeed - though not necessarily - conceal or distort it. The opinion is the fact that all appearances, in spite of their identity, is perceived by a plurality of viewers. The impulse

all'autoesibizione - react with the overwhelming show of being shown the effect - seems common to humans and animals. In the same way in which the plaintiff depends for its entrance into the scene from the stage, the company and the audience, so every living thing depends on a world that appears as a place for their appearance, from his peers to play his part with them, by viewers because its existence is accepted and recognized.

spiritual activities by which we distinguish ourselves from other animal species, although showing great differences, but they all have in common is that a withdrawal from the world and a retreat to the self. This does not cause any serious problem if we were mere spectators, divine creatures thrown into the world to watch over it, to enjoy or be entertained, but still in possession of another region as our natural habitat. But the fact is that we are in the world and not simply in it: we are also appearances, precisely because of our arrival and departure, and passing away, and though we come from nowhere are fully equipped to deal with Whatever it may appear, and take part in the theater world.

Hannah Arendt, "The life of the mind", Il Mulino, p.. 102

How do you submit to the other
The brave man is not the one in whose soul this feeling is absent, no one who knows how to win it once and for all, but who decided that fear is not what you want to show. Courage can then become a second nature or habit, but not in the sense that the fear is replaced by its absence, as if that could in turn become a feeling. Such choices are determined by several factors, in many cases are predetermined by the culture we are born - the task because we want to please others. But there are decisions that are not inspired by our environment, we are led by the desire to please ourselves or to set an example, namely the desire to persuade others to appreciate what we do. Whatever the reason, the success and failure depend on the operation of self-consistency, and therefore the length, the image that this will present to the world. Since

appearances always occur in the guise of opinion, simulation and deliberate deception by the plaintiff, error and illusion of the viewer include, inevitably, between their intrinsic potential. The self-presentation stands out thanks to the choice dall'autoesibizione active and conscious of the image display: The exhibit has no other choice but to show all properties in the possession of a living being. The self-presentation it would not be possible without a certain degree of self-awareness, capacity inherent to the reflective nature of the activities that transcends spiritual, of course, the mere realization that in all probability the man has in common with the higher animals.

Each virtue begins when I make a gift with which I express my satisfaction with it. The gift involves a promise to the world, to those which I appear to act in harmony with that please me and the infringement of this implicit promise that characterizes the hypocrite. In other words, the hypocrite is not a villain who delights of vice and hide his pleasure to those around him. The test reveals that the hypocrite is the old Socratic motto "Be who you want to appear ', which means always appears as you want to appear to others even if you happen to be alone and not to appear that to yourself. In taking this decision, I am simply to react to this or that quality given to me in fate: I am making a deliberate act of choice among the many possibilities of conduct that the world offers me.

Hannah Arendt, "The life of the mind", Il Mulino, p.. 118


thoughts have nothing of the properties that can be attributed to the self or a person
If I reflect on my relationship with myself that governs the activities of thought, it seems that everything happens as if my thoughts were "simple
representations', or manifestations of an ego which itself remains forever hidden, because obviously the thoughts have nothing of the properties that can be attributed to the self or person. The "I think that is the real" thing in itself "of Kant: it does not appear to others and, unlike the ego of self-awareness, does not appear to itself, yet it is nothing.

Hannah Arendt, "The life of the mind", Il Mulino, p.. 125

the death does not change the world but it ceases to
It was for Wittgenstein, finally, that set out to investigate "the extent to which solipsism is a truth 'and thus became the most eminent contemporary, to give all the formulation 'existential illusion underlying all these theories, "the death does not change the world but no longer." "Death is an event of life, death is alive. " Which is the underlying premise of every thought solipsistic.

Hannah Arendt, "The life of the mind", Il Mulino, p.. 133

think, that is mirrored so as to give meaning to the unknown or all'inconoscibile
Once, speaking of Plato, Kant had to observe, "that is not at all unusual, by comparing the thoughts which the author exposes the its subject ... find that we understand better that he did not mean himself. As if enough had not determined his concept, he sometimes spoke, or thought, contrary to his own intention, "which, of course, applies even to the same work Kant).

If Kant had not removed the logs to speculative thought, German Idealism and its metaphysical systems have hardly seen the light. Equally true is that the new type of Philosophy - Fichte, Schelling, Hegel - would not like. Emancipated, thanks to Kant, from the old school and its sterile dogmatism years, encouraged by him to indulge in speculative thought, rather they took their cue from Descartes, they began to hunt for certain, once again confounded the line between thought and knowledge, up to believe in all seriousness that the results of their speculations possessed the same kind of validity the results of cognitive processes.

Although men are existentially conditioned entirely - limited by the arc of time between birth and death, yoked to toil to live and work, encouraged to create works in order to feel at home in the world, forced to ' action to find their place in society of their peers - in spirit can transcend all these conditions, but only in spirit, mind, not in reality or in the knowledge and knowledge that make them be able to explore the real-world and own. They can be judged positively or negatively by the fact they were born and from which they are put together, may want the impossible, For example, a life eternal may think, that is mirrored so as to give meaning to the unknown or all'inconoscibile. And although this may not immediately change the reality - in our world there is actually more clear and radical opposition than that between thinking and doing - the principles on which we act, and the criteria by which we judge and one leads his life depend ultimately on the life of the mind. They depend, in short, by the execution of these operations is manifestly not spiritual, that does not lead to any results and 'do not provide forces for immediate action "(Heidegger). The absence of thought is indeed a powerful factor of human affairs, in statistical terms, the most powerful of all, not only in the conduct of the multitude, but in the conduct of all. The same urgency, the a-scholia, of human affairs requires provisional judgments or rely wants you to custom and habit, and thus to prejudice.

Hannah Arendt, "The life of the mind", Il Mulino, p.. 153

The main feature of the activities of the mind is their invisibility
In view of the world of appearances and activities to put it, the main feature of the activities of the mind is its invisibility. Strictly speaking, they never appear, though occur to the self who thinks and wants, that judges, who is aware of being active, but lacks the capacity or the stimulus to appear as such.

In other words, invisible to the thought that occurs is a human faculty that, contrary to other faculties, not only is invisible until it is latent, the status of a potential, but still does not show even when it is fully established.

For this verse, as in others, the mind is very different from the soul, which is its main competitor to the rank of ruler of our inner life, not visible. The soul, which flow from our passions, our feelings and our emotions, is a more or less chaotic swirl of events that we do not put in place, but we suffer and that in circumstances of high intensity can overwhelm, as with pain or pleasure, the invisibility of ' soul resembles that of the internal organs of the body, which we feel the operation or malfunction, without being able to control them. The life of the mind, by contrast, is pure activity, an activity that, like others, can be started or stopped at will. Moreover, though their head is invisible, the passions have their own expression: the blush of shame ol'imbarazzo, it pales of fear or anger, you may be radiant with happiness or having the air knocked down, and requires a great exercise in self-control to prevent the passions to show. The only outward manifestation of the mind is distraction, an obvious disregard of the surrounding world, something completely negative, with no sign in any way to what is really going on inside us.

No act of the mind, much less the act of thinking, it fulfills its purpose which is given by the life or the world. It always transcends the mere givenness of anything that aroused his attention, turning it into what Pier Giovanni Olivi, a Franciscan philosopher of the Will active in the thirteenth century, called an "experiment of the self with itself."

Being with him and maintain relations only with themselves constitute the main feature of the life of the mind.

Hannah Arendt, "The life of the mind", Il Mulino, p.. 156

The thinking I will disappear as soon as the real world returns to impose himself
In fact, I am aware of the faculty of the mind and their reflexivity lasts only as long as their activities. And as if the same organs of thought, will, in the light of the proceedings arise only when I think, or want to judge: a latent state, provided that such latency exists, prior to the actualization they are not accessible to introspection. The "I" thinking, which are perfectly conscious until the last activity of thought, will disappear as if it were a mere mirage as soon as the real world returns to impose himself.

It 'not so much a retreat from the world - just the thought for his tendency to generalize, that is, his interest in general than the particular, tends to withdraw completely from the world - because of his being present to the senses. Every act is based on the spiritual faculties of the mind to have this in itself what is absent to the senses. The representation (in the sense of re-presentation) which makes present what is absent in fact, is the incomparable gift of the mind, and since our whole terminology of mind is based on metaphors drawn from the experience of vision, such as dowry has imagination, defined by Kant as 'the faculty' s insight even without the presence of the object. " The faculty of the mind to make present what is absent, of course, is by no means confined to mental images of absent objects: in a much more general sense, the memory stores and keep available all the memory that is no longer, while the everything will anticipate what the future may bring, but it is not. Only in virtue of the mind's ability to make present what is absent, we can say 'no more' and create a past for ourselves, we can say "not yet" and prepare ourselves for a future. But this is not possible unless the mind after it has been portrayed in this and the urgencies of daily life. Thus, the will, the mind must withdraw from the immediacy of desire, without reflection and without reflection, stretching out his hand to seize the desired object: the will has nothing to do with objects, but projects, for example, with the future availability of an object that, in the present, it may not be desired.

Hannah Arendt, "The life of the mind ", Il Mulino, p.. 159

The imagination becomes a visible object in an image invisible
The object of thought is different from the picture, how the image differs from the object which is visible in the sense of mere representation. It 's because of this dual transformation that thought "actually goes even further," far beyond the realm of any possible imagination, "when the reason proclaims the infinity of numbers in the thought that no vision of corporeal things has never grasped" or 'teaches us that even the smaller bodies are infinitely divisible. " The imagination, therefore, that transforms a visible object in an image invisible, capable of being stored in the mind, is a condition sine qua non to provide convenient objects of thought to mind, but these objects of thought, in turn, come to light only when the mind remembers actively and deliberately, collects and-choose between the filing of this memory so as to convey his interest sufficiently to cause the merger. In these operations, the mind learns how to face and deal with matters that are absent, and prepare together to "go further" toward the understanding of things that are always absent, of which there can be no memory because I have never been present at 'sensory experience.

All metaphysical questions that philosophy has taken as its own specific issues arising from experiences of ordinary common sense, "the need of reason" - the search for meaning that drives us to make these issues - does not differ in anything from the human need to tell the story of an event which is witnessed or the need to write poems about it. In all these activities thoughtful men move outside the world of appearances and make use of a language full of abstract words, of course, before becoming the special coin of philosophy, have long been an integral part of everyday language. For the thought, then, although not for philosophy in a technical sense, the withdrawal from the world of appearances is the only essential precondition. Because we think of someone, they should be away from our presence, until you are with him, did not think him or about him, the thought always involves the memory: every thought is really a re-think. It can certainly happen that you start thinking about someone or something is still present, in which case we have strayed illegally from what surrounds us, we are behaving as if we were already absent.

Hannah Arendt, "The life of the mind", Il Mulino, p.. 161

In the act of thinking I'm not where they are in reality non-sensitive objects around me, but images invisible to everyone else
As you think, you have no concept of his body, this is the experience that led Plato to give immortality to the soul when the body was in-game, which led to the conclusion that Descartes' the soul can think without the body, except that, until it is combined, may well be molested in its operations by poor layout of the body. "

Memory, Mnemosyne is the mother of the Muses and the memory, the experience of thinking more common and basic set, has to do with things missing, disappeared from the senses. Still, the absent is made present and evoked to mind - a person, an event, a monument - can not appear in the way it appeared to the senses, as if the memory was tantamount to a kind of witchcraft. To appear only in the mind, it must first be de-sensibiizzato, and the ability to make sensible objects in images we call 'imagination'. Without that option, which makes present what is absent in the form de-sensitized, no trial, no sequence of thought would be possible. So the thinking is "out of order" not only because it stops all other activities so essential to the business of living and survive, but because it overturns all ordinary relations: what is close and appears directly under it is now far, far away is what is actually present. In the act of thinking I'm not where I really: do not surround me sensible objects, but images invisible to anyone else. And as if I had withdrawn into a sort of no man's land, the land of the invisible, of which I do not know anything if I had not given this power to remember and imagine. Thinking undo distances, the temporal space of not less. I can anticipate the future and think as if it were already present, I can remember the past as if it had disappeared.

Hannah Arendt, "The life of the mind", Il Mulino, p.. 168

Thinking about the activities of the mind, self-destructive tendency
Kant wrote: "I disagree with the review ... that no one should doubt that once you are convinced of something. In pure philosophy that is impossible. Our mind will test a natural aversion. "

We have considered so far the main features of thought: his withdrawal from the world of appearances of common sense, the same self-destructive tendency in relation to its results, its reflexivity and awareness of pure activity that accompanies , not to mention the fact bizarre and disturbing that you may know their own spiritual faculties solo as long as this activity continues, which means that thought can not firmly establishing itself as the ultimate properties of the human species.

Hannah Arendt, "The life of the mind", Il Mulino, p.. 173

words, meaning in themselves, and thoughts are similar. The speech, therefore, although in each case "sound meaning" is not necessarily a sentence or a sentence in which truth and falsehood are at stake, and not to be. We have already seen, after all, as it is by no means the only possible case: a prayer and a logos, but is neither true nor false. Thus, implicit in the impulse talking is not necessarily the search for truth, but the search for meaning.

The thoughts need not be disclosed to happen, but they can not occur if they are not states, with mouth closed, or out loud in the dialogue, as appropriate.

The function of this speech without a voice - "to think quietly to themselves" according to Anselm of Canterbury - is to get on top of all that is given according to the daily appearances, the need to reason is to make this into account which is, or has happened. At what drives not the thirst for knowledge - the need may arise in connection with phenomena well known and completely familiar - but the search for meaning. Naming things, the mere creation of words, is the way of man to himself and, so to speak, disalienate a world in which, after all, each one of us is born as a newcomer and a stranger.

Hannah Arendt, "The life of the mind", Il Mulino, p.. 184

The metaphors and the brain
Every great philosophical language and the poetic language is metaphorical, but not in the simplistic sense of the definition of "metaphor" as a "figure of speech in which a name or descriptive term is transferred to an object different, though similar to that which applies in the proper sense. "

Each metaphor brings out "an intuitive perception of similarity in dissimilar things' and, according to Aristotle, is precisely for this reason a sign of genius', 'by far the biggest thing." According to Kant

this talk in analogies, in metaphorical language, is the only means by which the speculative reason, which we call here thinking, can manifest itself. At the thought without pictures, "abstract". The metaphor provides insight from the world of appearances, whose function is to "establish the fact

of our concepts' then canceling, so to speak, that withdrawal from the world of appearances which is the precondition of spiritual activities.

All philosophical terms are metaphors, analogies, so to speak, frozen, whose real meaning is opened up when the word is restored to original context, this course so vivid and intense to the mind of the philosopher who first used it. When Plato introduced in the philosophical language of everyday words "soul" and "idea" - by connecting an invisible human body, the soul, something invisible in the invisible world, the ideas - had yet to hear those words echo in their use in pre-fiosofico ordinary language. Psyche is the "breath vital 'exhaled by the dying, and idea or eidos, is the template or model that the craftsman must have, first in the eyes of the mind before starting his work - an image that survives the manufacturing process as well as transcends' manufactured object and can serve as a model again and again and again, acquiring a life without end which makes it suitable to eternity in the sky ideas. The underlying analogy to the Platonic doctrine of soul is this: how the breath is related to the body that leaves, that is, with the corpse, so from now on, we deem that the soul is in relationship with the living body. And the analogy underlying the doctrine of ideas can be reconstructed in a similar way: as the mental image of the craftsman runs her hand during the manufacturing process and is the measure of success or failure of the object, so all data elements physically and significantly in the world of appearances relate to a pattern invisible, situated in the sky ideas, and are valued in relation to it. None

before Aristotle had used in a different sense from the word kategoria accusation, which designated that was said against a defendant in the course of judicial proceedings. " Aristotle's use, this word becomes something like 'predicate' based on the following analogy: just as an indictment (kategoreuein you tinos) is down (kata) on a defendant's something they are accused, and therefore belongs to them, so the predicate gives the person the appropriate quality.

read it in a little-known essay by Ernest Fenollosa, that 'the metaphor is ... the true essence of poetry ", without it," there is no bridge over which pass from the truth less than the more visible to the invisible. "

The first to play it was poetic Homer, whose two poems are full of metaphorical expressions of all kinds. In this embarrass de Wealth choose the pace at which the Iliad The poet compares the onslaught of fear and excruciating pain in the chest of men combined attack of winds from different directions on the waters of the sea. " Think of these storms that you know so well, the poet seems to say, and know something of fear and pain. But it is significant that the opposite is not true. Think what you want to pain and fear, but you will not know anything about the winds and the sea: the comparison has a clear purpose to say what the pain and fear are at the heart of man, that is intended to illuminate a 'experience that does not appear. Hannah Arendt, "The life of the mind", Il Mulino, p.. 192

The theory of "two worlds" is yes metaphysical illusion, but is neither arbitrary nor accidental: It is more plausible that the illusion has ever afflicted the experience of thinking. Allowing himself to use a metaphor, the language allows us to think, that is to have trade with non-sensitive, because it allows you to 'take over' - metapherein - our sensory experience. There are two worlds because the metaphor unites them.

Hannah Arendt, "The life of the mind", Il Mulino, p.. 197

In Paradigmen zu einer Metaphorologie, Hans Blumenberg has traced along the centuries-old history of Western thought, the story of certain figures of speech quite common, as the metaphor of the iceberg and the various marine metaphors, to discover, almost incidentally, to what extent some modern pseudoscience typically owe their apparent plausibility evidence of metaphor, which subrogated evidence of defective data done. His main example is the psychoanalytic theory of consciousness, where consciousness is seen as the tip of the iceberg, a simple indication of the mass of floating unconscious beneath the surface. Not only is this theory has never been demonstrated, but in its own terms is unprovable: the instant in which a fragment reaches the tip of the iceberg of the unconscious became conscious, losing all the properties of its supposed origin. Yet the evidence of the iceberg metaphor is so overwhelming that the theory does not need neither argument nor proof.

Hannah Arendt, "The life of the mind", Il Mulino, p.. 200

Common sense
Among the important characteristics of our senses is the fact that can not be translated into each other - no sound can be seen, heard no image, and so on - although connected by a sense policy, which for that reason alone is the largest. In this regard, recall the definition of Thomas Aquinas, "the right only [that] extends to all objects of the five senses, at or in accordance with common sense, the language called an object with its common name: this community is not only the key determinant of intersubjective communication - the same object is perceived by different people and their communities - but also serves to identify a figure that appears in a completely different way to each of the five senses: hard or soft to the touch, sweet or bitter taste, dark or bright to the eye, in different resonant ear tones. None of these feelings can be adequately described in words. And the meaning of knowledge, vision and hearing, have an affinity with words the narrower meaning of the inferior. Something smells like a rose, it tastes like pea soup, soft like velvet. Further on you can not go, "a rose is a rose is a rose."

Hannah Arendt, "The life of the mind", Il Mulino, p.. 207

If the thought, led by the old metaphor of sight, misunderstanding itself and its function, its action is expected by the 'truth', that is not only ineffable truth by definition. "As children who, by closing their hands, trying to catch the smoke, the philosophers so often seen flying away in front of them who wanted to grab the object '- so, with extreme precision, the last philosopher who believed firmly in the 'intuition', Bergson, describing what really happened to the thinkers of that school. And the reason of "failure" is simply that nothing in words can never draw the immobility of an object of pure contemplation. A comparison of the object of contemplation, the meaning, you can say and whom you can talk, is elusive if the philosopher wants to see it and grab it "evaporates."

Hannah Arendt, "The life of the mind", Il Mulino, p.. 210

If the thought is out of order because it is the search for meaning does not lead to final results that will survive the activity itself, which will continue to have effect after the activity has come to an end. In other words, although the manifest to the self that thinks, the pleasure of speaking Aristotle which by definition is ineffable. The only metaphor that is the only one that can be conceived for the life of the mind, is the feeling of vitality. Without the breath of life the human body is a corpse with no thoughts of the mind of man is dead.

If I thought it was a cognitive operation should follow a straight line, starting from the search of purpose and ends with his knowledge. If you combines with the metaphor of the vitality, the circular motion of Aristotle evokes a search for meaning for man as a thinking being is accompanied by the life and ends only with death. The circular movement is a metaphor derived from the life process that, even though they are from birth to death, rotates in a circle around itself until the man is alive.

Hegel says: "Philosophy forms a circle ... is a series that is not suspended in the air, is not something you start from nothing to the contrary, it comes back in a circle around itself. " The same idea meets at the end of Che cos 'is metaphysics?, Where Heidegger formula' the fundamental question metaphysics "as" Why, in general, there is something and not rather nothing? "-one way of thinking the first question, but at the same time the thought that" it must always be constantly swinging back. "

Hannah Arendt, "The life of the mind", Il Mulino, p.. 213

Moreover, the metaphor of the vitality clearly rejects any answer to the inevitable, "Why do we think?", Since there is no answer to the question "Why do we live?".

In Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations (written after he had persuaded the former dell'insostenibilità attempt, in the Tractatus to understand the language, and thought, as' representation of reality "-" The proposition is a picture of reality. The proposition is a model of reality as we think ") is an interesting game of thinking that can perhaps help us clarify this difficulty. He asks, "What do you think man? ... The man thinks, because the thinking has yielded good results? Why do you think is beneficial to think? "That would amount to ask," Educate the children because it gave good results? ". It must be acknowledged that "sometimes you think because it gave good results, "implying with the course that only" sometimes "things are so. Then: "How could you find out why you think?" To which Wittgenstein replied: "Often we see the important facts only after deletion of the question" why? ", Then in the course of our investigation, these facts lead us to a response. Just trying to suppress the question: "Why do we think?", I will address now the question: "What makes us think?"

Hannah Arendt, "The life of the mind", Il Mulino, p.. 215

What makes us think?
Our question "What makes us think?" does not go in looking for causes or purposes. Taking for granted the human need to think about it based on the assumption that the activity of thought is one of those energeiai that, like playing the flute, have their end in themselves and leave no outwardly no tangible end product in the world which we live. You can not locate in time the moment you began to feel such a need, but the very existence of the language and everything we know about prehistoric times and mythologies, whose authors can not give a name, allow to assume, without risk of mistaken too, that need to be contemporary with the appearance of man on earth. What is possible date, however, is the beginning of philosophy and metaphysics, and what we can give a name are the answers to our question gradually during the different periods of history. So part of the response of the Greeks can be found in the belief that all thinkers Hellenic philosophy that enables men to stay close to the mortal immortal things, and therefore to acquire or to lodge itself "immortality to the fullest extent permitted by human nature. " For the short time that mortals bear to devote to it, the philosopher turns them into creatures like gods, in "mortal" as Cicero wants.

Hannah Arendt, "The life of the mind ", Il Mulino, p.. 217

Coleridge writes: "Have you ever lifted up your mind to consider the existence, in and of itself, as well as act to exist? Have you ever said to yourself thoughtfully "E '", regardless if in that moment before you there was a man, a flower or a grain of sand, without reference, in short, and in this way or that particular form of existence? Are you really come to this, you will have felt the presence of a mystery, he must have stopped your spirit in awe and amazement. The very words "There is nothing" or "There was a time when there was nothing!" Are a contradiction in terms. There is something in us that rejects these words el'istantaneità with the intensity of a light, as if they spoke against the evidence of a fact that it is because of his own eternity.

not be, then, is impossible: to be incomprehensible. If you have taken this insight of absolute existence, you will have learned all this and nothing else was what in ancient times took the noblest minds, the elect among men, with a kind of holy terror. This is precisely what made them feel for the first time within it the harbinger of something ineffably greater than their individual nature. "

The Platonic amazement, the initial shock that drives the philosopher to undertake his journey, is revived in our time when Heidegger, in 1929, concluded a conference entitled "What is Metaphysics?" with the words, already mentioned, "Why there is something in general and not rather nothing? "; this question by defining" the fundamental question of metaphysics. "

Hannah Arendt, "The life of the mind", Il Mulino, p.. 234

Socrates did not teach anything, he had nothing to teach

Socrates did not teach anything for the simple reason that had nothing to teach: it was 'sterile' as the midwives Greek, they must have passed the age to procreate. (Since he had nothing to teach, no truth to be transmitted, was accused of never to reveal his view, as we learn from Xenophon, who defended this claim). It seems that, unlike the philosophers by profession, he warned the momentum of the test with others to determine whether they shared his concerns and this is something very different depends if solutions to the puzzles and then show others .

consider briefly the three similarities. First, Socrates is a gadfly: he knows how to goad citizens who, without him, "will continue unabated sleep for the rest of their life, "unless someone comes to awaken them. And wake up to what? To think and consider, an activity without which, in his view, life is not only it would not be much, but it is not even fully human. (On this subject, nell'Apologia as elsewhere, Socrates says almost the opposite of what Plato makes him say in the 'revised defense "of the Phaedo. Nell'Apologia, Socrates sets out to his fellow citizens the reasons why he should live and, together, explain why, although life is the 'very dear', not afraid of death in the Phaedo explains to friends that life is so burdensome and be happy to die).

Secondly, Socrates is a midwife. In the Theaetetus, he argues that because sterile himself, knows how to relieve others of their thoughts, also thanks to its sterility, he has the experience of the midwife and know whether the baby really is that simple or unfertilized egg of which the mother must be purged. In the dialogues, however, rarely some of the interlocutors of Socrates gave birth to a thought that it was not an unfertilized egg and that Socrates considered worthy of being kept alive. He was rather what Plato, in Lead, of course thinking of Socrates, the Sophists said: cleansing of the people of 'their opinions', ie unreflective of the prejudices that prevent them from thinking-help, as Plato said, to get rid of what is evil in them, their opinions, but may not make good, without giving them the truth. Finally, knowing that we do not know yet reluctant to let go as if nothing had happened, Socrates stops insisting on their concerns and how the torpedo, paralyzed himself, paralyzed persons coming in contact with him. At first glance, it seems, the torpedo is the opposite of gadfly: where it paralyzes the gadfly pricks and alarm clock. Yet what may seem like a paralysis from the outside - from the perspective of ordinary human affairs - is heard as the supreme condition of activity and vitality. In support of this, despite the lack of documentary evidence on the experience of thinking, there are several statements in the course of the centuries of thinkers.

So Socrates, gadfly, midwife, torpedo, not a philosopher (teaches nothing and has nothing to teach), nor is a sophist, as it seeks to make men wise. He is confined simply to show them that you are wise, which, in reality, no one is - an 'occupation', which kept him busy so as not to allow time for any other public or private affair. And while he vigorously defends the charge to corrupt the young, do not ever claim the honor of improving them. On the other hand, he claims that the appearance in Athens of the thinking and the Examiner, which he represented, was the greatest good that ever was allotted to the City. He was concerned about it, of the services rendered by thinking, although in this case, as in all others, did not give clear and definitive answers. You can be sure that a dialogue turned to the question "To what pros' think?" Would have resulted in the same places all the other questions.

Hannah Arendt, "The life of the mind", Il Mulino, p.. 267

For its part, well conscious of having to do his business with what is invisible, a metaphor of Socrates, he was worth in order to explain the activity of thinking - the metaphor of the wind: "The winds themselves are invisible, but what they do is manifest and somehow we feel their approach. "

Hannah Arendt, "The life of the mind", Il Mulino, p.. 268

In the end, the implication is that thinking inevitably has a destructive effect, such as to undermine all the criteria in depth, shared values, the units of good and evil, in short, all the customs and rules conduct in question in morals and ethics. These frozen thoughts, Socrates seems to say, they are so comfortable that you can use them even in sleep, but if the wind of thought is now in you'll shake you from your sleep rocked, made you wide awake and alive, you'll see that it had in hand if not of concern, and the best thing we can do is share with each other. Then the paralysis caused by the thinking is twofold: first is inherent in the stop-and-think, the discontinuation of all other assets (in psychological terms, one can not define error "a problem" as "a situation that for some reasons significantly blocks a body in its efforts to reach a goal), but it also can, when it is released, a staggering delayed effect, because we now feel unsure of what seemed to be beyond any doubt until it was committed, without thinking, in what was being done.

Hannah Arendt, "The life of the mind", Il Mulino, p.. 269 \u200b\u200b

The two-in-One as soon as one becomes the outside world to impose strong thinker
Sure, I appear and the others see me, they are one, otherwise I would be unrecognizable. And while I'm with the others, barely conscious of myself, they seemed to others. It's called consciousness (literally, as we have seen, "to know with myself) the curious fact that in a sense are-for-myself, although I just can not say that I appear to myself, and this indicates how the Socratic "being one" is not as unproblematic as it seems. I'm just not-for others, but also for-me, and in the latter case, it is clear, I'm not just one. In my unit has crept a difference.

In other words, we are faced with a transference, transference of the experience of the self that thinks about the things themselves. Nothing, in fact, can be himself and at the same time for himself-if not the two-in-one that Socrates brought to light as the essence of thought that Plato and translated into conceptual language as the dialogue without a voice, to myself and myself. But, again, is not thought to be the work of the unit, to unify the two-in-one, on the contrary, the two-in-One as soon as one becomes the outside world is ruled by force to the thinker and cuts short the process of thought. Then, when called by name in the world of appearances, there is always one where it is as if the thinker, split in two by the thought process, the difference is richiudesse abruptly. In existential terms, thinking is a solitary occupation, but not the occupation of the island. Loneliness is the human situation where I keep myself company. The desolation of isolation occurs when only without being able to separate the two-in-one, without being able to keep me company, if, as Jaspers would say, 'I am not myself "or, put another way, when you are without a company.

Hannah Arendt, "The life of the mind", Il Mulino, p.. 280

attracts thought in his mind, the will move in a region where there is no such certainty

aversion towards the ego that thinks the will is obviously much different. The clash took place in this case between two spiritual activities, which seem unable to coexist. When we form a volition, when it focuses on some future project, there has been withdrawn from the world of appearances, at least when you are following a direction of thought. Thoughts and desires are only opponents to the extent that affect our mental states, both of them, it is true, make present to the mind what in reality is absent, but the thought in his mind that attracts what is hard or at least was , while the will, leaning into the future, moves in a region where there is no such certainty. To address what the meeting is from this region of the unknown, our psychic apparatus - the soul as distinct from the mind - is equipped with the ability of expectation, the details of which are the main hope and fear.

normal emotional state is the ego that wants to impatience, agitation and 'care' (Sorge), not only because the soul responds to the future with hope and fear, but also because the project will require an I-I of which there is no guarantee. The fears of anxious desire can be quenched only by the ego-and-I-do, namely the cessation of its activities and the liberation of the mind from the power of this activity.

Hannah Arendt, "The life of the mind", Il Mulino, p.. 352

The memory can disturb the soul with the desire of the past, but this nostalgia, even if it contains pain and bitterness, not to disturb the equanimity of the mind, as it relates to things that are not in our power to change. On the contrary, I want that, looking forward and not back, it has to do with things that are so in our power, but whose realization is by no means secure. The tension that results, otherwise the excitement that accompanied the rather challenging task of solving problems, causing a kind of restlessness in the soul that crosses easily into turmoil, a mixture of fear and hope that it becomes unbearable once you find out, according to the formula of Augustine, and that will be able to achieve, velvet and posse, I'm not the same. And this tension can not be resolved except by the action, ie giving up completely on every spiritual activity: the simple passage of the will to think, produces nothing more than a temporary paralysis of the will, the same way a pass from thinking the will is felt by the ego that thinks like a temporary paralysis of thought.

Hannah Arendt, "The life of the mind", Il Mulino, p.. 352

The reason, of thought without a voice in the dialogue between me and myself, is persuasive, not mandatory
Aristotle says: "One part of the soul is the reason. It is the natural ruler and judge of the things that concern us. The nature of the other party is to follow and submit to his government. " We will see later how to execute commands is one of the main characteristics of the Will. In Plato the reason he could take upon himself this function under the assumption that the reason given is the truth, and truth is in fact coercive. But the same reason, while leading to the truth of thought without a voice in the dialogue between me and myself, is persuasive, not mandatory, only those who are not capable of thinking need to be forced.

Hannah Arendt, "The life of the mind", Il Mulino, p.. 373

But the inner dialogue of thought, which is the philosophy 'the solitary occupation "of Hegel (although it is always self-conscious, accompanying himself tacitly in everything I do, I cogitate the cogito of Descartes), it is addressed thematically ego but on the contrary, the experiences and problems that I, an appearance among appearances, feel the need for thoughtful analysis. This meditation on all that is given may be disturbed by the necessities of life, the presence of others, from all sorts of shops urgent. But none of the factors that interfere with the activity of mind comes from the mind itself, since those involved in the two-in-one are members and friends, and keep intact this "harmony" is the first concern of the self that thinks.

Hannah Arendt, "The life of the mind", Il Mulino, p.. Over 379 Jews

immortality was seen as necessary only for the people and assured to it only, the individual was satisfied to survive in its progeny
E 'interest in the life eternal, omnipresent in the Empire at that time Romano, who so clearly discriminates against the new era from ancient times, revealing himself as the common bond that united the many syncretic new Oriental cults. Not that the interest of Paul to the Resurrection individual was originally Jewish: Jews immortality was perceived as only necessary for the people and assured to it only, the individual was satisfied with his progeny survive, to die old and also pay "full of years." And in the ancient world, greek or roman, the only immortality you are looking for or where you fight consisted of non-forgetfulness of fame and big business, then those institutions, the polis or civitas, which could ensure the continuity of memory .

Cicero had said that while men must die, communities [civitates] are intended to be eternal and only die as a result of their sins. Behind the many new beliefs looms clear the common experience of a world in decline, perhaps dying. And in his eschatological aspects of the "good news" of Christianity stated with finality: "You who have believed that men die but that the world is everlasting, you only need to reverse things, converts to the faith that the world has an end but yourself have eternal life. " In this way, of course, the problem of "justice", ie being worthy of this eternal life, plays a completely new, of a personal nature.

Hannah Arendt, "The life of the mind", Il Mulino, p.. 381

Clorox Bad For Toilet

Simone Weil: The Shadow and Grace





















punishment God, through infinite time and the thickness of the species, to reach the soul and seduce her. If you let it rip, just for a moment, a pure and full consent, then God conquest. And when it has become something entirely his own, to leave her. The left totally alone. And she, in turn, but to scramble to cross the thickness of infinite time and space in search of him that she loves. Thus the soul goes back in reverse the journey that God has done to her. And this is the cross.
Two forces reign over the universe: light and heavy.
There is a single fault, not having the ability to live on light. Why, abolished this capacity, all the faults are possible.
It is surprising that the pain is not nobility. Why, when you think of an unhappy, you think of his misery. But the unfortunate does not think of his misery, he has filled the soul of any relief that the slightest wish is granted.
As a gas, the soul tends to occupy all the space they are given.
from human misery to God but not as a compensation or consolation. As correlation.
"Give me a fulcrum and I will move the world." This is the cross point of support. Not there may be others. I must it is at the crossroads of the world and what is not the world. The cross is this intersection.
We must cross - and God before us, to come up to us, because he comes first - the thickness of infinite time and space. In the relationship between God and man, love is as large as possible. It is great as the distance that He must be overcome.
Two conceptions of hell. The common (suffering without consolation) my (false bliss, believing in heaven by mistake).
be anything to be your true place in the whole.
Among humans, it fully recognizes the existence of only those we love.
Evil is the unlimited, but it is not infinite.
Only the infinite limit the unlimited.
In general, do not want the disappearance of any of its misery, but for the grace that transfigure. The size of the Supreme
Christianity comes from the fact that it does not seek a supernatural remedy against suffering but a supernatural use of suffering.
algebra and money are essentially levelers; the first intellectually, the more indeed.
Love, in the happy, is willing to share the suffering of the beloved happy. The love, who is unhappy, is to be full of bare notion of happiness of the beloved, without participating in this happiness, and even desirable to participate.
Our life is impossible, absurd. Everything we want is inconsistent with the conditions or the consequences for, any statement that implies we pronounce the claim to the contrary, all our feelings are confused with their opposites. Because we are creatures of contradiction, for we are God, and at the same time, infinitely more to God
The man wants to be selfish and can not. This is the most striking character of his misery and the source of his greatness.
We would like everything that he had eternal value. Now, all that has value is the product of a meeting after meeting and takes over when what they had encountered separates. [...] The meditation on the case which did meet my father and my mother is even healthier than death. Is there a single thing in me that does not have its origin in that meeting? Only God And my idea of \u200b\u200bGod has its origin in the encounter.
Is not it the greatest misfortune, when you are fighting against God, to not be won?
Nothing on earth can take away the power to say I do.
If there were, in this world, the misery, we might believe in heaven.
effort to replace growing worldwide effective non-violence to violence.
We are what is most remote from God, to the extreme, which is not totally impossible, however, return to him. In our being, God is torn. We are the crucifixion of God, God's love for us is a passion. How good could love without suffering evil? Also suffers from bad to love the good. The mutual love of God and man is suffering.
only task we have the experience of the good.
One has the experience of evil to do it only prohibits, or, if it was made, or repentance.
When you do evil, you do not know, because evil flees the light.
All sins are attempts to fill with empty.
empty, you are exposed to all the pressure of the universe around us.

Pokemon Heart Gold Englishnds

The little book of the shadow by Robert Bly


In this 1988 book, the poet American Robert Bly speaks of some hidden aspects of our personality.

For Bly, we all have a part of our personality "in the light 'and part' in the shade." That is, we all have a part of personality that we show to others and that, therefore, even we ourselves know well. This is the part "in the light." But we also have a part of personality that we do not show to anyone, not even because we know of it. This is the part of "shadow." Bly calls it "Shadow."

But that's in the Shadow? Bly tells us imagine the invisible Shadow as a lot on our shoulders. In this bag we put the parts of ourselves (ie our personality) we do not like. For example, we put the anger, fear, jealousy. We begin to fill the small bag already: we put the parts of us that do not like our parents. We do so for fear of losing their love. As adults we put the parts of us that do not like the company, your boss, the person we love. And even those who do not like religion (sex, for example).

The bag makes us sick. Because each of us is that we put in a waiver of a slice of our life energy. Therefore, the larger the bag, we are worse.

The bag makes us feel bad because that we have not put in good standing there. Try and get out. And, since you do not succeed, we become hostile, creating us psychological problems. And the bad thing is that what happens in a non-conscious: not aware of it.

The bag we create the most damage through the mechanism of "projection". What is it? Every time I meet someone, we are tempted to give it a side of us that we put in the bag. For example, if you hate someone for a particular aspect of his character, that aspect is often one of those that we ourselves and then we put in the bag. Instead, if we love a person for a particular aspect, it is often because we had that aspect and then we put it in the bag.

"projects" is dangerous for two reasons. The first is that as we hate or love a person for one aspect of his character. And the others? The second is that it is also possible to project the sides of our personality that are not in the bag. This means that the vital energy that we have not lost in the bag we can lose the projecting. Let me give an example. If I am brave, but projects the courage to another person (that is, I think the other person to represent the courage perfect), I end up believing that her only to have it. Those who lost so much vital energy.

To reclaim our vital energy we have two ways. The first is find out what's in our bag. The second is to take back our projections. But how? Bly gives us some advice. For example, every time we hate someone for no reason, there is our Shadow. Then, we try to develop ways to increase our sensitivity. We do this by playing a musical instrument, making a long journey, being a little 'alone to listen to ourselves, or by keeping a diary.


From "Honoring the Shadow", an interview with William Booth
Bly ... Jung said that a person who has successfully repressed his Shadow is having difficulty communicating their feelings to others ... In our culture, as a result of the permissive theories on the education of children, teachers of kindergarten, or at least some of them still think it is good that the child expresses anger, 'throw out aggression', as is often he says. With us, children are encouraged to express anger. So that side of their own shadow becomes visible, appears in the light of day.

Booth: This seems to be an antidote to the problem of driving things in the bag.

Bly: The intention is, but does not work very well. And I think that even the expression of sexual material in young people work very well. The problem is this: When the school mother a child expresses anger and violence and acting, it's as if the electrical impulse in the brain would create a path along which the anger will flow more easily next time. But an explosion of anger is often experienced as a defeat dal'Io. The task of the ego is to make us social beings. If that triggers the anger of the child of an adult, the child's ego may be damaged by what is happening. And when the child received an education permissive will have forty or fifty years, still express anger as he did in kindergarten, because electricity continues to travel the same old groove in the brain. The person is not strengthened, but humiliated by these outbursts.

Booth: So the child must have freedom of expression, but also strengthen the ego.

Bly: Well, it's a bit 'as if I were playing together a shadow game. When the teacher intervenes and tells the permissive child to express anger is like giving the shadow fifteen balls and no structure. The permissive theory underestimates the seriousness of that game.

In his book The End of Sex (The end of sex), George Leonard says he was in the sixties an enthusiastic supporter of the full expression of sexuality. Today he feels that this expression ultimately leads to humiliation of the ego and the psyche as a result loses some of its interest in sexuality, loses some of its eros. Our culture has within it a nostalgia for the primitive modes of expression as an antidote to repression.

Nazi youth groups proposed a sort of return to nature, primitivism. The Nazis, of course, contained a state of madness, but not all the movements for the return to nature are crazy, most of them are essentially healthy. And yet through the experience of Kurtz in Heart of Darkness is a danger that we can understand the nostalgia of the early West represents the psyche. Surrounded by primitive impulses, the ego loses its ability to defend their ground and disappears in the mass movements, such as sugar dissolves in water.

(...) We can distinguish the two figures (the wild-wild-wild and brutal, Ed) observe various details. The wild-natural and spontaneous and is in contact with both your feminine side with their male sexuality is positive. None of these qualities implies violence or domination over others. For me, the man at the bottom of the pond (John of iron, from the Brothers Grimm fairy tale, Ed) is more like a Zen master than a primitive, which, in the image that we have, only grunts.

The image of the natural wild- corresponds to a state of mind that allows the shade to return the material slowly, so as not to damage the ego. It seems that the story of Grimm should remember the ancient rites of initiation in northern Europe. Males older teaching the younger males to face the Shadow material in such a way that does not crush the ego or personality. Taught to make that meeting more than a game that a fight.

When the Shadow is absorbed, the human being loses much of its darkness and becomes light, light and playful in a new way. The Shadow is not absorbed creates a dark halo around the person ...

Booth: I'm confused by the way you talk about light in this context, saying that a person absorbs the Shadow does not become dark, but bright, light and playful. In the past, times have you used the word 'light' in the negative. You also said that Bertrand Russell had too much light on his personality and you wanted a leader who was not a raven and a dove and a swallow.

Bly: All right, then I withdraw the word 'light'. Marie-Louise von Franz has said somewhere that a person who has worked with the Shadow and the Shadow which integrated gives the feeling of being condensed. The others can easily recognize a certain authority in moral matters. He said that if a teacher worked with his Shadow, the students, as young people can be, I feel. For him to maintain discipline in the classroom is easy, because students perceive that with him his crow. Other teachers who have not yet worked with his Shadow of discipline can talk all day but did not get it. I like the idea that the work on the shadow gives rise to a condensation, a thickening or thickening of the psyche that is immediately apparent, and generates a natural sense of authority. Without that authority is required. (Pages 73-78)

... the person who has eaten its shadow spreads calmness about him and express more pain than anger. If it is true, as the ancients claimed, that the darkness has intelligence, nourishment, and even information, then the person that has nourished his Shadow has more energy, as well as more intelligence. So we ask: "How do you eat or take back the Shadow of a projection, in practice?"

Tips for daily life could be: sharpen the senses of smell, taste, touch and hearing, create gaps in their habits, visit primitive tribes, making music, modeling clay in the appalling figures, play a percussion instrument, to be alone for a month. A woman can prove to make the patriarch in his spare time and see if you like, but must do it playfully.

A man may try to do the witch in her spare time and see if they like, but must do it playfully. Can learn to make the laughter of the witch, for example, and telling stories. The woman can learn to laugh and tell tales of the giant. (From pp. 64-65)

Robert Bly, from "The Little Book of the shadow" (Red Edition).

Brasilian Wax Explicite

famous phrases from the movie V for Vendetta























Evey: Who are you?
V: Who? Who is the only form following the function ... but what I am is a man in a mask.
Evey: Oh, I can see.
V: Sure. I do not doubt your powers of observation. I am simply pointing out the paradox of asking a masked man who he is.
Evey: Oh, right ...

V. William Rookwood
Voilà. In view, a humble veteran of Vaudeville, called to take the place of both the victim and by the vicissitudes of fate. This face is not vacuous veneer of vanity, but a vestige of the vox populi, now empty, now Vana. However, this visit to the vexation stands vivified and has vowed went to Victory venal and virulent on the Vizio, as guarantors of the Harrier and Voracious Violation of the Will. The only Verdict is Vengeance ... Vendetta ... And it gets one vote, not in vain because its value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me add that it is a great honor to meet you and you call me V.

V. William Rookwood
The people should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of the people ...


Evey Hammond
Artists use lies to tell the truth while politicians to cover up the truth.

V. William Rookwood
And so I hold the perfidy with my dumb old expressions alien to me stolen from sacred texts and seem a saint when I do the part of the devil!

V. William Rookwood
The palace is a symbol, as is the act of destroying it, are the men who give power to the symbols, but with a good number of people behind to blow up a building can change the world.

V. William Rookwood
But once again, to tell the truth, looking for a culprit, you need only look in the mirror ...


Finch
If our government was responsible for the deaths of nearly 100,000 people ... I really want to know?

V. William Rookwood
The destructor and the constructor are two sides of anarchy ...

V. William Rookwood
The truth is that there is something wrong with this city ...

V. William Rookwood
hide what they are and help me find the form best suited to my intentions.

Evey Hammond
Men die, no ideas. I do not feel the lack of the idea ... I miss the man.

V. William Rookwood
There is no certainty ... only opportunity.

V. William Rookwood
stole the texts of Scripture so as to seem a saint while I am part of the devil.

V. William Rookwood
Why love the law? Everybody knows it's a bitch ... the virtuous person avoids it, if the wicked fuck and then ignore it.

Evey Hammond
God is in the rain ...

V. William Rookwood (Hugo Weaving)
Thousand indignity of slipping nature upon him, disdaining fortune and brandishing iron smoky bloody massacre.

V. William Rookwood (Hugo Weaving)
"real you veniversum Vivus Vici" with the power of truth, living, conquered the universe

V. William Rookwood
hope to remind the world that fairness, justice, liberty are more than words, they are perspectives!

V. William Rookwood
Good evening, London. First of all, I beg your pardon for this interruption. As many of you I appreciate the comforts of routine, the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy it as much as anyone else. But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or after an awful bloody struggle are celebrated with a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November 5th, one day, alas sunk into oblivion, subtracting a bit 'of time in everyday life, to sit and chat. Some will want to take away the word, I suspect that at this time orders are being shouted on the phone and will soon reach the gunmen. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power, because they are the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is that there is something terribly wrong with this country. Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your consent to this. How happened? Whose fault is it? Certainly there are those more responsible than others will have to answer for everything, but once again, to tell the truth, if you look for the culprit .. you need only look in the mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. And who would not have had? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and mental chaos meant that you turned to the High Chancellor, Adam Sutler. He has promised peace and order in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I tried to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed in our memory forever on November 5. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown, I suggest you let pass unnoticed on November 5. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you are looking for as I am, I ask you to stand beside me, a year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them on November 5 that will not be never forgotten.

Dascomb
Our job is to report the news, not manufacture them. What is the role of government.