Unfortunately this is a common argument, devoid of historical support and logical reasoning. It is argued, usually in response to those who point out the many killed in holy wars, that atheistic leaders have killed more than religious ones. Evil dictators are bought forward as examples of what happens when society rejects religion and secularism takes hold. Although many theists employ this tactic, it does appear a ploy by the more conservative, as an underhand way of undermining secularism, freedom from religion and separation of the church and state, and in place installing theocracies (or at least religion based regimes) in western countries. Although many tyrants are put forward as examples, possibly the most common one is Adolf Hitler. And just like Christians try to claim Albert Einstein (and even sometimes Darwin!?), Hitler is cast off as an atheist. But was he?

Whereas Christians will claim that the Nazis were secularists and Hitler was an atheist, there is significant evidence to counter this assertion. The Nazis certainly had elements of Catholic, Lutheran and Pagan traditions in their ideology. The soldiers’ belts were indeed inscribed with “Gott im uns” (God with us). Hitler was born and raised a Catholic and never renounced his faith. Although he did rally against established religion, particularly in his later life, this was arguably because he saw it as a threat to his totalitarian regime. While I don’t think any historians will outright say he was definitely a Christian, he does mention his faith and religion regularly in speeches and writings.

Hitler in 1914 after hearing about declaration of WWI :

“I sunk down on my knees and thanked Heaven out of the fullness of my heart for the favour of being permitted to live in such a time”

Hitler in 1922 speech:

“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognised these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth, was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the lord at last rose in his might and seized the scourge to out the temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognise more profoundly than ever blood upon the cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be created, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice…And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.”

Hitler in 1925 speech:

“The first thing to do is to rescue [Germany] from the Jew who is ruining our country…We want to prevent our Germany from suffering, as another did, the death upon the cross.”

Mein Kampf 1925

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”

"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys his work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will."

Hitler to Gerhard Engel:

“I shall remain a Catholic forever.”

Hitler in 1933 speech:

“We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that is not merely with a few theoretical decisions: we have stamped it out.”

There are of course dozens of other quotes in which he derides religion. It appears he was very anti-Christian establishment, although it appears did believe in Jesus and followed “Positive Christianity”. Whilst I acknowledge that as a deceptive politician Hitler may have used religion for political gain, Catholicism played a large part in the party’s ideology, as did Pagan rituals and the anti-Semitic ravings of Martin Luther. As history John Toland said in his Adolf Hitler: The definitive Biography, at the time of the final solution Hitler was:

“Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of god. The conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god – so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty.”

Goering once described Hitler, “only a Catholic could unite Germany.”

Although he may have been many things, he was not an atheist. To claim that secularism or atheism account for the actions of the Nazis is disingenuous at best. He may not have Catholic, Christian, or subscribed to anyone one religion, he certainly drew spiritual inspiration from several faiths and religious traditions. Anti-Antisemitism, for example, has it roots centuries before Darwin, based mainly around the Christian claim that the Jews killed their messiah. It was only 40 years ago that the Vatican removed the charge of deicide against the entire Jewish people!

Pol Pot and Stalin, among others, may have very well been atheists, but there is no evidence to prove their lack of religion led to their crimes. (Those of you about to say nihilism - let me direct you here.) They certainly did not kill in the name of no god! As Richard Dawkins puts it: “Individual atheists may do evil things, but they don’t do evil in the name of atheism”. They may, however, do such things in the name of dogmatic doctrinaire systems, such as communism and fascism. Bertrand Russell rightly groups Communism with other religions in Why I am not a Christian. Fascism and Communism become religious cults, with strict dogma, infallible leaders and notions of utopia. This is not secular humanism or atheism. Atheism is the belief there is no god. Nothing more. Secularism is the desire to keep institutions and government free from superstition, requiring all in these spheres to appeal to empirical evidence to support their arguments and actions. This does not mean that people can not practice what they choose, but only that the decisions made by leaders be subject to the sort of reasoned scrutiny not allowed in theocracies.

So should Atheists still point to religion as the cause or conflict and mass murder? Why of course! Because holy books actually ask for their followers to wage these conficts. Followers of Christianity and Islam, for example, are asked to kill non-believers! Gods are evoked in battle, and martyrdom promised to ease the fear of death. By contrast, as Dawkins says, “Why would anyone go to war for the sake of an absence of belief”?

Our nada who are in nada, nada be thy name thy kingdom nada thy will be nada in nada as it is in nada. Give us this nada our daily nada and nada us our nada as we nada our nadas and nada us not into nada but deliver us from nada; pues nada. Hail nothing full of nothing, nothing is with thee.⁶

Is this blasphemy? A new religion? I'd be tempted to point a finger, were it not for the one conspicuous unalteration: "deliver us from nada." Did the waiter have a slip of the tongue? Or was Hemingway just a little too drunk when he sat down at his typewriter?

"Deliver us from nada."

["Be Safe" by The Cribs, featuring Lee Ranaldo; video homemade by budmonkey]

Last night I woke up in a cold sweat, with a stunning sense of urgency. It is clear that something was missing from the online world. With all of its initial promise, "Web two dot oh no" had not yet delivered substantial quantities of sophomoric, sarcastic, bile that is needed to offset all of the obvious benefits to society at large.....all yin and no yang (makes Jack a dull boy).

And thus, my course was clear. Blog......Yes, I must blog.

Will my blog be riveting? Eh.....probably not. Will my blog provide valuable inspiration to the suffering masses? I wouldn't bet on it. Will my blog be entertaining? It is decidedly so (yes, I consult a magic 8 ball, who doesn't)......or at least, that's the goal.

So, you may ask yourself, who deserves the blame......I mean credit for unleashing this bizarre meandering stream of thought upon the world?

First, I work for a company that encouraged blogging internally - which I have done, behind the firewall, for a couple of years. While I love being associated with them, they probably don't want to be associated with me - or at least, the blogging version of me (I'm definitely bi-furcated).

Second, Gia who used a form of electronic um, lets call it encouragement to get me to peek beyond the safe confines of my corporate firewall.

Third, NY Times columnist Luis Suarez (also known as elsua) who turned me on to WordPress.

Oh, one more thing. The blog name. Its very difficult to describe my blogging style unless you also have a similarly loose hold on sanity. "Bemused embrace of nihilism" is the closest I could come. That could change if I come up with a better description - but probably not because I'm......what's the word.....oh yeah, lazy.

So that's it. As the platonic philospher king TO once said, bring your popcorn.....its gonna be a show.

Extending the brand: Planned Parenthood hits suburbia

Noted Townhall columnist, Star Parker, wrote a piece in response,

Planned Parenthood and the 'marketing of meaninglessness'

Definitely worth a read, here is a sample,

The article, "Extending the brand: Planned Parenthood Hits Suburbia," discusses how the organization is mobilizing its now-considerable resources -- a $1 billion dollar budget, with a reported $100 million-plus surplus -- to build glitzy new multimillion-dollar centers and express outlets in malls -- to reach women of means and everyone else.

Soon your daughter, too, can learn that the point of her life is her own pleasure and that other human beings, in or outside of the womb, are mere tools to be used toward that end. And, according to the organization's president, Cecile Richards, they want to reach young men as well as women.

What, after all, is our national specialty if not marketing? So, as Starbucks is to coffee, as Wal-Mart is to volume sales, so Planned Parenthood is to nihilism.

Putem spune despre secolul trecut că este secolul în care s-a născut, a crescut şi s-a stins sub semnul distructiv al ideii morţii lui Dumnezeu, o idee care a lăsat urme produnde în conştiinţa umană şi în dezvoltarea umanităţii. Dostoievski spunea că dacă Dumnezeu nu ar exista, totul ar fi posibil şi iată că acei oameni care au trăit ca şi cum Dumnezeu nu ar exista au fost în stare de lucruri „măreţe”: două războaie mondiale, milioane de morţi, permanentele ameninţări atomice, terorism, libertinaj moral etc. Şi dupa toate acestea, orizontul fericit întrezărit de Nietzsche încă nu a ajuns în câmpul nostru vizual, astfel încât oamenii încep să îşi dea seama că drumul acesta nu duce nicăieri. Omul a început să caute un alt drum, să caute certitudini şi, în general, confortul spiritual, adică acea mulţumire care nu poate veni decât din relaţia cu divinitatea. Din aceste cauze, revin în actualitate problemele metafizice şi morale! Astăzi, mai mult ca oricând, omul are nevoie de un far care prin lumina sa să îi indice un alt drum.

În acest punct intră în joc şi creştinismul, care trebuie să fie în măsura de a indica acest nou drum, sau, mai bine zis, un drum vechi pus într-o lumină nouă. Astfel crestinismul trebuie să dea un răspuns nihilismului care a dus în pierzare un întreg secol şi a distrus mii de vieţi.

Răspunsul creştin trebuie căutat cu foarte mare atenţie! Un răspuns prin deconstrucţia critică a nihilismului ar fi inoportun, deoarece omenirea s-a săturat de spiritul distructiv. Acest spirit a marcat întregul secol trecut şi a însămânţat în inima oamenilor respingerea oricărui fel de deconstrucţie. Se poate da un răspuns oportun nihilismului oferind o altă alternativă bine fundamentată şi accesibilă tutoro oamenilor. Unui sistem care neagă, trebuie contrapus un sistem ce afirmă; unui sistem care distruge, trebuie contrapus un sistem care construieşte; unui sistem care devalorizează valorile, trebuie contrapus un sistem ce repropune vechile valori, dar ntr-o lumină nouă.

Pornind de la aceste premise putem spune încă de la început că acest sutdiu nu va fi unul critic, ci unul contructiv, care nu va încerca o distrugere filosofică a conceptelor vehiculate de nihilsm, dar care va încerca să ofere o alternativă viabilă. Dat fiind faptul că acesta se doeşte a fi un studiu filosofic, vom încerca să oferim o alternativă filosofică. De aceea ar fi o greşeală deontologică să folosim ca argumente revelaţia. O astfel de alternativă trebuie să fie o „a doua navigaţie”, adică o alternativă bazată pe forţa raţiunii.

Capitolul I. Nihilismul – privire de ansamblu

Nihilismul este un curent filosofic destul de problematic şi de aceea este foarte dificl să fie definit în mod foarte clar. Pornind de la analiza etimologică putem spune că acest concept provine din latinescul „nihil” ceea ce înseamnă „nimic” şi indică o concepţie sau o doctrină în care totul este negat şi redus la „nimic”. Utilizarea acestui termen nu începe o dată cu Nietzsche, aşa cum am fi tentaţi să credem, deoarece acesta este reprezentantul cel mai important al nihilismului, ci are rădăcini mult mai vechi. Îl întâlnim la sofistul Gorgia care profesează faptul că nu poate exista nimic absolut. În opera sa Despre natură acesta stabileşte trei puncte fundamentale: în primul rând nu există nimic; în al doilea rând, chiar dacă ar exista, acesta nu ar putea fi înţeles de om; şi în al treilea rând, chiar dacă ar fi înţeles de om, nu ar putea fi comunicat celorlalţi[1]. Totuşi aici nu se găseşte în mod explicit cuvântul „hihilism” ci doar ideile care, mai tarziu, vor consacra acest curent.

Prima folosire filosofică autentică a termenului o întâlnim spre sfârşitul secolului al XVIII-lea în cadrul controverselor din jurul idealismului german. Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi acuză idealismul de nihilsm, deaorece acesta tine să anuleze obiectul sensului comun şi este produsul unei activităţi invizinileşi inconştiente a subiectului. Termenul „nihilism” apare într-o scrisoare a lui Jacobi adresată lui Fichte[2].

Termenul îl mai întâlnim apoi în scrierile de tinereţe ale lui Hegel, care, în studiul său Credinţă şi ştiinţă, ia pouziţie în ceea ce priveşte controversa dintre Fichte şi Jacobi, criticându-i pe amândoi. Împotriva lui Jacobi, Hegel afrimă că nihilismul filosofiei lui Fichte este un as metodologic inevitabil. În acelaşi timp îl critică şi pe Fichte, afrimând că nihilismul acestuia este relativ şi incapabil de a ajunge la acea gândire pură în care opoziţia fiinţei să fie depăşită complet[3]. Cu acestea, termenul „nihilism” a intrat definitiv în limbajul filosofic şi in modul de vedea lucrurile, lumea, pe Dumnezeu şi morala.

O clarificare ulterioară a nihilismului ar fi aceea că acesta are un aspect dublu: istoric şi filosofic. Când vorbim de nihilismul istoric trebuie să ne referim la nihilismul rusesc. Problema nihilismului rusesc este amplu tratată de scriitori de la mijlocul secolului al XIX-lea, cum ar fi Tolstoi sau Dostoievski. Primul mare scriitor rusesc care conştientizat publicul larg asupra acestui termen a fost Turgheniev prin romanul său Părinţi şi copii, din anul 1861. Protagonistul este tânărul medic Bazarov şi este descris de autor drept fiind un nihilist. În roman ni se spune că nihilist este omul care nu îşi pleacă capul în faţa vreunei autorităţi, şi care nu acceptă orbeşte nici o idee[4]. Această mentalitate a influenţa mulţi scriitor ruşi, precum Bacunin sau Kropotkin, dar şi pe unii filosofi din Europa Occidentală, cum ar fi M. Striner.

Iniţiatorul nihilismului ca şi curent filosofic a fost Friedrich Nietzsche, care ne dă vestea „eliberatoare”: „Gott ist tot!”, adică „Dumnezeu a murit”. Dumnezeu a murit iar noi suntem cei care l-au ucis. Această teză a morţii lui Dumnezeu aduce cu sine o schimbare fundamentală a lumii şi nimic nu va mai putea fi ca înainte. Toate valorile omenirii au fost aruncate în aer de această veste ce ne-o dă Nietzsche. De fapt, aceasta este definiţia pe care Nietzsche însăşi o dă nihilismului: toate valorile se devalorizează. Dar ce este pus în locul vechilor valori care acum nu mai valorează nimic? În locul acestora este pus omul, însă nu omul aşa cum îl cunoaştem noi ci acel Übermensch, care nu este altceva decât omul care a reuit să se despartă integral de vechile valori, pentru a se autoconstrui într-o libertate deplină. Înaintea deicidului, Dumnezeu era cea mai mare obiecţi împotriva libertăţii. Acest Übermensch ne este prezentat de profetul persan Zarathustra în cartea Aşa grăit-a Zarathustzra.

La Nietzsche putem distinge un nihilism activ şi unul pasiv. Nihilismul pasiv este un stadiu patologic intermediar ce derivă de la constatarea că nu există nici un sens în nimic[5]. Dar acest nihilism pasiv trebuie depăşit de nihilismul activ, care nu este altcvea decât depăşirea definitivă a tuturor vechilor valori. Omul trebuie să aibe curajul să pornească într-o aventură spirituală spre destine de fericire, iar aceasta se realizează în Übermensch, care este un „Freigeist“, eliberat de orice constrângere. Prin aceasta, nihilismul nietzschenean se afirmă mai mult ca un nihilism etico-religios.

Dar nihilismul nu a fost numai o afacere între filosofii germani, acesta devenind obiect de relecţie şi în alte părţi, mai ales în existenţialismul francez reprezentat de gânditori ca Sartre sau Camus. În special Sartre se apropie mult de gândirea lui Heidegger, încercând să aducă fenomenologia lui Hüsserl către orizontul metafizicii. În distincţia sa dintre „în sine“ şi „prin sine“, Sartre pune un accent decisiv pe ideea de Nimic, scriind chir o carte intitualtă Fiinţa şi Nimicul. Nihilismul lui Sartre se manifestă mai mult în câmpul eticii, acesta oprindu-se cu prisosinţă asupra problemei libertăţii. Sartre preia afirmaţia lui Dostoievski conform căreia, dacă Dumnezeu nu ar exista, totul ar fi posibil, şi o transformă în într-o maximă nihilistă: deoarece Dumnezeu nu există, totul e permis! Adică, omul este „condamnat la libertate“.

Şi în gândirea lui Camus, nihilismul are o faţă etică, concretizat în teoria absurdului, ilustrată în mitul lui Sisif.

Tot în cotextul nihilsmului se încadrează si Emil Cioran, filosof romăn naturalizat francez, care şi-a conceput aproape întreaga operă în limba franceză şi care a avut un succes debordant în Franţa, iar, după revoluţie, şi în România. Cioran porneşte de la premiza inexistenţei lui Dumnezeu pentru a-şi construi propriul sistem filosofic bazat pe câteva teme principale cum ar fi: moartea, suferinţa, anxietatea s.a.m.d. Experimentarea acestor trei concepte îl conduce pe om la ideea de ne-fiinţă, de vid. Cioran ne mărturiseşte că deja de la 5 ani a simţit înăuntrul său sentimentul vidului şi al nimicului. Moartea este singurul lucru de care putem fi siguri şi din această cauză aceasta devine coneptul central al filosofiei lui Cioran. Suferinţa este legea supremă care guvernează lumea şi, în acelaşi timp, este o prefigurare a morţii. Suferinţa este o zbatere continuă între viaţă şi moarte şi, dat fiind faptul că moartea este imanentă, întreaga viaţă devine un lanţ de suferinţe. Conform lui Cioran, boala este dovada cea mai clară pentru imanenţa morţii. Acestea au misiunea filosofică de a-l convinge pe om cât de iluzoriu este sentimentul vieţii eterne.

Capitolul II. Nihilimsul etico-religios

Morala a fost mereu unul dintre punctele principale ale civilizaţiei occidentale, fie că vorbim de mentalitatea greco-romană sau de cea iudeo-creştină. Morala l-a ajutat pe om să înfrunte problemele cum simţul răspunderii[6]. Dar, analizând istoria eticii, putem remarca faptul că aceasta a fost mereu strâns legată de metafizică sau de religie. Dar, o dată cu deicidul afirmat de nihilismul nietzschean, este clar că întreaga gândire etică se schimbă. O dată cu suprimarea lui Dumnezeu din viaţa noastră, dispare inclusiv dorinţa de a căuta un scop profund vieţii noastre şi de a da acesteia o orientare escatologică[7].

Întreaga teorie a lui Nietzsche nu este altceva decât un răspuns decadentismului din secolul al XIX-lea. Omul se vedea inserat undeva între pasiunile vieţii şi normele tradiţiei creştine. Omul decadent era deja bolnav, iar această boală era contagioasă. Tratamentul acesteia este încredinţat educaţiei scolastice şi a preoţilor care predică mortificarea pasiunilor corporale pentru ca omul să se lase condus de raţiunea iluminată de credinţă. Or, Nietzsche se opune acestei metode trapeutice spunând, că la urma urmei, astfel omul se îmbolnăveşte mai rău. Pentru a-şi susţine această teză, filosoful german se reîntoarce la epoca artei dorice si a tragediei attice, în care spiritul grec se exprima printr-un dualism structural de apolinic si dionisiac[8]. Dionisiacul este aspectul instinctiv, pasional al vieţii, în timp ce apolinicul reprezintă aspectul ordonat şi raţional. Conform lui Nietzsche, boala omului apare datorită faptului că acesta este constrâns să trăiască doar aspectul apolinic al vieţii, reprimându-şi pasiunile. Astfel, morala creştină intrzice consensul dat instinctelor şi se impune astfel ca o negare a vieţii.

Pentru Nietzsche, nihilismul înseamnă devalorizarea valorilor supreme. O dată cu moartea lui Dumnezeu şi setea de adevăr este redusă pentru că lipsesc cauzele şi finalităţile supreme. Nihilismul moral este pentru Nietzsche este o consecinţă directă a unei disperări gnoseologice. Deaorece nu există un adevăr obiectiv, nu pot exista nici determinări morale de a acţiona într-un anumit mod. Faptul că omul îşi crează şi îşi impune astfel de norme este doar o manifestare a himerelor sale[9].

Nietzsche merge „dincolo de bine şi de rău“! Pentru el nu mai există păcat sau acţiuni ce pot fi considerate bune sau rele. Nu există de fel acţiuni morale, ci doar o valutare morală a acţiunilor pe care şi-o impune omul de unul singur. Acest mecanism nu face altceva decaât să aducă în prim-plan pasiunile corpului pe care omul le urmează deoarece acestea sunt adevăratele instincte vitale. Se deschide astfel o dimensiune ludică a omului care se concretizează printr-o viaţă dedicată plăcerilor care trebuie să ducă la un nou orizont de fericire care se poate realiza doar în Übermensch. Acest Übermensch este omul care s-a desprins total de toate normele morale creştine si de toate idealurile sale himerice pe care omul le-a creat singur, cu ajutorul minţii. Omul trebuie să îşi golească cupa idealurilor umplută de alungul secolelor şi să tindă mereu către ceva mai mult. Omul nu trebuie să se mulţumească cu ceea ce este, aşa cum fac animalele, ci trebuie să îşi orienteze energiile spirituale spre noi orizonturi. Omul nu poate avea o esenţă predeterminată, ci trebuie să-şi găsească propria configuraţie existenţială prin intermediul a ceea ce face şi prin intermediul sensului ce singur îl dă vieţii.[10] Acesta este acel Übermensch pe care îl predică Zarathustra!

Religia prezintă şi ea un real pericol pentru Nietzsche. Fioosoful german cunoaşte bine şi valutează într-un mod pozitiv formele orgiastice ale vechilor religii păgâne şi vorbeşte cu entuziasm de religiozitatea buddhistă. Totuşi, în epoca creştinismului burghez, şi religia îşi arată forma decadentă. Oamenii renunţă la viaţă şi îşi caută refugiul şi simţul siguranţei pentru alegerile lor existenţiale în religie. Oamenii au fost prinşi de mania ascultării şi a resemnării în faţa voinţei divine, iar din această cauză nu este uşor ca omul să se debaraseze de Dumnezeu[11].

Dar pentru a se debarasa de Dumnezeu, Nietzsche se pune să distrugă conceptele metafizicii tradiţionale, cum ar fi: substanţă, fiinţă transcedentală, ontologie, cauză, accidenţi ş.a.m.d. Filosoful german face aceasta prin recursul la fizică unde toată viaţa este redusă la o formă de energie pură. În acest context are loc şi faimosul deicid nietzschenean, văzut drept fiind lucrul cel mai bun ce s-ar fi putut întâmple vreodată umanităţii. O dată cu dispariţia lui Dumnezeu din minţile oamenilor, realizarea Übermensch-ului este mult mai facilă. Astfel se delimitează nihilismul etico-religios, probabil forma cea mai nocivă a nihilismului.

Capitolul III. Răspunsul creştin la nihilismul etico-religios

Dat fiind faptul că am văzut în mod sintetic ce este nihilismul etico-religios, putem da un răspuns creştin acestui curent filosofic, iar acest lucru nu este foarte simplu deoarece trebuie să oferim un răspuns filosofic, nu teologic. Acesta este un aspect foarte important, deoarece în filosofie îl întâlnim pe Dumnezeu ca predicat, la capătul unui lung şi obositor proces reflexiv, iar în teologie Dumnezeu se revelă încă de la început ca subiect[12]. Acest răspuns filosofic este un itinerariu lung şi bogat, astfel încât nu îl putem parcurge cu totul în acest studiu. Prin urmare, ne vom opri asupra a două momente ale acestui itinerariu: limbajul uman şi dimensiunea simbolică.

Experienţa umană capătă o formă conşitenă atunci când aceasta este exprimată prin limbaj, acesta fiind o activitate umană prin excelenţă. Limbajul este un element mediator care îi permite omului să se reidice spre semnificate universale, spre valori spirituale şi spre Dumnezeu, pornind de la experienţa senzorială. Limbajul poate fi privit din trei puncte diferite: 1) ca gest al corpului; 2) drept o formă de abstracţie; 3) drept purtătorul unei intenţinalităţi spirituale[13].

Limbajul este o activitate simbolică a omului, pemntru că acesta este un întreg format din semne vocale sau scrise care semnifică ceva. Semnul şi semnificatul coincid doar în dimensiunea simbolică. Dar, în acest context este nevoie de un interpret care să înţeleagă ceea ce este transmis prin activitatea simbolică a limbajului. Se formează astfel o triadă semn-interpret-semnificat, fără de care limbajul însăşi nu ar avea sens.

Din experienţa noastră ştim că limbajul ăşi are izvorul în realitate, în experienţele trăite care sut apoi transformate în limbaj. Din această cauză, omul nu ar putea vorbi de Dumnezeu, dacă nu ar avea experienţă directă a divinităţii! Deci este evident că omul, mai ales în situaţiile limită, îl experimentează pe Dumnezeu şi doar pornind de la aceasta, el poate vorbi de Dumnezeu.

Un alt element asupra căruia vrem să zăbovim este cucerirea orizontului simbolic! Mulţumită experienţei simbolului omul se poate distanţa de pura fizicitate a lucrurilor, spre a se ridica spre alte orizonturi mai profunde. Dar frumuseţea inefabilă a dimensiunii simbolice rezidă în faptul că în urma acestui proces de distanţare, omul nu se distanţează de lume şi nu sare peste realitatea fizică.

Povestire simbolică prin excelenţă este mitul. Când vrem să descriem o experienţă transcedentală, ca de exemplu pe cea religioasă, cădem în sfera miticului, care nu este altceva decât un limbaj religios. Pentru a fi înţelesă, existenţa divină are nevoie de mediatori, ca de exemplu mitul sau revelaţia. Problematica mitului este atât de vastă că nu ne putem permite să o tratăm cu această ocazie. Fenomenologia religiilor a trat problema miturilor, prin urmare, există numeroase studii ştiinţifice a căror obiect este mitul. În special Mircea Eliade s-a ocupat foarte intens de acest aspect, scriind numeroase cărţi, ca de exemplu Sacru şi profan, Mit şi realitate, Mitul eternei reîntoarceri ş.a.m.d. În aceste studii, Eliade tratează mitul din perspectiva distinţiei dintre sacru şi profan, două aspecte care sunt profund eradicate în conştiinţa umană. Omul lui Mircea Eliade se revelă drept fiind un homo religiosus care trăieşte şi ştie să distingă aceste două aspecte ale vieţii sale. În povestirile mitice ne aflăm într-un spaţiu şi timp diverse de cele pe care le trăim în mod fizic. Astfel mitul are funţia de a revela omului un aspect foarte profund, de ce?-ul fiinţei lui. În nihilism lipseşte acest răspuns la de ce?-ul fiecărui om. Iată deci, că în acest plan simbolic al mitului, văzut ca o formă de limbaj între om şi divinitate, ne este dat tocmai acest răspuns pe care îl căutăm, uneori în mod inconştient.

Concluzii

Chiar dacă este destul de puţin cunoscut publicului larg, nihilismul este un curent filosofic care a avut o mare influenţă asupra gândirii ultimelor două secole. Însăşi relativismul despre care toată lumea vorbeşte astăzi nu este altceva decât o reelaborare a nihilismului.

Am observat că decadentismul secolului al XIX-lea l-a dus pe Nietzsche la îmbrăţişarea acestei gândiri, iar acum, după două secole, vedem că acesta nu a adus nimic bun. Nihilismul nu a adus roada pe care o aşteătau oamenii, iar pomul care nu aduce roadă vine tăiat. În faţa diferitelor ameninţări atomice şi al terorismului, omul a observat că nu se poate ascunde în sapatele zidului nimicului şi de aceea oamenii de azi au nevoie de certitudini şi de valori adevărate şi este datoria creştinismului să repropună adevăratele valori.

Şi în acest context, am putut observa în această lucrare cât de important este limbajul pentru om, chiar dacă nouă ni se pare ceva banal. Dar în spatele acestei banalităţi se ascunde faptul că omul nu poate exprima decât ceea ce a experimentat şi, prin urmare, faptul că omul poate vorbi de Dumnezeu înseamnă că l-a experimentat deja. Pe de altă parte am văzut importanţa dimenisunii simbolice a mitului care nu este altceva decât o formă de limbaj. Iată deci două puncte de reflecţie care deschid noi perspective si care ne pot duce spre o mai bună reexprimare a valorilor creştine.

The original wave of British bands included Crass, Subhumans, Flux of Pink Indians, Conflict, Poison Girls, Discharge and The Apostles. Omega Tribe, Lost Cherees, Rubella Ballet and Flowers in the Dustbin belonged to a second wave, that was, less overtly aggressive. Despite autonomous ideals, the anarcho-punk movement had it's own set of guiding principles and behavior, and, within, any number of sub-sub-cultures. Despite some internecine conflict between different factions, all were united in their intent to develop the underlying anti-authoritarian and DIY ethics of punk into a full-blown anarchist movement.

Human and Animal Rights were championed and many different causes supported through benefit gigs and recordings. Protest and Resistance were a way of life and anarcho-punks were ready to fight against any systematic injustice. Although some punks were apolitical and narcissistic, most were quick to align themselves with other minorities and excluded groups.

In the 70's, they had supported worthwhile causes a diverse as Rock Against Racism, Anti-Nazi League, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Gay Rights and peace in Ireland. The 80's saw the rise to power of arch-conservative, nemesis of the miners, Margaret Thatcher. She arrived with a mandate to reverse the UK's economic decline and to reduce the role of the state in the economy. Her uncompromising stance created conflict on many different fronts - The Miner's Strike, Wapping Print workers, The Poll Tax, The SPG, The Police Bill, and free festivals and raves all led to violent protest. Concerns over capitalism and the environment led to the first Stop the City demo in London, and G8 demos have since spread around the world.

Many anarcho-punx were vegan or vegetarian and refused to wear leather, while Conflict were staunch supporters of the ALF. Traditional notions of work were rejected in favor of squatting, small scale drug-dealing, shoplifting, and, rather hypocritically, claiming Social Benefit. Crust punk evolved through the interaction of anarcho-punk and free festival scenes. Amebix and Antisect were primarily responsible for producing a sound that incorporated extremely fast tempos and death metal–style guitar. Other popular free 'festie' bands, less punk but equally anarchic included Cultureshock, Cardiacs, Ozric Tentacles, RDF, Innercity Unit and Here and Now.

New-age travellers are an autonomous bunch of nomadic, anarchists, punks, aged hippies and generally disaffected youth, who have, almost totally withdrawn, from general society. Traveling around UK and Europe while living in buses, caravans and benders, they have fled broken homes, concrete jungles and the frustration of modern life. Modern society and it’s cities are Babylon and normal people are ‘straights’ and the wealthy are protected by ‘pigs’.

Across the world, anti-Globalist campaigners are prepared to take to the streets and protest against injustice and inequality, wherever, they occur - a fitting legacy for Anarcho-Punk.

]]> http://pastoralmusings.wordpress.com/?p=276 Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:52:56 +0000 pastoralmusings http://pastoralmusings.wordpress.com/?p=276 Get pdf here.

"In the same way that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so questions sound different in
different ears, according to what each hearer brings to them. When the Editor asked me for a
contribution to the ‘Is Christianity credible?’ series, he almost apologized that the question
sounded defeatist and reductionist.* But to me it did not sound like that at all; it came, rather,
as a welcome opportunity to say two things which in these days I find myself wanting to
shout from the housetops. The first thing is that the intellectual credentials of thorough-going
Christianity are very strong, much stronger than is often allowed, and it is only when
Christians cease to be thorough-going that their faith ever sounds or looks forlorn. When it
feels forlorn and dubious (and I suppose all Christians know such feelings on occasion), it is
because, for whatever reason, relevant facts are not making their proper impact. The second
thing is that if thorough-going Christianity be thought incredible, it is a case of pots calling
the kettle black, for the rival convictional systems which present themselves are less credible
still. Scepticism, solipsism and nihilism, being philosophies of ultimate negation, cannot be
refuted in the ordinary way, but can yet be shown to be paradoxical and unnecessary, while
affirmations of alternative absolutes, Marxist, humanist, Freudian or whatever prove on
inspection to be inadequate to fit all the facts."

This is, as I call it, mindless philosophical drivel, I recently "heard again," this thing...Occam's Razor and decided to check on it. I didn't find much, originally, but now I seem to have come across a site that offers a bit more information. Here is my little twist to this entry, I'm not going to read the info at the site, nope, not going to do it. What I'm going to do is quote some of the info it has and then blindly stumble out in my effort to say something philosophical about it, in return. That is why I call it mindless philosophical drivel.

Link to website where you can actually read about this razor thing----Occam

Occam's Razor;
01:"The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed."

Why? Just because this William of Occam says so? Is it like one of those "rules" that us miniscule little human race has to create to either explain away bigger-than-us shit, or just because this guy was a philosopher (or whatever) and decided that was the "logical" thing to do? Sounds kind of ignorant to me.
First---who decides what "the minimum needed" is? Certainly not Occam, since he is dead, has been for a long time. Maybe when he was around, and if he was the one having the discussion. Other than that, if there are, say two people doing a discussion, which one thus decides the minimum needed? Or is this some kind of silent agreement amongst the discussion members to limit their assumptions to the minimum needed. What happens if we don't? Oh, I guess we just confuse the whole issue if we have more than this unknown amount of assumptions, the minimum needed that is.
Sure, I guess if we have a question about something or if we have to "assume" something, or explain away something, we have to have assumptions---if there are a whole bunch of assumptions, then there is a crowd of them and it effects the...er..."logic" or something? What, too many assumptions make finding the answer too hard, or if there are too many assumptions, it's hard to find the "right one" or the one that fits right?
Sounds to me that Occam is just wanting to limit the amount of assumptions so that people will not be able to have a whole shit load of options. Or perhaps by limiting the amount of assumptions to this, what I'd dare say as an arbitrary (but who gets the honor or power to limit the assumptions to a minimum?)amount of assumptions is also limiting the amount of, well, both plausible and possible answers.

02;
"This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building."

It does? Well, I know I'm only an iddy-biddy armchair philosopher, sitting on the outside, looking in (or is that Prof. Timothy Leary?)---and yeah, I've only taken a few college level philosophy courses, but you know, even with this as a given; I've never even heard of Occam's Razor. The first time I ever heard it before was in the film, Contact and even then, used in the context of the conversation about the building of the ship and aliens and all that---it didn't make much sense. This theory, it really does do all of this stuff, this "underlies all scientific modeling and theory building"? Damn. I didn't know that. Is this really true? Sheesh. Powerful stuff.
Do all scientist do this, use this Occam's Razor theory? If so, then how is it that there are so many damn assumptions about any one, single thing floating around in this great big cosmos of ours. If this theory is what it says, up there, then we'd have a "bare minimum" of assumption...but just what number would be the one for bare minimum?

03
"It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies."

So, dog-chasing-tail here. Okay, so this is thus assuming that we already have an "otherwise equvalent model" to use---but what if we don't, or what if it really doesn't fit? "Shave off?" How is it accomplished, who decides which concepts, variables or constructs are not really needed to explain it? How can this really be done with any certainty that a "complicated" assumption isn't a valid one? I assume, using this system of Occam's, and thus what I am using as an assumption, by virtue of me saying so is the simplest: that somebody takes ultimate responsibility of saying just what is acceptable and what isn't. Is this fair? I don't think so, especially if it is chosen for us by somebody else and we're not allowed to view these other assumptions that are not really needed. Again who decides what is needed and what isn't? Aren't they being taken into some consideration, just by rejecting them? If so, then this Occam's Razor is in-error, since it is saying that those things that are not needed because they are "complicated" or whatever, is thus taking away those which might have a high percentage (or medium) of being "correct" assumptions. Just because something is either difficult to understand or "deep" doesn't mean it isn't either a correct or a near-correct assumption.
By deciding which are not needed, based on their, well, believability difficulty, then it is also limiting the amount of possible assumptions. By limiting these, and especially with no regard, or consideration, based on their confuseability and depth of complication, one is, I must admit, limiting it to nothing more than a Mickey Mouse level of understanding. This is not a true understanding, it is a plausable understanding based on an overeasy acceptance of "easy to understand" and theories that can be labled: "Everything For Idiots."

04
"Though the principle may seem rather trivial, it is essential for model building because of what is known as the "underdetermination of theories by data".

Say what? Now you're bringing in complicated theorem in an attempt to explain what is professed as being a "simple concept." Hate to tell you guys but this is a bit trivial because it is bogus. It is a dog chasing its own damn tail, oh directed by its own self-professed genius level of intelligence to decipher for itself what is the truth and eveything else is false, simply because it says it is so.
The what? "Underdetermination of theories by data?" What in fuck does that mean? You genius folks, you always have to load shit down with big-ass words to make yourselves look so huge, to lord over us stuffed cabbages like this. Damn. So, in other words, the reason that most theories are wrong, according to your Occam's Razor, is the fact that the data being spied upon is incorrect because the theories are error-filled because they have been, well, underdetermined? The "data" of whatever it is that is being questioned is wrong...why?...because somebody says they are? So, the data then makes the theory wrong, simply because somebody doesn't want it to be right? But what does "underdetermination" mean? Wierd words don't make it any more right than saying that one doesn't go about determining the theory, based on the data recieved, and that it is possible that one might not have the right data, or that the data given is seen as false because it was not seen as a possibility. What does "underdetermination" mean?

05
"For a given set of observations or data, there is always an infinite number of possible models explaining those same data. This is because a model normally represents an infinite number of possible cases, of which the observed cases are only a finite subset. The non-observed cases are inferred by postulating general rules covering both actual and potential observations."

There's always an infinite number of possibilities? Are you sure? Did Einstein believe this? Is it true because physicists or scientists or philosophers say it is true? Is this one of those "Laws" as set down by man, that govern the universe around us? What, is there going to be some pysicist or scientist with a badge, whose going to arrest the errant concept that doesn't follow these human made laws that govern non-human created shit like the universe?
Oh, the model represents an infinite number of possibilities? Wow, that must be one huge muthafucker then. Is it on paper? In a computer? Where is it? Show me one, I want to see this infinite model. Proove it.
Now you say that there are other "unobserved" cases, these are inferred by coming up with "general rules" on both acutal and "potential" observations. So, you say that even if you didn't actually observe something, it is going to be a certain way, based on what was observed on something else. Bullshit. Aren't there going to be variables that we don't even know about? The 8 ball can be hit by a pool cue a million times and be observed a million times, but out of that, what percentage, what infinite percentage is going to be perfectly similar or even 50% similar to the very first time that the 8 ball was struck? Going by what is said by the quote, one is led to believe that there is only one way for some action to create a reaction and nothing will be different at all...all because of these observed cases and then "postulated" what will be the outcome. Yeah, sure.

06
"If one starts with too complicated foundations for a theory that potentially encompasses the universe, the chances of getting any manageable model are very slim indeed."

Sure, that's true to a point, but by getting rid of the "complicated" foundations, one is also getting rid of possibilities as well. Again, who is the one in charge of telling us idiots which one is overly complicated or isn't acceptable and what "rules" are used to designate this power of saying which one is telling us what ones are too complicated and thus unacceptable?
There will always be a shitload of theories, concepts and etc concerning the universe, so what? A "crack pot" theory or concept will be seen as that and excused, either by the vast cabbage headed society, or the more elite eggheads and Poindexters out there who consider themslves so much better than the common mortal, and also apparently so far above God, that they are the ones who can decide the rules and define them---even the ones that rule over God and God's actions. Bullshit.

07
"Moreover, the principle is sometimes the only remaining guideline when entering domains of such a high level of abstraction that no concrete tests or observations can decide between rival models."

That's because scinetists and physicists lack a really important thing: creativity outside of their given "art" of science. You lack common creativity, the ability to see with a pair of eyes that aren't overly analytical or closed to complicated concepts or theories that you have fuckin'no'way of really understanding, but think that it is "cool." Us common cabbages, though we might not understand the brainy shit, or even come near an understanding of "complicated" theories---we can have a basic understanding, or at least a facination of something "cosmic" or universal. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand a high level of abstraction and who gives a flying rat fuck if there are no concrete test or observations? Did all those guys in the Reniassance that questioned the world around them, did they give a flying rat fuck if somebody disagreed with them, or that their theories were "too complicated" to understand? No, I don't think so. They just re-wrote them on a lower level so even the higher cabbage lifefrom could have a basic understanding of it.
What? Only you genius types have the brain power to understand things which are within the area of being abstract? I don't think so. I bet a scientist has plenty problems with seeing the abstract or even understanding the abstract. Have one or two, or hell, a whole shitload of them go to the New York Meusuem of Art, and stand them in front of some of those really famous abstract paintings and have them explain them. Oh, not in scientific or math ways, but in a way that explains the meaning behind the abstract painting.
Bet they can't. Why? Because they lack the intelligence and the common creativity to do so because they're so damn anal about being "direct" and creating rules that govern everything from the way the sun is the sun, to taking a shit on a Sunday.
Is Occam's Razor the only theory left, simply because you genius types give up and then decide it is time to use the "moron tool?" Or is it because it is the "simple way" of explaining something that you, as the scientist type have no true way of understanding?

08
"This principle is part of epistemology, and can be motivated by the requirement of maximal simplicity of cognitive models. However, its significance might be extended to metaphysics if it is interpreted as saying that simpler models are more likely to be correct than complex ones, in other words, that "nature" prefers simplicity."

Dog chases his tail until he becomes a puddle of doggie guts and doggie poop, because he has problems explaining something in common terms, or he is afraid of doing so because he himself doesn't even understand what he is looking at. The first sentence is a miasma of bullshit, created to be nothing more than circular. Confuse those who attempt to understand with flash-n-bullshit and they chase their tails, or dicks, depending on the circumstance.

A scientist that allows a theory to slip into metaphysics must be stoned, or has given up attempting to thus explain it scientifically. For a scientist to allow a theory to slip into metaphysics is a sign that it goes beyond his understanding, that is why he thus creates the circular theory of it and then hands it over to those who are thus masters of circular bullshit. If you metaphysic it, they will come, they will chase until they become guts and poop.

UH-OH...now it is saying that once metaphysic'd...it falls under the rules that "nature" prefers simplicity." Shit, you must be kidding me. Here we are, we stand here, you genius types go through all sorts of circular shit, can't explain it and then hand it over to the great mystics of metaphysics (the mixture of science, religion and mysticism), and they can't even metaphysic it---so then, ultimately you then say: "Well fuck, we can't figure it out, us big dick brains here...so nature just loves the simple things, so the simplist theory fits it, by nature of nature being nature!" Yeah, when pigs fly and you can get blood out of granite.

This statement, and I re-quote it here:
"...it is interpreted as saying that simpler models are more likely to be correct than complex ones, in other words, that "nature" prefers simplicity."

This is pure bullshit, more circular dog will turn into guts and poop before you can explain it without having to create a facade around it. Here you finally admit that you don't know shit and you use this stupid Occam's Razor to break it down into the most simplist snail shit theory of: "Oh gee, it is too hard for us to explain, by having he rule that says that so by nature being nature, nature demands the "simple" thing, it is therefor the simplist theory you can find, to use to explain it. This is bullshit.
You make up the rules that the cosmos, that nature and everything in reality (and reality itself, God itself, everyfuckingthing is supposed to be, you say so with these rules and if anything disagrees with the rules, then they are false, simple as that. So when things can't be explained away, even down to the use of Occam's Razor, then since science demands the "simple excuse" or simple reason for a possibly very complicated theory or whatever---it comes down to nothing more than circular bullshit, then to lay it on the floor before the "rules of nature," which were created man...by the way.
Oh, we're so elite, we so high up the scale of evolution or mutation, so high, even above God, that human scientists can create rules that govern the cosmos and even God. Damn, that makes these guys and even ultimately humans the highest form of intelligence in the whole freakin' universe.

Oh, I bet, using Occam's Razor, that you can disprove the reality of time travel---but by using Occam's Razor, you think that you can prove the existence of God...or can you? Come'on you science wiz boys, do the impossible, prove or disprove the existence of God, you know you can, you have those rules that say you can.

Aristophanes portrays Greek intellectuals as an arrogant class of effete and pasty skinned unbelievers. Except for their skills in rhetoric, which help them get around the law and rip people off, their knowledge is of little worldly or practical value. In other words, their heads are figuratively in the clouds (hence the play's title).

"Clouds" is funny in places, but also disturbing in its anti-intellectualism and nostalgia for marshal virtues and doubt-free theism. If Aristophanes were alive today, he might be a caustic, and very conservative, Republican (or even a Fascist). For all this, his play has an undeniably contemporary feel in its critiques of rhetoric, and makes a good primer for reflection on the nihilistic and shameless uses of argumentation (as when oil company representatives engage in blatant sophistries to cast doubt on global warming).

But when, at the end of the play, the lead character (Strepsiades) gleefully burns down the school of Socrates, one is sobered by the reactionary nature of the play.

The ending reminds one of humanity's long and tragic history of genocide and iconoclasm (the destroying of a rival ideology's texts, idols, symbols, or buildings). The ending of Aristophanes' play clearly suggests that the killing of an entire class of people in his society would be a positive development. It is not without reason that Plato famously attributed Socrates' death, at least in part, to the popular prejudice generated against him by Aristophanes' "Clouds."

In short, Aristophanes' play is thought-provoking, funny, and sobering. It's an easy read and, even after 2500 years, still relevant.

Here's an Amazon link to an English translation of the play:

http://www.amazon.com/Aristophanes-Translated-Introduction-Classical-Library/dp/0941051242/ref=cm_cr-mr-title

(1)

Not so long ago an unpleasant man named Mr. Lawrence was sitting on a park bench eating his lunch. He sat square in the center where his copious heft spilled well enough to the left and to the right of him to prevent another from taking a seat. He had departed for his break fifteen minutes early, planned to return to work fifteen minutes late and had lifted from the refrigerator someone else's sandwich -- since he had no one at home to make him his own. As he dealt with a mouthful of mealy peanut-butter, dully enjoying the sunshine and the cloudshade by turns, something struck him on the chest which he promptly brushed with fat fingers to the ground. His temper was incurious, but he looked anyhow. Near his foot a few blades of grass writhed, as if suddenly aware and horrified at their state. He poked past them with the toe of his tennis shoe, and there he found on its back a fat brown beetle struggling to upright itself. The legs groped in vain. Its thickly veined, translucent wings were unfolded and buzzing harshly in the dirt. Nevertheless it did not seem to betray much frustration, but went about its business calmly as if convinced resolution was merely a matter of time. Or as if uprighting itself was really of no concern. Mr. Lawrence nudged it with his toe. The beetle turned over. It did not seem grateful. Then without haste it tested its wings. Slowly it rose into the air with widening, counter-clockwise, besotted spirals, its body like a heavy drop about drip from the leaf of its wings until, at the apogee of one of its loops, with gathered speed, it bumped into Mr. Lawrence's left shoulder, was brushed off, and fell back into its old predicament.

"How stupid you are," Mr. Lawrence mused aloud. "I wonder how it is you manage to live in this world for more than a day?" With that, he placed his heel upon the squirming bug and pressed until he felt the satisfying pop! Then he wiped his shoe on the grass and returned to chewing his monotonous meal.

Resting thus, his wide jaws rhythmically circling, Mr. Lawrence would have resembled (both externally and internally) a dimly ruminating cow. Except, he suddenly felt delirious. Startled, he stopped chewing. In a sort of anxiety he spat out the unswallowed mouthful, afraid he would choke, and gasped. His throat constricted and his mouth filled with saliva. A liquid fire was expanding in his forehead and in his groin and spreading with slow and unendurable progress along his spine and through his limbs. Yet all over his body the skin went goosey, as if chilled. He gripped the bench near his thighs until his knuckles blanched and sweat beaded on his brow, viscousy and sparkling like treesap.

"Is this a coronary?" he wondered. But that seemed unlikely, for he could not say he was in pain. Nor did he perceive the conspicuous presence of foreboding. Furthermore there was no sense of contraction, as one would imagine, in the chest. But instead a universal sense of expansion and dissolution of boundaries -- diastole instead of systole. In fact he felt intoxicated with a sudden influx of sensations. They were rushing in to fill his growing space. Everything within eyeshot was reeling, or more precisely, breathing, as if the upward slope of the park hill before him and all its massive oaks, the fountain and sky, were all a single image projected onto the surface of a rippling pond. Individual objects ceased as such and conformed to larger patterns pulsating beneath them.

Yet the more confused his vision grew, the calmer grew his hearing. The distant traffic, the birds, a couple's hushed conversation on the lawn, a nearby cricket, the murmuring fountain, the wind picking up and shaking the leaves in waves -- he could somehow focus on one sound without ignoring the others. It was the same with smells and touch, though he was increasingly unable to distinguish one sense from another. His consciousness was fracturing, for each sensation demanded and received his total focus simultaneously. Congenitally unaware, he was now abruptly and inexorably aware of everything -- and he could not bear it.

With a groan, trembling, he stood up. Surprisingly nothing felt shaky. The ground was indeed quite solid against his feet. Nevertheless he managed only a few aimless steps before collapsing, having succumbed to an urge to lay supine on the lawn. The nearby couple broke in a panic from their hand-holding and rushed to him.

"What is the matter, mister?" they questioned, the girl touching his arm. "Are you alright?"

"Fuck off!" Mr. Lawrence growled, anxious to minimize sensations. The couple departed, deeply offended.

A number of thoughts were running through his head, the larger part of which he could not identify as his own. He gave those ones no credence. Had he been poisoned? Perhaps that sandwich had been a trap, planted to punish him for his habit of stealing lunches? Was a cancer exploding within him? Had an organ ruptured? His spleen? Still he could not say he was in pain, but having always considered any deviation from the status quo as a disaster he could only think of death. In reality, he was suffering from the throes of ecstasy. "I am not dying," he was obliged to conclude. Then, as a last resort -- he barely had the imagination for it -- he wondered if her were going mad. The questioned went unanswered: he had no idea what madness was. So he began listening to the other voices clamoring in his mind, which had anyhow passed the threshold of being resisted.

Mr. Lawrence closed his eyes. Everything smoothed out. The oaks and lawns of the park felt worlds away. An incandescence burned behind his lids, and, as if it were the bottom half of an hourglass, his mind began to fill up with answers to questions he had never asked. With an unexplainable and terrifying familiarity he foundered on a tide of recollections. Names, faces, foreign cities, wars, wastelands and the sea came back to him like fragments of a thousand random films sewn together. When it finally all went white -- for he was on the verge of mental exhaustion -- there stood before him, without any recourse to distance or space, an almost endless file of figures, like the patient multitudes who crowd the banks of the Lethe. Each figure seemed to exude its history the way a dandelion puff, when touched, gives up its spores. He knew them all. Some were men, but some were also women, and various beasts, and fish, and trees.

Then the final unasked for answer, the last grain of sand, came tumbling down as peremptorily as the last nail in a coffin, and he understood: these were all his lives, he had been every one of them, and he was now upon his last.

(2)

Above all, one must keep in mind that Mr. Lawrence did nothing to deserve this. Whether or not standing in the midst of the cosmic fun-house and seeing totally and in an instant how time's thousand mirrors have reflected you through out the ages can be considered a blessing . . . that sort of thing can be concluded only on an individual basis. Some people might find the experience irritating. But birth and rebirth and ultimate death -- these are matters far beyond the mirth and moans of men. In fact, it is a grim distortion of reality to assume that basic cosmic principles have anything to do with human needs or values. The earth no longer centers the universe because neither do we; the coursing of the sun no longer depends upon our sacrifices sating its (our) blood-lust; bodies need not be properly buried in order for souls to pass on; and if one is born a miserable dust-mite, it is not because he was previously a monster. There is no cosmic morality. Fortunately, this is just beginning to dawn on us.

Siddhartha Gautama happened to be a good man; Mr. Lawrence decidedly was not. That they both dropped, like ripe fruit, out of life and into the ecstatic embrace of oblivion had as much to do with them as a roll of the dice does with a man not even playing, but merely walking past the alley.

(3)

By what principles does the phenomenon of metempsychosis work? . . By none whatsoever, but rather through a sort of error, as a knot perpetuates itself in a fishing net or a loose thread signals the destruction of a sweater. For the nature of everything is emptiness.

Ultimately, this error results in a personality, a soul. Take, for example, the most colossal explosions of energy: volcanos, seismic shifts, stormy seas, the fiery crash of meteorites or the collision of galaxies. Despite the sound and the fury of it, both before and after, and most importantly, beneath, nothing has changed. The fundamental emptiness remains untroubled, which, by circumscribing the singularity of each event within whole chains of causality, guarantees the continuity of all. Not that that matters. (I adore trees as an eloquent illustration of this: in space-time they are slow explosions: at their very centers they are dead.) -- However, this is not the case with a soul.

Concerning what is "not-soul", let us consider for instance the case of an insect. Once, as a boy, while weeding my mother's flower beds as punishment for some not ungrievous infraction, I found myself face to face with the most spectacularly symmetrical web of a garden spider, spread between two errant branches of a rosebush. Her legs were paired, two forwards and to backwards on each side; her swollen abdomen displayed a brilliant yellow against shiny black. She presided calmly at the center of her net. At first I considered smashing her as a sacrificial victim to my angst. But then a more wicked idea occurred to me. I hunted through the bright perennials and dull moss and had to overturn a few stones before snatching a suitably plump bug as it tried to burrow into the dirt. What kind? It doesn't matter. With mounting joy I tossed the handful (dirt, bug, twig with dead leaf) into the web. They stuck mid-fall as if frozen in time. The hapless creature flailed, ruining the web. The following moments were a tempest of activity. The spider, without really moving, seemed to come totally alive, then began vibrating so rapidly at her perch as to smudge her own outline. With a few graceful, certain and menacing strides she was atop her prey, winding it more deeply into the web. Arching her abdomen, spinning, she began twisting the bug like a spindle into its skein until it was utterly enfolded in dewy, silvery thread. Then the spindly assassin heaved softly, filling the bug with venom.

I suddenly felt sick, remembering how a spider's venom was supposed to liquefy the intestines. The scene was gruesome. The impeccable loomwork was in tatters. I imagined myself in the bug's position, in horrifying constraint, smothered, poked by stiff exo-skeletal legs, pierced with fangs, nauseous with poison. And yet, no specific emotion troubled me. Neither regret, fear, shame, sympathy nor outrage. Not because I was like all rough boys painting my face with crushed lightning bugs and playing baseball with frogs, but because I didn't sense anything grim about the ordeal. Gruesome does not imply grim. Instead, I found it saturated with innocence. Although the bug struggled from the moment I ripped its snug den into the light until the moment the spider plunged it back into darkness, there was a numb ease about its movements, as if its vigorous limbs were just wind rustled branches, as if the whole thing were no more than pantomime. Equal, therefore, to a dislodged rock tumbling and crushing a smaller rock. Inconsequential.

In other words, here was an event once again circumscribed by the void. Within the bug there was no bug to grieve, and within the spider no spider to rejoice. Just sparkling purity, and emptiness.

Now, concerning what is "soul", the trouble happens when something stirs beneath, like a current. Emptiness folds upon itself and is immediately crystallized -- and this knot of void becomes something infinitely denser than a collapsing star, something which cannot be obliterated, not even by a supernova. It is as unreal and elusive as a hypochondriac's aches, and yet as inexorable and deadly as a blood clot in the cosmos' veins. It wanders (the vicious gallstone) kicking up eddies wherever it goes and assimilating the cataclysms of dust.

This is the soul. In time it will populate infinity and squash the void. It is dark matter indeed.

(4)

Mr. Lawrence -- as we will call him for only a short while longer, since that name will change -- came into being at the moment of his initial demise. This is the universal custom.

Until that point it would have been impossible to track him through the ages, from one incarnation to another. That error, that knot of emptiness (Mr. Lawrence's soul) did not yet exist. The upheavals of ant hills and shoals of fish, the mad luxuriance of tropical forests, huge lumbering beasts and and all organic things might leave a temporary impression, sort of like a pillowfold leaves on the soft cheek of a sleeper, but basically they all partake of an undifferentiated existence. When they lapse, finally, no residue remains. They take nothing, they leave nothing, they are nothing. Thus they are all most intimately identical. When my fearsome spider devoured her bug, she devoured herself -- like the Ouroboros, the serpent that swallows its own tail.

So, for mute millenniae, there was no Mr. Lawrence. Then, one scorching Mesozoic afternoon, a beetle whose species has long since vanished was belaboredly carrying along its fat body by means of its brittle wings, buzzing mindlessly, until it smacked into the broad flank of some other long since vanished beast. Then it fell to the ground. The beast swatted, but continued to pull up huge mouthfuls of vegetation and chew, its wide jaws circling rhythmically. On its back in the grass the beetle struggled to upright itself. It did not succeed, however, and was eventually crushed beneath the beast's complacent grazing. At that very moment, just before the light flickered out, a brief lifetime of bumping into things (animals, trees, stones), falling, and writhing in the dust, was recalled and something more like an exclamation-point that a question-mark flashed. It wasn't so much the beetle that recalled, since it was gone, but had the beetle been human it certainly would have felt a shudder, and took a whistling intake of breath -- for at that moment an indelible "Ah!" had been scratched into the softness of the void. (These are sometimes called "insights".) Corporeally, the beetle was a gooey smear; but spiritually, nothing could stamp out its diamond intuition. And so Mr. Lawrence was born.

What followed? . . Only an unceasing succession of comic/cosmic mistakes.

In a moment of retrograde science, purely for explanatory reasons which shall excuse the imprecise analogy, I will declare that reality is in fact composed of both material and spiritual components. How they interact, or the point at which they shake hands, will never be identified nor understood. Yet spirit and matter need not have any communion at all. One misconception however can be cleared up: spirit is not light, it is inconceivably dense. If spirit passes through matter it is not as a liquid seeping through a porous membrane, but as a stone falling through the air. The blunt corner that mangles our funnybone, the stiff rosethorn that pierces our flesh, are only airy spectres in comparison to the soul. So when error strikes and a particle of spirit is created it is set loose (there being nothing capable of containing it) and wanders without resistance through the universe.

Can this particle of spirit ever take up residence in a plant or a rock? . . Yes, for there is nothing that prevents this; although there is nothing that encourages this either. A sort of rule of magnetism presides over the transmigration of souls. Since it is the dawning of awareness that creates souls, it is the capability of awareness that attracts them. Awareness as opposed to the process of "succumbing to power" which defines all other cosmic interactions. The insentient dullness of the lichen and its rock does not provide the means for spirit to flourish. And to be clear, the only thing that can actually "contain" a soul is the possibility of growth. For unlike everything else in the universe which eventually bleeds out and decays, spirit (that is, souls) can only get more powerful. For a soul to perish, as with Siddhartha Gautama or Mr. Lawrence, is an anomaly.

Therefore, not long after a massive foot compressed the beetle into a diamond of spirit, Mr. Lawrence cropped up into his first true incarnation -- as a nervous, tiny mammal.

This should not be marvel at. Nervousness -- an ugly word for caution -- is the principle quality of a nascent soul. Something forged in the sudden notion that things could be otherwise will naturally function on that continuous logical extreme, and second guess everything that it feels compelled to do. Probably akin to a rodent, legions of these diminutive, fuzzy animals cowered in narrow places, horded seeds and nuts, dashed from shadow to shadow, snatched insects when they felt brazen enough to pounce, and occasionally, in a long process of agonized fits and starts, would rob a nest of its souring eggs.

(5)

So why focus on Mr. Lawrence? . . That his series of incarnations ended as inexplicably as it began is neither interesting nor rare. In a universe defined by its emptiness one would think its errors would be the most interesting thing, but really, they are almost too common to be considered errors -- for they are, to be sure, all of us. No, there was something else about Mr. Lawrence that set him apart and warrants an extensive treatment of his case: like ice crystals within a fire or a loose wheel within a perfectly accurate clock, he was an anomaly within an error.

Every soul, every inextricable knot of spirit, proceeds along a familiar course. Allow me to illustrate by analogy. Once, in a very lonely city after I failed to find a place to sleep, I sat all night in an abandoned square on a bench beneath a linden tree. In the center of the square was an old fountain. The pump had since quit and the water sat in it like glass, but its submerged lamps still shone. Above it veered a swarm of light-besotted gnats who could not help themselves from flying into the water. By morning the swarm had dispersed, leaving behind the corpses of their dead to twist peacefully on the surface. Observing them I noticed a curious thing. The drowned insects did not float apart, one from another, but one by one were collecting into clumps. They moved about in these little black piles, gathering into themselves any lone gnat or smaller pile of gnats that happened to drift past. Until a dozen heaps formed in the midst of the pepper of bodies, propelled either by a light breeze or the strugglings of the not yet drowned. And then a half a dozen heaps. And then three heaps, and so on. Finally one massive clump of dead gnats was floating smack in the center of the broad fountain. Except for one gnat, who still twisted peacefully near the edge. -- Then a street sweeper came scraping by and with a bored familiarity scooped up all the bodies with a spade and slopped them into his trash pail. The one lone night described a vortex in the disturbed water. Mr. Lawrence was like that lone gnat.

Thus proceed all souls. At the very moment of their conception they are destined to grow, to solidify, to gather into themselves more and more, guaranteeing their own perpetuity. The effect of this however, far from creating, as one would suppose, the soul of a despot or a psychopath or a power-hungry freak, instead results in the soul of a very decent human being. How? Simply because a soul's strength lies in its ability to falsify the world around it, to see itself as something essentially different. It has been noted that one who stands at the edge of the abyss threatens to have the abyss stand within him, and this injection of nothingness will drive him insane. Therefore the decent human being, first knocking his stick against the ground, declaring it solid and real, then knocking his stick against his own head, doing the same, finally knocks his stick against every notion, law, theory, doctrine and value to issue from that head and declares them, one by one, to be more substantial and eternal then the sun dipping nightly behind the horizon or the moon who monthly dies. Circumscribed by a world of meaning and form, cities rise, and souls go on forever. And instinctively respecting this world -- their solid shell -- everyone treats everyone else with a most delightful decorum.

In all honesty, Mr. Lawrence was never fit to be anything but a rat. I say this with admiration. Like the one lone gnat left twisting in the fountain, he never managed to amalgamate. Most souls, as mentioned above, are held in place by an appropriate capacity for awareness -- which means the ability to falsify and shape the world around it. In this way -- and let me emphasize again, the universe has no use for morals -- the transmigration of souls functions. But Mr. Lawrence, for whatever obscure reason -- simply fortuitous rolls of the dice or errant casts of the net -- managed to be drawn again and again into human lives for which he was not prepared. He had pulled off a miraculous feat, verging on the impossible, and not only failed to ever learn anything from his experiences, but never once drew a conclusion either. I mean in a moral sense, the only sense that matters for the perpetuity of souls.

Naturally, this made for some high adventure. A solid soul, a decent human being, lives best when he lives a straight line and travels the deep channels and the well marked ways, for most keenly he has learned, and learned most keenly that trouble is not worth the trouble. And so . . . nothing happens. The balance, the foresight, the patience, the discretion and circumspection and, most importantly, the restraint necessary to live a decent life, were all things Mr. Lawrence lacked. Although he did not lack nervousness, cunning and suspicion. Mr. Lawrence, after all, was not a decent human being. Instead he was forever marked by the void from which he emerged and never really left behind, and sought nothing else but to discharge his energy at all times. He managed to persist so long without expanding. He was filthy, untrustworthy, violent, greedy -- and yet, like my fearsome spider, thoroughly innocent.

Vi kan se detta i synen på den mänskliga kroppen. Trots att många påstår sig vara materialister, så framkommer det tydligt att de inte ser sig själva som sin kropp (vilket en sann materialist skulle göra), utan istället talar och beter sig som om kroppen i bästa fall vore ett verktyg och i värsta fall ett fängelse.

Denna instrumentella syn på kroppen tycks vara framför allt kopplat till njutning och lidande. Kroppen ses som ett verktyg i den mån den används för att uppleva njutning, men ses som ett fängelse i den mån vi upplever (framför allt fysiskt) lidande. Jaget tycks uppfattas på lösa grunder som något skilt från kroppen, vilket används för att motivera dels en ganska vårdslöst kroppsbeteende (eftersom kroppen inte ses som en essentiell del av vårt Jag, utan endast som en instrumentell del av vår person), och dels för att paradoxalt motivera en individualistisk isolering av "Jaget".

Dessa påstådda materialister tycks uppenbarligen ha icke-materiella gränser med vilka de bevarar sina jag -- de är inget annat än modernitets naiva gnostiker! Men dessa "gränser" kring det egna jaget är blott en fiktion -- en chimär! Jag är min kropp! Utan mitt kropp har jag inget beteende och inga handlingar! Utan min kropp är jag inget jag! Min kropp står i ett essentiellt förhållande till mitt Jag och inte i ett instrumentellt förhållande!

Jag tycker det är mycket oroande att människan inte längre tillskrivs något egenvärde, utan endast ett instrumentellt värde i förhållande till hennes förmåga (potentia) att undvika fysiskt lidande och uppleva njutning. Detta framkommer med oroväckande tydlighet när man betänker fostervattensdiagnostik, där man för att kunna diagnostisera foster med Downs syndrom (när började man egentligen acceptera att ställa diagnoser för att avsluta liv?) utsätter sig för en undersökning som, om jag förstått saken rätt, statistiskt lär medföra en större risk för missfall, än att hitta Downs syndrom hos fostret. Men uppenbarligen anser man det vara värt att offra några "normala" foster för att kunna bespara samhället några få "onormala" människor.

And fourth (but this would be a long-term project, which would take generations of totalitarian control to bring to a successful conclusion), a foolproof system of eugenics, designed to standardize the human product and so to facilitate the task of the managers. In Brave New World this stanardization of the human product has been pushed to fantastic, though not perhaps impossible, extrems. Techincally and ideologically we are still along way from bottled babies and Bokanovsky groups of semimorons. But by A.F. 600, who knows what may not be happening? Meanwhile the other characteristic features of that happier and more stable world -- the equivalents of soma and hypopaedia and the scientific caste system -- are probably not more than three or four generations away.
(Aldous Huxley: Brave New World).

Kan moderna människor skulle kunna lära sig att acceptera att deras kropp inte är ett ringaktat verktyg för deras Jag, liksom även att lidande och njutning är båda delar av detta livet, och i den mån man skall tillskriva något egenvärde så är det själva den mänskliga personen (med kropp och allt) i allt sitt elände och all sin glädje i den här tillvaron? Man kan inte vara kristen utan att vara hylemorfist och realist! (Däremot kan man vara kristen utan att vara kreationist...)

-- Vad Bazarov är? Arkadij skrattade. Vill du jag skall säga vad han egentligen är, farbror?

-- Ja, vill du göra det, min nevö.

-- Han är nihilist.

-- Vad för något? frågade Nikolaj Petrovitj, medan Pavel Petrovitj blev sittande orörligt en stund med smörkniven i luften.

-- Han är nihilist, upprepade Arkadij.

-- Nihilist, sade Nikolaj Petrovitj. Det kommer av det latinska nihili, intet, efter vad jag kan förstå; det betyder alltså av allt att döma en person, som ... inte tror på någonting.

-- Säg hellre: en som inte har aktning för någonting, inföll Pavel Petrovtitj och tog ånyo itu med sin smörgås.

-- En som betraktar allt från en kritik ståndpunkt, anmärkte Arkadij.

-- Är det inte detsamma? frågade Pavel Petrovitj.

-- Nej, det är det inte. En nihilist, det är en människa, som inte böjer sig för några auktoriteter, en människa som inte tror på några principer, vilken aktning de än må vara omgivna av.

-- Nå, och det är alltså bra? avbröt Pavel Petrovitj.

-- Det beror på vem det gäller, min gode farbror. För en är det bra, för en annan illa.

-- På det viset! Jag ser, att detta inte är något för oss. Vi tillhör den gamla tiden, vi tror att utan principer -- Pavel Petrovitj uttalde ordet mjukt, på franskt sätt, medan det i Arkadijs mun fick en rent rysk betoning -- att utan principer som man tror på, såsom du säger, kan man inte ta ett steg, ja, inte andas en gång. Vous avez changé tout cela. Ja, lycka på färden! Vi för vår del nöjer oss med att se på och beundra, herrar ... hur var det nu?

-- Nihilister, artikulerade Arkadij.

-- Ja. Förut var det hegelister, nu är det nihilister. Det skall bli intressant att se hur ni kommer att existera i det tomma intet, utan luft att andas i. Och nu skall jag be dig ringa, min kära bror, det är tid för mig att dricka min kakao.

/- - -/

-- Så! Tror ni på allvar, att ni skall -- skall rå med ett helt folk?

-- Ni vet, att ett enda talgljus var nog för att sticka Moskva i brand, svarade Bazarov.

-- Där har vi det! Först ett nästan sataniskt övermod, och så ett smaklöst skämt. Det är det som ungdomen låter förleda sig av, det är det som gör intryck på oerfarna gossar! Ja, där kan ni se en av dem sitta vid er sida, han tillber er ju nästan, ni kan känna er nöjd vid denna anblick.

Arkadij vände sig bort och rynkade ögonbrynen.

-- Och denna smitta har redan spritt sig vida omkring. Jag har hört berättas, att våra konstnärer i Rom inte sätter sin fot inom Vatikanens murar. Rafael anser de vara i det närmaste en idiot därför att han är en "auktoritet", men deras egen konst är kraftlös och ofruktbar, och hur dessa vämjeliga herrar än anstränger sig, förmår deras fantasi inte åstadkomma någonting annat än den eviga "Flickan vid brunnen"! Och bemälda flicka målar de eländigt. Enligt er åsikt är de duktigt folk, inte sant?

-- Enligt min åsikt, svarade Bazarov, är Rafael inte värd en styver och de är inte ett grand bättre än han.

-- Bravo! Bravo! Hör bara, Arkadij ... så skall en ung man uttrycka sig i våra dagar! Det är verkligen intet under, att de följer er blint! Förr i världen måste en ung man lära sig något och arbeta, om han inte ville kallas obildad. Nu behöver han bara säga: alltsammans är strunt! -- och så är saken klar. Skulle våra ungdomar inte vara glada! Förr var de bara okunniga tölpar, nu har de plötsligt blivit nihilister.

Om nihilismen har rätt och allt är meningslöst så kommer njutning och ångest inför det meningslösa, med skam som enda begränsande faktor -- människan blir inget annat än en viljelös robot i nihilismens kristallpalats!

Om allt är meningslöst drivs människan av sin ångest inför meningslösheten, med meningslösa njutningen som sin enda ventil att för ett ögonblick glömma meningslösheten, och skammen ("Överjaget") som det enda som begränsar njutningslystnaden. Varje njutning är då endast en av skammen tyglad meningslös verklighetsflykt från den ångestfyllda meningslösheten.

Men om det finns en Mening (Λόγος) då är inte njutning ett meningslöst självändamål -- en verklighetsflykt -- utan våra beteenden och handlingar har mening i relation till Meningen och njutning endast är ett eventuellt plus i kanten.

Om livet har Mening, skall vi äta för att leva, inte leva för att äta -- maten är då inte en meningslös njutningsfull verklighetsflykt, utan något som får mening i förhållande till livets Mening. Därför kan man inte då endast glupskt äta för att njuta och hänge sig åt frosseri som är skadligt för hälsan, eller matproduktion som skadar miljön och vår omvärld. Ty vi är inte då isolerade individer i en meningslös tillvaro, utan vi är då personer som är förenade i en meningsfull tillvaro!

I en meningsfull tillvaro är inget neutralt och meningslöst, utan vi måste ständigt fråga oss vad meningen är med våra beteenden och handlingar, så att vi genom våra handlingars övning (άσκησις) kan skapa ett beteende vars mening är i harmoni med tillvarons Mening.

ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΚΑΙ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΗΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΘΕΟΝ, ΚΑΙ ΘΕΟΣ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ. (Ιωάν. α' 1).

A short reflection after reading Casabella 752.
I was very interested in Dal Co’s article, with the title of Lo smalto sul nulla [“Enamel above nothing”], about the controversial (just to be clement) Hotel Marqués de Riscal, by Gehry, and the nihilism which can be said to philosophically found deconstructivism - or any other architectonic theory characterizing the work of the Canadian architect who wisely rejects to declare himself for anyone of them.
Reading Benevolo, I was once stroke by the simple but sensible observation that architecture is the most slowly evolving art; for obvious technical and institutional reasons, it definitely carries a delay. Nothing wiser, in my modest opinion. It is true indeed that every age corresponds to its architecture, but the fundamental evolutions however come with the delay of almost a century; particularly from the 700’s, when the world started to accelerate all its vital cycles. It is not a case that Lightening produces definitely ancient régime architectures, Decadence takes to romantic buildings, Pirandello’s ‘900 loiters upon safe positivistic positions: maybe it is just now that Heisemberg starts to move the architect’s hand towards complete indetermination.
But nothing can justify Gehry for the de Riscal eyesore. A metallic-plate-shaped auto-quotationism covers, maybe for lightening shyness, a whole architectonic nothing. Is this the state of art?
Luckily, there are Isozaki and a newly discovered Carlo Scarpa giving a hope to this issue. Jean Nouvel makes his part too, while this time Mrs. Hadid seems to have not much to say.

At 14 years old a family friend introduced me to the very basic thoughts over Karma.  A mutual friend had done something wrong and three weeks later he had a car accident where he came out with a broken leg and a broken arm.  Our family friend said: "Well there you go, Karma slammed his ass."

I asked him about Karma and he did his best to tell me about it, in terms that he figured a 14 year old could understand.  To be honest, I had a better grasp of the basics (very simple) of Karma after that, thanks to our friend.  In a way, for a few years, I seemed to always connect Karma to God; as his way of punishment against us, who sin.  For instance; I might take out a Playboy magazine and masturbate to the girls in the photos---a few hours later I'd hurt myself in some fashion.  That was Karma punishing me for not only masturbating, but also having lust.  That was God's way, via the mystical Karma, of punishing me for a sin I had committed.

Back then I was also somewhat religious, that was before I began to question authority, before I began to actually watch how my mother lived her life of a "Good Christian Woman" as compared to how she treated my sister and me.  At home, away from her friends, away from her other family, away from the public; the woman was a total control-freak and bitch...a monster who committed emotional abuse on a daily basis.

Anyway, as time went on, my belief in Karma grew stronger, my understanding of Karma, still basic, yet IMHO, at least for me, at least according to what I had learned---a pretty good understanding of it.  I also was introduced to the philosophy of reincarnation, which wasn't a part of the Christian religion and certainly did not fit in with its dogma.  To become a simple believer of reincarnation was my first step out of the Christian box and into mysticism.  To then disconnect, in a minor way, Karma from God (as punishment for sins) was also a couple of steps out of the box.  Yet even after all these years, and my disbelief in the "Christian" God---I still, in a subconscious manner connect Karma with God, as a form of punishment.

I found that there was this mystical, philosophical connection between Karma and enlightenment, as well as a connection with those two, to reincarnation.  It was all very interesting, all very so cool in its own mysterious, mystical way.  It wasn't until I went to college in the late 1970s that I took my first two philosophical classes where Karma-enlightenment-reincarnation was discussed.

Zoom across the years; my belief in Karma continued, my belief in enlightenment continued, my belief in reincarnation wavered, my disbelief in God continued---my personal belief that, in some bizarre fashion Karma as a weapon of punishment was still connected to God, as a punishment for sins---well, it continued too.

Zoom a bit more: three years ago my belief in Karma took a solid hit, a slam to the underbelly of that belief, and along with it, came a very hard wham, a very hard slam against my very slight belief in God.

Because of a mortal soul-hit, my belief in Karma wavers so much that I tend to disbelieve in such a think as Karma, in itself, or as a weapon of punishment or as God's punishment.  In a way I suppose my belief in it as a teaching aid for enlightenment continues, oddly enough.

It goes like this: why should a person who had committed one of the most gravest sins against somebody else, who committed such a horrible sin against them...be able to go off and live a great life, to be able to do so much, to have freedom, to have more...than the person that they committed such a horrible sin against?

Why should this person, who committed the sin, go unpunished, either by Karma, or God---for the sin they committed, for the destruction of the other person's soul---and be able to go off and have so much, to be able to do so much, to live financially secure (though they may disagree)...without any apparent sign of Karmic punishment?

Why should they be able to live a life---while the person they committed such a horrid sin against, continues to just survive?

Where is the Karmic punishment for that sin, committed against the other person?