Posted by: Sk | February 14, 2009

4 The Roman mistake: the general versus the universal

To understand what may be understood under ‘refracted lines’ or psychopathetic currents (object already of many contemplations in http://ideabstracta.wordpress.com) in a simpler language, let us consider the question from the angle of a certain number of examples.Independently of more complex metaphysical structures on which one may agree or not, let us suppose we agree fundamentally only on one thing for the time being (otherwise the rest looses its meaning): a word refers itself to something. The something is determined by a certain number of characteristics, which do refer themselves also to something. Although this seems quite obvious what empirical objects are concerned, it is less evident when talking about formal, abstract and psychic realities. Being though still words, we may presume that even then, they do refer to determinable realities.

Not to fall into the pit of the reality of mythological beings: they are realities of the field of mythology, or of fantasy, or of dream, or of subjective apprehension, and all those are fields referring to some kind of reality.We may presume, too, that there is an objective reality which is named and that the names given do fit more or less well the reality in question.If this is true for words, it is as true for logics. To say: I only get wet when it rains, is an absurd statement (error through essential attribution to accidental characteristic), and thus there are many, many statements that are absurd. The naming of happenings does imply a correct use of logics that do allow the proper identification of the happening.Let us say, (though very simply) that this is the basis of reason and thus of rationality. States, organizations, universities, etc. are fundamentally based on these principles although they may disappear in appearance when there is a change in the parameters of organization of rationality.Which means that reason is not acquired as such.

A fundamental notion of reason determines different organizations, reflected usually in principles such as constitutions, laws, regulations, etc. This body of law or organization is though constantly under attack coming from different interpretations, holes in the structuring of law, etc. Thus, societies are obliged to redefine constantly the body of law in order to maintain the notion of rationality, which as such, in its different understandings, is the warrant for a healthy body or particular reason. When the notion is lost, the body disappears.Seen from the point of view of a State, it considers the extension of its attributions as limited to the national whole as embedded in borders, with possible interactions with the ‘foreign world’ in given limits. The body is thus not only a formal bone structure of laws and regulations, but also the result of the confrontation with experience, as each people shows tendencies to develop healthy structures out of given law or determined ‘crimes’ depending on its own particular view on reality, which says also a lot about its preferences, likings, passions and indifferences.

Reason does take into consideration all these factors when managing, evaluating, distributing and judging the reality of its concern. Depending on the strength or weakness of the body in question, foreign questions can be integrated or rejected, and different types of crime effectively fought against, or not.What happens though if ‘ill’ or perverted structures of thought do destroy the reasonable body as composed by the most? Let us see, what we may understand by a perverted structure of thought.You have an object: a tree. A tree is something you can see, touch, smell … as an object. As this object shows obvious similarity with other objects, the human mind does slowly develop an abstract concept: he makes the difference between an apple tree and a walnut tree etc, but sees there is something in common between all these trees and calls this abstraction: a tree. (Some languages, mainly of aborigins, do not yet make even the difference between a particular and a tree in general, so that it is possible to talk about different structurings of reality in the evolution of construction of abstract concepts.)

There is though a fundamental difference between a concept and a tree. While the first is inside of your mind and can’t be touched, nor smelled, nor seen, the second is outside and perceivable by senses. While the first, in your mind, relates itself to many little sub-trees and determined or determinable characteristics through forms that differentiate the essence from the accident, the second stands there alone as single unit that can only be put into relationship with similar units by an effort of your mind.It is obvious that the tree, as concept in your mind, behaves differently from the tree you can perceive. The mind will say: for all (universal) tree, it must have a trunk. Not because after it is not possible to think that there might be trees that will have no trunk (natural deformation) but because you’re trying to determine what makes that you can use the name of tree while referring to something, and you have to submit the concept to a universal rule in order to be allowed talking intelligibly.

In the effort of grasping differentiations that are possible only in very developed societies and sometimes only for a moment, people may wrongly determine extremely abstract concepts. Thus, Greek had already in the 5th century before Christ such an enormous amount of very well defined concepts that they could go on for centuries to develop even extremely sophisticated theology (Byzance).

Romans seem to make one fundamental mistake while trying to share some Greek light. The universal as belonging to the concept, is wrongly associated to the reality corresponding, which thus fuses in one singular mixture giving birth to a whole number of aberrations (decadence of the Roman Empire). The clearest evidence concerning this fact is the so called stoic religion or wisdom, represented among other by the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, where two aspects of reality, symbolized in the front and the back of a coin, are said to transmit the essence of reality.

Strangely this obvious deformation of thought does lead to a seeming world power for a few centuries, as if the logical mistake, the wrong attribution of a characteristic to an object, would, for a while, increase power and allow conquering horizons. Little after, though, gravest disorders lead to revolts from slaves, loss of territories, division of power and final conquering of Rome by the barbarians.

Independently thus, of the apparent ‘power’ deriving from irrational patterns of thought, it is the obvious responsibility of some to determine the exact nature of the patterns in question, in order to avoid disasters in the future. These ‘controls’ exist almost naturally in Greece for centuries and become the ‘Inquisition’ in Spain, while it was still healthy.As far as I know, the deriving knowledge of those ‘controls’ determines a whole ‘list’ of irrational patterns and effective measures in order to fight against them. Thus, historically, it is of greatest interest to follow the strange fight against Aryanism (born in Byzance and spread by nomadic populations all over Europe) by the Spaniards, mainly Isidor of Seville, who goes on to introduce a ‘twist’ in thought in order to bring back the barbarians to reason. That the famous Aryanism had horrible consequences on social life becomes obvious through the analysis of the Visigoth branches in Spain: there is no king to last more than one year before he’s killed by a cousin, a brother or a nephew. Thus, the fight against Aryanism is not that much an intellectual hobby but an attempt of restoring social peace.Isidore’s argument, which will be looked at with greatest suspicion by Byzance, consists in fact in arguing the divinity of the Son through the presence of the Spirit in him. (Logically: law – father – does determine the singular fact – son – through the body of interpretation – spirit-) Bizance sees immediately the danger of the so called filioque: it could be understood as if the singular fact or entity (person) could be law in itself. Hot quarrels crossing the Mediterranean lead finally to the random acceptation of the filioque as argument, though never as ‘dogma’ (principle of religion). Spaniards, who have managed to civilize some Visigoths this way, accept Byzance’s recriminations, and do not further the filioque as dogma. (In short you may say, that Aryanism imposes law (father) as only truth, without consideration of the singular (son). The Spaniard makes visible that law is only represented as such by a singular entity, without having the tools to make the difference between a particular entity expressing law, and the particular entity as law itself.)

This slight mistake in definition will be the cause and reason of 1.200 years of tormented history. German Charlemagne, who shares with many other the incapability of differentiating the ‘coming from’ (eis, in Greek) and the ‘in itself’ (ousion), does catch the gap and makes of the ‘filioque’ the banner of his Empire. It’s not only that thus he may build up a new Empire facing Byzance on Roman universal laws, he becomes for himself the only expression of law inside of his Empire.Angry battles between Spain and Germany with France always in the middle, do in fact only have one result: Spain rejects Germany’s violation of the notion of reason and Germany feels ‘aggressed’ by the obvious neglecting of what they think brilliant thought. When Germany tries to find allies in Byzance (messengers sent by Luther to Constantinople), Byzance reacts the same way: “Shall you first leave the paths of the ‘filioque’ before requesting help and alliance from us.” As they don’t, messengers go back with empty hands.What becomes obvious here, is that even politics are determined at a certain moment of history by the maintenance of poles of reason. This tradition goes as far as Herodotus: he reports that Egyptian would refuse further alliance with the King of one of the richest Greek islands, because, they say, his fortune gets out of the common measure and will certainly be punished by destiny, and it is never good to have an ally who will certainly fall in disgrace in time. (While trying to get rid of his destiny, the King throws his most expensive ring into the Sea. Fished a little after by a fisherman, it is brought back to him as a present. The King understands this as a sign that his fate is decided and surrenders to Micro Asian conquerors without a battle.) The only thing that warrants peace and fortune seems to be reason in itself.

The poles of reason kept as such, the psychic mass developed does allow the detection of danger, criminals and illness and even find means to fight against them.When reason is heavily under attack as it can be said the case almost on universal basis for the last 200 years, all the logics that have been repressed before, come up to the surface, organizing society through the attachment to the one or the other ill logic. If you agree with a universal in general, whether you substitute the actual meaning for another one, whether you annihilate meaning completely by simply saying it has no empirical validity, and many etc. even without consciously thinking one logic or the other, you finish by grouping yourself with people sharing more or less the same patterns in the structuring of reality.While reason is kept only in appearance (functional movements, or other) the unconscious is participating to all sorts of crimes, revolutions and blood sharing. Some crimes do though need of a very special twist in mind which is luckily not available even in intuition for a common mortal. Thus is the OTM. Apparently, the logic governing the transmission of information of those people resembles to something like this: take the name ‘Dalila’. Dalila is a ‘historical’ character appearing in the OT as the one who traps Samson. If you cut Da lila into two pieces, you have the Russian word ‘da’ (yes) and lila (for a flower or color). If some one does use this logic in order to configure a reality, which is to say that the word is associated to arbitrary meaning in the aleatory association of parts of it to different meanings coming from different languages or different social spheres you start moving in a reality that does lead you some where and some where not. These paths, as opened by people acting inside of this logic, are the way of communication between people organizing that kind of crime. As this happened inside of a more general logic confusing the general with the universal, the logic in question invaded parts of population that are usually the warrant of reason (hospitals, universities, administration, army, police), making the tracking of the crime as such almost impossible.Now, what does this have to do with Inés de la Fressange (a particular logic) and the possibility of definitely eliminating this cancer?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: