This blog entry is in English. Yet English is not my native language (Italian is), so have some indulgence with typos or grammatical mistakes. Also, I have been told that I write complex things - whether this is good or bad I don't know: but so, if you are unfamiliar with articulated prose you may see grammatical errors not only where there could be some, but also where just a prose you're not acquainted with is. Native speakers with an A+ grade in english said my english, obviously not perfect, imports no major issues. Lend a deaf ear to the errors, vocally disagree with my thesis whenever you want, but enjoy the style all the while.
Original Italian version«Politics, when it's grand politics, is always clean.» (Mikhail Gorbachev * )
«Beware of that young man so full of energies. If the revolution starts again, he will get the all of us beheaded.» (Stendhal * )
«It is not that persons are uncapable of pursuing their own interests: it is that too often they have complete misconceptions about them.» (Theodor Adorno * )
Thoughts and actions might be the catabolites *
of the complex.
There is an underground reality beyond conscience, which is that of the intrapsychic
complex bundles, which does not attract towards itself our thoughts orientating and warping them accordingly to its own dictations, but, on the contrary, it releases
them in the environment accordingly to the solicitations that the complex bundles endure as their private metabolism carries on.
In this case a complex would be an unknowledgeable and unapproachable instance, about which no immediate cognition can be obtained but exclusively a mediated one: mediated exactly by the agency of our actions, thoughts and words.
Of course, a complex nucleus thus conceived would come to resemble to a psychoid
, in the significance Hans Adolf Eduard Driesch *
ascribed to such term namely that of a vitalistic entity unfit to be further defined or apprehended, and yet would still preserve the traditional psychoanalytical acception of pathogenic factor.
Therefore it could be maintained an exquisitely Freudian setting: although Freud did not state the pathological nature of complex nuclei insofar as he would have seen any such nature in them with certain finality, but because, being a medical
doctor, he was foremost concerned with the treatment
of pathological conditions and therefore he had to focus on pathology - which by the way have been since ever the path science favoured: investigating healthy patterns by the analysis of the aberrant ones; an observation, this, that if it would have been brought forth more frequently would have spared us the too many misunderstandings that so often have so unfairly besieged Freud's work.
So if thoughts and actions are the byproducts released by the private inner dynamics of complex bundles, the nature of a complex nucleus reveals itself and poses itself as the kernel of our whole intellectual production (this is the reverse
of Marx; we ought to wish that the world could have been a deterministic and positivist *
fabric throughly explainable by the pursuit of one own's mere material interests: the world would then be nearly a paradise perfectly administrable), and performs as our cognitive organon.
Partially but forever unknown if not by the agency of the signs and symptoms that it affords or betrays, a complex bundle may play the role of our inspiring muse and of our executioner both.
And the final meaning of this theorem would be that, if we want the concept of complex to uphold its pathogenic potentialities as we frame it within this larger angle, then also the significance of pathology undergoes a change along with it, and its eventual meaning becomes its possibility of being tended
We fall sick in order to heal
: it is the palingenesis *
of healing what illness attempts to lend us. Maybe we are as much in want of catharsis, as we are of food.
To be sure, pathology is herein meant in its psychological sense namely that of hysteria at most, where a complex nucleus convulses the body with irrational acting outs as if it were the lesser brother of physiological epilepsy.
However, if adaptation achieved through genetic mutations might occur also after mutations within the intellectual environment besides those within the natural environment, then an astonishing loophole would swing open for psychosomatic
; a psychosomatic not understood as the negation of the actuality of illness (you do not deny pain and death: the former for ethical reasons at least, the latter because it, simply, defies any negation) but understood as its fitness to generate ailment and disease, still so real and so very actual, via etiological causes mediated by synergies between neurotransmitters and genome.«A living being is not only able to transmit to his descendants those properties, those shapes and colors, those proportions that he inherited on his part by his own parents; but he is also able to provide as inheritance those modifications that he underwent and acquired during his life span: by the action of external factors, by the action of climate, food intake, (physical) exercise, and education» Ernst Haeckel *
Besides, it subsists a Jungian *
element too that vouches for this approach to the complex bundles: because the persistence of the (Jungian) shadow
within our oneiric life would come to profile itself as a constant whose daunting presence is now better explainable: the complex bundle settings would live on notwithstanding the cure, and would determine the coming along of terminable and interminable analysis, reverberating ominous characters in our dreams with an insistence apparently nefarious and outlasting therapy, exactly because a complex bundle is not only a pathogenic condition, but it is also the ineluctable vitalistic methodology
of all intrapsychic assets.
Thoughts, thus plunged into the psychic river, are assumed by the conscience as purely impersonal entities; and with regard to them, conscience becomes a passive receptor where thoughts stratify layering up conceptual agglomerations thoroughly symmetrical with the spring that emitted them; and therefore characterized by a total egosyntonic *
disfunctionality because their loyalty doesn't rest with the conscience. Our conscience would limit itself to endure them: they would encroach upon it, and conscience couldn't avoid lending itself to reproduce their patterns diligently, with verbalizations and theorems it believes to own, and that yet it understands not.
So it happens that "500,000 men live in that city, which as far as the amount of its denizens can even be a fairly big city, but that as far as understanding and as far as its sense for the extraordinary are concerned, it may be a very narrow town (...)
It would be laughable and pitiable when you see that all that knowledge and science has no influence whatsoever on the life of men, and that they do not show even remotely what they ought to know; rather the contrary. They have understood nothing, because if they would have understood something in truth, then their lives would prove their understanding, then they would do as they have understood. (...)
That a man stays there and can tell what is right and what is wrong, and therefore has understood it, and yet, when it comes to put it in practice, he does what is wrong, proving in truth that he understood it not, this is truly infinitely ludicrous." (Soren Kierkegaard * )
In order for this regrettable phenomenon to occur, it is necessary that the underlying complex bundle goes on, as it transforms, withholding within itself the energetic quantum
that it generates - because biology is a matter of material aminoacids as building bricks as well as of mitochondrial *
power supply. Maybe it exploits it to feed on it and perpetuate modifications that are coessential to its own logic, or maybe it employs it to ward off or repel those modifications that contrast its own logic, reintroducing the latter too within the psychical circulation as refuse.
These latter productions, subjected to this defensive ejection, may constitute all those assumptions made by our conscience that might be syntonic with our exigencies, and that as such could be verbalized, and yet they cannot be understood because disarmed of the energy that should animate them, which is still engulfed within the complex bundle own's metabolism.
Vice versa: every transformation of a complex nucleus, likewise nuclear transformations, yields a material subparticle (case in point, a thought), and an energy wave; when the latter is no longer retained within the complex nucleus that is laboring, not only a catabolic thought is relinquished, but it travels accompanied by the availability of a cognitive photon.
Its irradiation constitutes an energetic contingent that, contextual to its partner thought, permits to rescue it from the catabolic inanimate state and raise it to the living plane. As Karl Jaspers *
would say: "the mere multiplicity found in known realities, is converted into the depth of being".
You therefore move on from the merely extensive level where thoughts aren't anything more than frigid arrays, to the intensive layer where thoughts liberate heat.
The intensive layer proves itself determinative and as a priority with regard to the extensive one: which does not deprive the latter of its own value, but it affirms that every spatial detachment conserves a meaning only as long as it is supported by intensive backing.
Some call it transcendence
. But it seems to me you transcend quite nothing here; on the contrary, you install yourself deeper and deeper into the intimacy of the being. And with this: only that which founds us, revolutionizes us.
It revolutionizes what? The perimeter of our selves.
There is in this position a glitter where each being can find its foundation within itself with limpidity, or where, if you prefer so, "The self becomes transparently founded upon the power that established it" (Soren Kierkegaard).
Namely there appear "those lakes where the water is so crystalline that you need to meditate for a long time, before realizing how deep they are" (Andre Gide *
). Cognitive lakes.
On the other hand, doesn't it belong to the grandiosity of the light also the purity of the enchantment?«And certainly it is not love what improves the luck of young men who have some talent: they irredeemably bind themselves with a sect, and when the latter attains fortune, the most coveted honours of society land on the heads of the former too.
Woes to the intellectual that belongs to no sect: he will be blamed also for minor and very uncertain successes, and the highest virtue shall triumph by robbing him.
My gentlemen, a novel is a mirror walking on a street: now it reflects to your eyes the azure of the skies, now the mud of the gutters.» (Stendhal)
"Mirrors, these truth tellers, are hated, and it is so simple; yet this does not prevent them from being useful" (Victor Hugo *
We are now truly dwelling in the Realm of Camelot: a chimaera takes form before our eyes.
In fact this realm is entirely made of lights and transparencies.
Within it, truth is no longer a requisite, but a consequence.
What is language for?
It should connote first, namely designate the qualities tributed to an object, and later denote namely specify to which particular objects those qualities are given. Therefore, insofar as it is functional to communication, language ought to be used in order to reveal. To reveal, not to conceal.
A lie is a banner of weakness.
Plato, assigning the oratory arts to Hermes *
, the god of ambivalence by definition, says "You do not know that speech means all (pan
) and rotates continuously, and it is double, true and false. Yet, the true part of it is smooth and divine and resides above among the gods; the false part of it lodges below, among men, and is rough and theatrical: here, in fact, countless tales and falsities are".
Now, the platonic set that includes speech in a circular unit that revolves and that is composed of two hemicycles antithetical and symmetrical, is characteristically similar to the emblem of the Taoism *
: the well known revolving circle where a dark semicircle is permanently intent on overcoming a white semicircle (with a shape similar to that "cosmic superimposition" that Wilhelm Reich *
talked about), and yet within every semicircle is implanted a seed, represented by a visible dot, whose color is that of the opposed half, so to exemplify not only an heraclitean eternal becoming *
but also a Nietzschean eternal return *
: therefore an eternal return whose cyclicity is no longer the prison of an inescapable recurrence, but is inserted within the process of becoming: and each time a round reverts to the opposite color of its primeval state, you are dispatched again on it and yet placed on an higher tier of the spiral.
It is not an horizontal periodicity that turns the screw on itself until it collapses in a black hole, but it is a vertical cyclicity that ascends and dilates itself in a galaxy.
We might therefore wonder what a Greek man like Plato knew about a Chinese philosophy, and all the more if we consider that the term Taoism (from Tao
which means "the path", whence the idea of progress and becoming) is complementary with the Greek term "whole" (pan
) which implicates the circular idea of the Tao that all includes and that all circumscribes.
The problem nowadays is not only that the Pan-Tao does not revolve, but that, by being still, it does not become; and by not becoming it gets corrupted, as if it would rot, because it can attain no relativization by the alternation of the two opposed hemispheres.
It is in fact a most remarkable mistake believing that a political lie is the fruit of a mind that, knowing the relativity of everything, takes a relativistic approach to things, and thus arrives at amphibologic *
On the contrary, any political lie entirely rests upon an integral and unilateral predilection for the dark side of the speech: the one employed to conceal oneself, not to speak one's mind.
It is truly an option for the negative, and not an alternation of negative and positive. Also because, if occasionally it may be so, such alternation is invariably functional to grant the preeminence of the role of the negative: in other words, their alternation is aimed at confounding and, by confounding, at making obscurantism *
triumph above the enlightenment.
Now, since Ralf Dahrendorf *
states that the crisis of political parties known as liberal towards conservative, derives from the fact that "the world needs no longer liberals or conservatives, but it needs either determined liberals or enlightened conservatives" (my translation from a reading in Italian, so probably not precise enough), it becomes apparent that our discussion about the Tao
grows particularly poignant.
What are in fact conservatives and liberals if not opposed hemispheres, and what are determined liberals and enlightened conservatives if not two opposed hemispheres within which is nested in nuce *
, as a dot, a principle that belongs to the antithetic element?
As a matter of fact it is known that being determined is not a liberal category (liberals waver, and when unflinching they are unflinching as a wave that soon breaks off) but it is more characteristically a conservative one, and that being enlightened is not characteristically a conservative category (conservative can be starched) but more characteristically a liberal one.
Besides it is known (Giovanni Sartori *
) that politics today becomes essentially "social politics". The liberal towards conservative binomial that we need to take over, was used to put the stress, as far as the liberals were concerned, upon the "social", whereas on the contrary the conservative put the stress on the "politics".
The "determined liberal" versus the "enlightened conservative" binomial, instead, faces "social politics" on a completely different footing.
The determined liberal still puts the emphasis on the social, and yet, hosting within him/herself the conservative principle, s/he does it pervaded by an arcane, esoteric and hermetic feeling for the politic: as if it were a premonition.
The enlightened conservative still puts the emphasis on the politic, and yet, hosting within him/herself the liberal principle, s/he does it pervaded by an arcane, esoteric and hermetic feeling for the social: as if it were a premonition.
The consequence is that, for the both of them, politic and social are posed exactly as demonic intuitions glimpsed among glyphs and crevices.
It is thus generated a patent address (the social issues to be addressed by the liberal, the political issues to be addressed by the conservative) and a latent address (vice versa), which is such because it corresponds to an hermetic perception, or if you prefer to a subjective feeling (before the seat of God) rather than objective (before the land of man), exactly following the pattern of the platonic binomial of the pan
that is in part among the gods and in part among men.
What ensues is an hybrid, where the omissive factor is established as the inexhaustible, unyielding and unattainable meter that stands out as a confrontation unit for the patent factor, thus triggering the ignition of an inner dynamism.
Therefore it is the latent parameter what matters most, and not at all the patent one.
But it is not relevant insomuch as (and this is the threshold where the Tao, as previously hinted, may get corrupted) the latent address would have been pursued with the intention to exploit it in order to occult better the patent one.
On the contrary, it is relevant insofar as, posing as an arcane prototype, intuited and grasped from the opposite hemisphere, it corresponds for the liberal and the conservative to having accessed and tapped from the opposite principle a treasure that belonged to the latter.
And since the opposite principle is, for s/he who opposes it, transcendent and therefore unknown ("hermetic") and remote ("divine"), this theft is exactly like Prometheus *
stealing a vivification fire from the gods. Its role is then that of introducing a fire within; so that, as Pascal *
once said, you can insufflate enthusiasm within what you do, because enthusiasm means: a god within.
And who could feel enthusiasm for something, if one had no vocation calling him/her to that something?
And who could have a vocation for something, if it weren't within him/herself something that calls and beckons?
And who could be called by something within, if not in order to go where one is not already stationing?
And who could call someone with so much strength if not a god, for who could be elsewhere if not what transcends us?
And at the same time how could the called raise and move, if s/he would not feel that s/he actually belongs there where s/he is called?
And who could deem that s/he belongs elsewhere, if one wouldn't have within oneself something of that elsewhere that transcends him/her, as if a splinter of a fallen meteor? A part within yourself that belongs to that which, in yourself, is stronger than yourself.
The speech about the clarity of language and on the absence of lying is therefore a speech about the clarity of one's vocation, and about its gradient.
A true politician never lies; s/he is uncapable
of it. Because a true politician is true insofar as s/he is called
Could then a politician be able to mediate, since mediation has some resemblance with lying?
An historical epitome of mediation?
Not Machiavelli, because he was medi-action in theory; rather Talleyrand *
, for he undoubtedly he was medi-action in action.
And we know what Bertrand Russell *
said of Talleyrand: "He was a man who accepted to be bribed only to take those decisions he had already taken".
And how should we define such a man? A crook? A crooked chameleon? But the true crook is s/he who infringes his/her own votes whenever a gust of wind rustles a leaf: as such, such a wo/man has no politics, because his/her politic consists in desisting
An option like that, doesn't even define politics ex adverso
; it may do that only in the chicanery of an hypocrite resolved to "cavil on the ninth part of a hair" (Shakespeare).
Therefore "mediation" should never mean giving up your political line. This can be proved also by conjoining mediation with the intellectual category that is regarded as less compatible with it: decisionism *
- which in Italy would carry us back to Bettino Craxi *
What is decisionism?
It is thought that decisionism may mean providing non equivocal and rather famished a show of resolution, and that resolution would have meant being perennially bent towards the extroversion of one's forces. Which should have been in contrast with whatever mediating intention because negotiation is thought as a constraint whose purpose is that of restraining whatever decisional lunge presenting to it the exigencies of other considerations.
Yet, decisionism means this: that wo/man deeply meditates within him/herself the nature of things and then, after such meditation, infallibly produces extroverted action: therefore decisionism does not mean in the least embracing lack of reflection, but it only means punctuality of the extroversion once meditation has been thoroughly consummated.
It is therefore perfectly plausible that a decisionist may wield mediation: what ensues is not a contradiction, but the portrait of a wo/man (or of a statesman) that at each milestone meditates, and then acts out with unflinching mediation, persisting unrelenting until it's perfect, namely until s/he attains exactly that which s/he meant to attain - and no less.
A bribed politician has no
Therefore mediating does not mean having no undelayable political line.
It is rather accepting to be bribed in order to take decisions that differently one would have not
taken, that means deserting every political line.
For what political line may be claimed by s/he who is known that, with a bank note, can be led into whatever corner?
Therefore corruption isn't the implicit logos
of mediation; and it is neither the goal or the inconvenience of politics, but it is its negation altogether: because when corruption is present, all deliberations trail along as a rhapsody independent from whatever coherent address.
Am I right?
It seems I am not. For there is obduracy in conceiving mediation like a modality that cannot prescind and cannot be distinguished from compromise: and from here, mediation is felt as adjoining corruption, and as if it would have been a sibling of it: because if the ends may be compromised
, probably they can also be corrupted
At this point, the word mediation is mistaken for the word prostitution, and as a typical tutorship for a mediation thus misunderstood is invoked an alleged claim to the maturity of pragmatism: namely it is invoked nothing less than the high patronage of realism
.«First of all, it is a great stultification, and it indeed means that one really does not understand what spirit is and that man is spirit and not just an animal, thinking that faith and knowledge are something that certainly comes with age, in the same fashion teeth and hair come and grow.
Nay, whatever man may attain with certainty, whatever may happen to him, only this is truly certain: faith and knowledge cannot be gained fatally.
The issue stands rather the other way round: with age man, in a spiritual sense, arrives "with certainty" just nowhere.
It is instead very likely that with age man loses something; maybe one loses that little bit of passion, of sentiment, of fantasy, that tidbit of intimacy he had, and with certainty it will arrive (because here, in fact, you can arrive with certainty) to understand life accordingly to the categories of vulgarity.
This "improved" state, that really has come with age, man considers desperately as something good.» (Soren Kierkegaard)
We don't realize that at such meetings what arrives isn't realism at all, but a squalid and ruffian pretext, from which we cheaply borrow an authorization to corrupt and to be corrupted, and of which we could have done more elegantly without, because such a dynamic ought to be recognized for what it is and for what it does: "Thou that givest whores indulgences to sin" (Shakespeare). But you are in want of no license to sin.
Why this happens?
Because mediation raises to the rank of a fetich."Fetishism does not mean considering as holy this or that object, but it means considering holy a system as such; the system, generalizing the exchanges performed within its body, neutralizes the nature of all objects. The more the system becomes systemic, the more the fascination with fetishism increases: not because of an obsession of the libido, but because of the impossibility of accessing the objects without passing from the value that the system prescribes to them.
Rightly Marx observes that what captivates with money isn't its materiality alone: it is rather the fact that it grants the circulation of goods; namely what captivates is the suitability of money to dislodge and replace all values providing their definitive abstraction. The pathology is similar to that of the collector, who is not interested in the nature of the objects he collects, but rather to the systemic nature of the collective cycle where the untrammelled passage from an item to the other insures the constitution of a sealed and invulnerable world." (Umberto Galimberti * )
Here comes a fetishism that, with its fitness to "neutralize the nature of all objects", when applied to mediation conceived as a desirable system, pulverizes all political objects
; here comes a fetishism that, exhibiting the capability "to dislodge and replace all values", when applied to mediation dislodges and overtakes all ends and goals
. There is nothing more fetishist than such a mediation.
A mediation misunderstood in this manner, lends itself with particular ease to such a phenomenon. Since mediation deals by definition with a promiscuity of dealers, it more easily dives into an abyss without bottom.
Since mediation is enabled by definition to relate with every involved part, it is electively fit to bust all values and to twist all ends, eventually turning them into mere interchangeable units, impersonally intent upon overlapping and permuting with each other, without the involved fraud being clearly visible anymore: because the original value of every item has evaporated since long.
Mediation becomes then an incognizant play of conjuring and prestidigitation, where nothing is really at stake, because the only current and real value is that of securing the protraction and perpetuation of the relational methodology therein fetishistically worshipped.
Mediation becomes totalitarian, and becomes such as long as it succeeds in persuading us that sacrificing all the values is a necessity - and that recognizing this necessity would have been "realism".
Objects become poltergeists, political lines become ghouls unable even to rattle chains, objectives become soap bubbles blown in a dream dreamt by Alice in Wonderland: and an immense alacrity is dispatched to service nothingness, and in its vortex everything is doomed to get corrupted and to rot in perfect mirth.
There would be nothing left to be outraged at, and nothing left to be ashamed of, and nothing left to mend and repair. On the contrary, before the abundance of the damages it would behoove to capitulate and acknowledge they wouldn't have been such at all, and thus reassured we could end up providing the system with our definitive consent, compliments and complicity: "I wish you a happy end of the world, Your Highness" (Hofmannsthal *
The end justifies the means (as Machiavelli never
said), only as long as the balance is positive, and only as long as the means did not defile the end.
Talking about misunderstood mediation, what has been mistaken is exactly the end with the means.
There is in fact a finality that was born before mediation, and that causes the latter when it uses it to realize itself.
Every mediation that flows into such concessions or compromises is permanently in danger of maiming one's scheduled ends, and does not constitute any longer the apotheosis of mediation, but it represents its failure.
Mediation in fact should not aim at the end of a depleted truth, but to the end of the original and global intention.
Mediation categories therefore fully belong to the arena of the methodologies and not
to that of the ends.
Mediation is no end, neither in totality nor as a part that surreptitiousluy dispatched a garrison into the ends, and cannot be authorized to alter any end: and there is no intrinsic susceptibility to corruption.
What is celebrated in a successful mediation isn't, and should never be, the measure by which it aptly and skillfully betrays the end it ought to serve, but it should be its ability and skillfulness to attend its end and, by attending it with care, delivering it to perfect fulfillment
If this is true, objecting that we are under way towards conflict, is an objection that cannot bolt out that truth.
In fact, and I am affirming this apodictically and axiomatically, you cannot renounce to what is true, and even less you can bring back a truth to its previous ignorant status by an homicide. Once known, it forever stays.
Therefore there must exist a terrain that may be arcane and yet not impossible (truths, in fact, may be recondite but not unintelligible) where truths apparently conflicting may meet and pacify themselves without margins.
In our case the solution rests upon the fact that a "government by conflict
" is not only possible and already implemented in a great variety of countries that certainly cannot be considered as uncivil or underdeveloped, but most of all upon the fact that a mediation conceived in the way I am perorating it here - and namely correctly conceived- is not followed at all by constant and destabilizing clashes.
Believing that chaos should ensue if we give up negotiations and end compromises, and that therefore polemology would become our only totem, means believing in a manner that is similar to that in which Karl Marx did when he dreamed of a "polytechnic" utopian world where it would have been possible nothing less than working and fishing too; namely it would mean exposing ourselves to the same sarcasm with which Raymond Aron *
met him: "it is perfectly
possible to work in the morning and fish in the afternoon, even in a capitalist regime"
It is perfectly possible to fight bravely and to negotiate, even in a parliamentary regime.
And it is perfectly possible to mediate and not to corrupt or be corrupted.
A true politician, is never
This text is protected by Copyright and cannot be reproduced, either in totality or in part, without the consent of the author. Also derivative works cannot be produced without the consent of the author.
Minor excerpts may be quoted as long as a clearly readable link leading to this file is put in place soon after or soon before the quotation. Only the author has the right to reproduce in its totality this work on other servers.