The Civilization of Ideologies: from the Community of man to the mass society
THE BASIC CONCEPTS
OF THIS DOCUMENT
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ANCIENT AND MODERN SOCIETY:
THE MASS SOCIETY REPLACES THE TRADITIONAL COMMUNITY OF MAN
Before we analyze what are the mechanisms that today are used by the institutions (and policy) to manage the authorization of the masses, you must first understand what is indicated by the term “mass”.
Modern Western society, as we will see later, is radically different from the old forms of society (as they are radically different, in their consciousness and their behaviors, the individuals that live there).
The main difference between pre-modern societies and the current one is that while the first relied on “natural” forms of Organization (i.e., background, on forms of self-organization based on direct and spontaneous consensus typical pre-urban communities),
modern society is based on new forms of organisation,
invented by “rational mind” of Western man.
The peculiarity of modern society is to be a “mass society”: being that is characterized by integration of individuals into a single entity in which they are losing that individuality (“subjectivity”) which is one of the vital characteristics of the human being.
The loss of the individual human quality is the precondition for its integration into a “mass”. This result is achieved, as we shall see, through the application of modern Ideologies, which are capable of transforming some psychic characteristics of man.
Human society then undergoes with the distortion of inner characteristics of individuals who compose it (and the size “mass”), a distortion of its structure.
This is the point: in new condition “modern” man is deprived of its traditional ability to organize themselves in the first person his life. And therefore in modern society is lacking that “spontaneity” inherent organizational forms of the oldest society: society and must therefore be “managed” strongly “from above” through institutions (ideological) strategies that we will examine in this document.
In other In other words we will see how the operation of ancient societies were guaranteed by the intrinsic characteristics, “natural”, man. And how modern society, being composed of individuals without these qualities, must be handled with “artificial” mode. We will see that is how, while the man was able to manage because it followed the rules imprinted in his conscience (which resulted in a “moral” group defined biological instincts, spiritual perceptions, etc.), modern man should instead follow the rules he “external” (should be directed from the outside).
This analysis will emerge as
the SOCIETY -a village based on the contribution of the individual as citizen- responsible and active.
And as in our society-the urban individuality (subjectivity) are “integrated” (merged) into a “mass” of humans “impersonal everyday”: which also means that individuals have become passive, “deresponsabilizzati” in respect of their existence (we’ll see how, under this condition, individuals are encouraged to think and act according to the “selfish interests” of competition, characteristic of our Era).
We will see how, for a Society of this latter type can survive, individuals should be “re-programmed” in level of consciousness (and as the Society management attempts with this mode implemented in the twentieth century are, in the long run, all stranded in chaos).
The “modern society”,
Unlike all other types of society
based on a development of spontaneous quality of man,
It is therefore founded on rational control
the imposition of an “external” order
is based on the modern conception of human enlightenment
Modern society is based on theories “reductionist” on human beings produced by Enlightenment and then adopted by our science (as we shall see, in modernity underlines the need of reductionism in the formulation of scientific concepts).
The premise of this vision of human life, essentially “pessimistic”, are known:
for Bacon, the founder of modern scientific thought, nature is flawed: man’s task is to create an “artificial world” (hence the new man, the common objective of “scientific development”, practiced in the Western market System, and modern social utopias).
Hobbes, the founder of the current culture that relates to humanity and society (whose ideas were later taken up by Marx and Freud for the formulation of Theories Lotus), has also laid down, in the same order of ideas of Bacon, that man is inherently good, as believed “the ancients; the natural condition of man would, substantively, a psychological condition of suffering (for the old existential suffering and lack of altruism were not natural condition of man, but the effect of a “sick mind”; “the mind of a human being living in unnatural conditions, like those of mice trapped in a box).
This is the modern conception of the human being adopted today “institutional level”: for this reason, according to modern thinking, you must apply to a kind of straitjacket to prevent it getting hurt (socially Hobbes argued that you should build dams “to” limit the natural evil). Based on these premises originates Ideological current idea of society: that is, the Idea that only through the use of institutions that control and manage the actions of individuals, the man can reach a happy existence.
This modern way of thinking has produced the so-called modern social Ideologies: inspired by Plato, some thinkers such as Thomas more, bacon, Campanella and Hobbes first, and then Marx, Freud (particularly in his “civilization and its Discontents”), and then the various theorists of modern social Democracy, developed forms of thought that are today applied to produce the control strategies of modern rational Society.
[in the document “The totalitarian ideologies of modernity” describes the path under which you have developed these forms of thought]
We anticipate here some considerations on the consequences of the application of modern thought (Enlightenment) in our society. And in particular the loss of some of the original quality of man produced by “modern thought”.
The peculiarity of modern thought, with regard to the nature of man, and then the structure of society, is in its essence “revolutionary”.
That is, modern man with its ideologies,
the way to “revolutionize” the ideas that for millennia
were the basis for the social life of man
(new ideas are in fact always existed as the basis of forms of thought “diverted”, as the ancient tyranny).
What is being revolutionized in modern thought is primarily traditional morality (or “natural morality”): a moral man who before the modern revolution had kept true to itself for hundreds of thousands of years of human civilization from the origin (and which is summed up in all the texts of ancient wisdom: See texts, through Buddhism or shamanic cultures until Western thought with the Bible and the works of the philosophers of the 19th century).
It is therefore important to reflect on the fact that with the “revolution of modernity” (“bourgeois revolution” in the field of morality, the industrial revolution in the field of “market”, the scientific revolution in the field of technology, medicine, etc.) have abandoned those forms of thought and behavior that the man had refined over hundreds of thousands of years in a “spontaneous” (following, “instinctively”, organic laws). To replace them with forms of thinking and behaviour “artificial”, which are made by a human mind that arises over the “natural laws” of man and Earth (see Bacon and modern science, conceiving that “nature” as bad, to improve through the ideas of the human mind).
The fundamental problem of this new form of thinking is that, unlike in the original vision of man laws “absolutes” to refer to were those of nature (i.e. trying to live as much as possible in harmony with the laws of organic life on Earth)
Today, by contrast, with the new conception of the world,
absolute laws become those produced by the human mind.
This leads to a loss of traditional harmony of man towards nature: the natural world that surrounds him, but also to the nature of his physical and mental being. In this way, as you hoped in the theories of the enlightenment and modern social Ideologies, humankind creates an artificial world that conflicts with the natural world.
To understand the best question you must bear in mind that when it comes to “non-modern” Culture (traditional conception of life and the human World), refers to cultures that have produced scientific evidence that our science still cannot decipher; but it also shows the thought of the most important Inventors and scientists of our time which, although their thoughts clearly in contrast with current institutional thinking, are paradoxically indicated today as a fundamental reference for our culture, as Newton (who created modern science), René Descartes (the father of modern thought), Einstein, Tesla, Jung.
Summing up: returning to the question of the diversity of modern society than the oldest human society, the fact is that if in ancient societies of man was an “order”
He was raised in a “spontaneous”,
modern society relies instead on an “artificial”:
on rational control of people’s behaviours
(this feature, as we will see below, assumes the existence of “strategies” of man’s mind control).
The Enlightenment thinkers, revolutionizing the thinking man, have identified what is probably the most important secret of managing a mass composed of human being “civilized”, without a “spontaneous” reference to the laws of nature: man acts according to stimuli provided by fear (the French Revolution, which gave birth to the current form of democracy, has emerged thanks to the use of terror – and communism incorporates the same idea; Marx: “a spectre is haunting Europe: the specter of communism”).
In other words, the modern “thinkers” have understood that, through fear, it is possible to orient the man in his way of thinking and acting (in order to make society more orderly and efficient).
Let’s see, in broad terms, how during the last centuries developed such theories; and what are the “techniques” of management that arise from them.
A special role in the evolution of this type of strategies had Marx, who, on the track indicated by the French Revolution, in the 19th century has developed an effective synthesis of Western thought in this field produced up to that time (it is a “political theory” then further refined in Communist Socialism by Lenin, Stalin and Hitler’s national socialism).
We’ll see how Marx did his “negative” vision of Bacon and Hobbes about faulty human nature of man; and as, on this road, he thought about the establishment of a new Society, exerting a stranglehold on men, could improve the condition of mankind. And we will also see how the Marxism-Leninism, bringing on Marx’s theoretical thinking in fact, the Society has applied the idea of Terror as a method of management of masses (on model, in fact, the regime resulting from the European enlightenment revolution, the French one).
We’ll see also as Freud later contributed not indifferent with regard to the creation of the new man that should be the Foundation of a new society: the idea that the human being’s existential problem should be solved with repression of spontaneity has given rise to what is now called the Freudo-Marxism, from which derives the psychology that today is taught in universities (and therefore is practiced for example, as public health level). A psychology of opposite sign to the oldest Psychology today taken from our “alternative Medicine”. [topic in depth in the paper “reflections on Western civilization”]
The role of “psychological” modern culture
in the conception of modern society
To better understand the causes of the current crisis in the West, we must bear in mind that, according to ancient philosophies, i.e. “not wisdom-moderna”, Freudian Psychology (institutional), paradoxically, provides a significant contribution to the evolution of the Ego “perverse” that today characterizes the psyche of modern man.
In other words the Institutional Psychology Today, according to the ancient conception of man, alienated and alienating.
What does this mean? In what would be the “alienation” of modern man?
The institutional Psychology Today stopped being geared to investigate, and to act on the individual’s inner life, and became “sociology”. In the new interpretation of the human individual’s existential problems i.e. it externally would: an entity that is referred to as society.
As Marcuse, one of the founders of new ideologies of “masses” born with the ‘ 68, in the new vision of human psychological
There is no relationship between one human being and another,
but only a relationship between ‘ individual and collective “.
Which implies that in the current institutional vision of psychology, human beings can solve its problems only through a psychological transformation of society. It is no longer in a “inner work” on itself.
It is a real “cultural revolution”: you have overturned the terms of psychology.
If the traditional culture of male society’s problems would arise from the “problems” of the psyche of individuals who compose it, now the individual’s problems stem from problems of society (in this case, the Society becomes an abstract entity – note that it never responded, for example, to the question: How can a Society be “before” individuals?).
It is interesting to note that the Conference presentation of a book written by the Dean of one of the most important Italian Psychology faculty, speakers (such as the Rector of the University) were agreeing that the limit of the psychology of the ‘ 900 was to try to solve the existential problem of people (i.e. off psychic disorders) looking for the cause of this problem in man!
It is simply reversed the original thesis of Psychology: what was the problem (the lack of development of interiority of people), today has become the objective (an individual with no “interiority”, i.e., alienated “is the only individual who can” work “within a social system based on modern Ideologies; i.e.” from above “).
New ideas on the human psyche have prompted Stalin and Mao to adopt “techniques” of new psychology to support their social systems.
The new Psychology allowed them to produce those forms of control on the psyche of individuals able to assist the process of creation of the new Socialist Man (what, basically, was envisioned by enlightenment thinkers) through “re-education” fussy psychological tilt to spontaneity: the development of the “subjectivity” of the individual in this case becomes a disease to be cured (care was practiced as “social service” required, in prison camps set up by them).
And it is crucial to understand how the results of these experiments, as described in detail in Vance Packard’s essay “The Hidden Persuaders” (and as we will see later), is the current Psychology of the masses (the science that deals with directing the minds of people today in the service of political institutions – spinning-and market-Marketing).
the turning point in totalitarian ideologies:
psychological strategies for consent
The evolution in the field of “Psychology” has led to the development of management strategies of the consciences of people on a more sophisticated than what was used until the mid-20th century (the experience of manipulating minds first developed in totalitarianism, were, in fact, then imported into the countries of the West).
We’ll see how actually the fundamentals of these strategies of “psycho-political” were, in some specific areas, already used in the “psychological” management of people since ancient times (“all institutions”, as ideological sects, religions, but also in a lesser or greater, use these strategies to get the consent of people).
Right from the first country to have set up their own scheme on Marxist doctrine, the Soviet Union, have originated these “management” strategies of consciences “.
This occurred because of a historical necessity of totalitarianism of the ‘ 900, which, at some point in their evolution, found themselves faced with the inherent limitations to the method of physical coercion, which they have used to manage their power over people.
And more specifically, a turning point in the evolution of these strategies has had when Stalin realized that the forms of “social engineering” (“physical manipulation of the masses) applied until that time in the Soviet Union produced the” side effects “incurable negative: millions of deaths and growing unmanageable masses.
Crucial in this process of evolutionary “strategies of consent” was the discovery by Stalin, that Italian fascism had a feature that would make the Soviet Communism: Mussolini, his ally for several years, was able to get a popular consensus that it was not possible to get through “physical” tools used by the Communist regime of the time. For this reason Stalin sent in Italy of its “scientists” to thoroughly study the fascist regime, and on the basis of this experience the Soviet scientists developed a new “scientific method” to handle the masses.
In fact Stalin was plagued by another big problem: the attempt to realize the project of extending the Revolution Lenin worldwide through traditional means (armed struggle) was scuttled after attempts made in Germany (Rosa Luxemburg) and in Spain (civil war).
In the Soviet Union it was included as the opposition of democratic nations to broadcast of the October revolution in the world represented an insurmountable barrier. It was therefore necessary to find a new way to expand beyond Marxism of Soviet Union; a new mode that does not meet a clear opposition from public opinion and Western Governments.
A slim, mode, “psychological”.
New strategies “consensus” towards the produced half of the twentieth century then becomes thinner than in previous ones.
The biggest contribution of the scientists who have worked in this sector has been to Soviet scientist Pavlov (known for having highlighted the existence of the “reflexive”), which, noting in his famous laboratory tests some terrified dogs, has produced a new form of mechanistic Psychology (based, precisely, on the possibility of orienting behaviors of individuals thanks to environmental stimuli that induce fear) which was adopted officially by the Soviet Regime (and that then she influenced certain much of modern psychology – and even the propaganda techniques used by politics and by the market).
These new discoveries have led a double advantage to totalitarian regimes. Allowed essentially to such schemes to make a quantum leap in efficiency, compared to traditional management of “terror” used during the French Revolution and in the early years of the Soviet Republic. And they also attributed, in the eyes of the West, a face seemingly more friendly to such schemes.
Basically the new strategies have helped to overcome the forms of violence previously used (according to previous theories it was necessary that people perceive a sense of “physical threat”, explicit-and it was therefore necessary to resort to exemplary actions; that is, to some extent, torture, hard labour sentences, “disappearances” of people, etc.).
The new psychological strategies have enabled the totalitarian regimes to get a greater consensus on the part of the mass: the new system has proved to be less costly and more effective than those used previously.
Note that with the new management mode of the masses it is possible to maintain the same level of “stress” in the citizens previously obtained through direct physical threat, working, in this case “occult” with respect to the individual’s awareness, almost exclusively in the media: with the cost of a regular television production today “can be organized media events” as the attacks as those “Chechens” that have allowed Putin to win his first election; or that the commuter trains in Spain who, from one day to another, overturned the election forecasts that gave right-wing party winning.
To get a “consensus” had been popular, in parallel, the concern of another Marxist, which is credited with having created a “Communism with a human face”: Antonio Gramsci.
With this breakthrough impressa from Gramsci to Marxism was permitted to bring communism by the level of violent struggle advocated by Marx and Lenin, at a level of fighting practiced on a cultural level: i.e. turned the idea of having to physically eliminate a social class, the idea of having to create a condition of “cultural hegemony” that ends with the suppress culture produced by that class (in practice this would be to eliminate the culture of a people instead to delete a part of the same people).
The contradiction inherent in this idea (which will be the basis of ‘ 68), it will show up in Mao’s cultural revolution, which will emerge soon as try to eliminate a culture of a part of society that means eventually having to delete that part of the population in that culture you identify.
These new management strategies of popular consent, nate in totalitarianism in those contexts and developed on a more subtle plan than traditional, psychologically, were then taken up by the institutions of the Western world “(both in the strategies of” occult “Status, and institutional strategies as” persuasion “or Marketing of psycho-politics).
Basically these strategies are defined, from ideologies as cultural Hegemony strategy.
The idea of “cultural hegemony”, which today remains the basis of the strategies of the radical left, has since evolved, as we will see later, in “spinning”. This is a “communication” strategy that is founded on the principles of “positive thinking”: a sort of positive thinking, in which mass, painting through the media as a positive reality, the latter, in the public eye, is actually positive (this way people, for example, tend to vote again the Government previously in charge, or, as regards the world market If convinced that the immediate future reserve a period of economic prosperity, the so-called “conspicuous consumption”).
Spinning today underpins the Market strategies (even today the purchasing form, that is, emotion, has more of the substance) and politics (the so-called pisco-politics). But, unfortunately, Spinning is also the basis of the current scientific popularization (it helps to read any number of Italian version of Scientific American for Discover magazine as we speak almost exclusively of “promises” a better world created by future, and not at all likely, scientific discoveries).
Of course the Spinning is also used in negative mode: you can “Bully” in the collective imagination, a certain kind of politics and make it so despicable in the eyes of the people, if not dangerous (the slogan is: “mud, and something still remain in people’s heads”). This remains today one of the most effective methods of power, if used together with “spinning” to support its policies. (A typical example of negative Spinning Gunther Grass indicates: “Hitler had one great idea-to support his cause and shift the blame for all the ills of Germany to the Jews”).
It is important to note that in the existing management mechanisms of the masses adopted in most Western democracies still remains the basic idea of the old totalitarian regimes: fear as a decisive factor for the management of the mass (i.e., remains at the core of social thought, and then the collective imagination, the idea of a human being who, if left free to act, ends up creating chaos; and then there remains the idea that “fear” is the ingredient necessary to achieve a certain social order). It is a fear, of course, a little obvious, but always follows, in terms of principles and strategies, by the terror of the French Revolution and Bolshevism (still in summer 2006 the European Union praised the fiscal policy Minister Visco, saying that is good for the nation that the entrepreneurial class tax fear).
How did these theories based on the induction of fear in the minds of people, have a more even spread “democratic world”?
Let’s see how the minds of civilized man has some provision for the application of these methods based on fear.
What the studies done in ‘ 900 revealed is that, to manipulate the minds of the people is no longer a need for a pressure over consciences through the old forms of psychological terrorism (which, in fact, can never do without forms of physical coercion, material, if only for demonstration use). These studies have revealed that today you can get in this field more effective results simply “convincing” people through an appropriate communication campaign.
It all comes down to leverage fear, but in the latter case using the emotion of fear is far from the level of consciousness of the person (this means then a reduction of adverse side effects from old strategies: excessive level of fear and resulting poor performance of people working, high level of opposition to the regime, etc.).
But, and this is perhaps, from the point of view of someone who manages the power, the most interesting discovery, it was also discovered that
There are certain preconditions in the human mind
the consciousness of the individual is easily maneuverable.
It is discovered that our system of “civilized” life itself produces the necessary conditions to make manipulated people’s consciences (right on this factor are defined through consensus strategies forms of “persuasion” which today form the basis of communication and advertising policy).
It is, basically, an individual’s psychological conditions “uprooted” (the typical condition of urbanized man) [topic in-depth in documents “Modern ideologies and guiding light: the pain and psychosomatic system of man”].
The social preconditions which make man manipulated
are substantially all conditions that
turn away the man from its traditional forms of security.
That the move away from those conditions that are registered in the biological intelligence of human beings as the essential conditions for survival.
speaking of human intelligence
and his “programming”
To better understand how the new consent management strategies of the masses can leverage on psychological conditions of modern man (basically, this is the existential insecurity), then briefly analyze how does the shape of human intelligence that determines its existence.
The man, tell us the anthropology and biology, is programmed to survive (this is the first “natural” level of human existence, as much as you can find, from the philosophical point of view “, a purpose of human life above).
In humans, i.e., instinctual level they reside some mechanisms, causing your body to react to environmental stimuli in a certain way, allow him to survive. The intelligence of man is programmed to recognize what can help or can damage its existence: from the psychological point of view, this results in the perception of a “sense of security” or a sense of alarm in respect of environmental stimuli.
In order to carry out this function, unlike the animal, which has a biological intelligence only (lacks the “mind” of man), the human being is also equipped with another form of mind programming: the cultural programming, which overlaps with organic farming.
Because this type of “programming” of human consciousness is responsible for the sense of fear on which underground leverage consensus strategies applied in our society. +. vvvediamo briefly what are the differences between the two forms of intelligence, biological and cultural.
The biological intelligence is what makes us jump when suddenly we realize immediately that we are about to be hit by a car (on that occasion we move “instinctively”; experiments tell us that we act in an eighth of a second, long before we can reason above). The biological intelligence is that vital set of instructions that our body has drafted in thousands of years of life on Earth, and uses “automatically” to survive. It is a mechanism that operates primarily on a biological level, “physical” (actually the “message” of physical and instinctual that “reasons”, cultural travel on different nerve communication channels). This is the “factory” programming of the male, which is accompanied by, or overlapping, cultural programming. This intelligence is present in humans than in other animals).
Cultural programming (which corresponds to a “cultural intelligence” or “mental” intellectual) also consists of a set of rules that are applied automatically (subconsciously) and intended, should enable us to avoid trouble (if not make our life better). It is based on a “schedule” of our mind implemented through education (school, family, and through the pedagogical work carried out daily by the media, etc.). Based on this mental programming an individual, for example, can be educated to feel a sense of danger when in the presence of a person with long hair, or to think that a woman who appears in public without a veil is a little serious, and then not to take a wife.
The latter is responsible for programming of our guest, our social attitudes, and is linked to the cultural context in which it is applied in our society: it keeps us from, for example, to get too intimate with a friend’s wife (in this case we’ll set our moral conduct automatically based on which ones are the “commandments” of our culture) While in this Eskimo Society, on the other hand, conditioning makes sure that refuse to have sex with someone’s wife is judged to be socially incorrect attitude.
This type of programming is a “cultural baggage” of information that, as those recorded in our biological intelligence, are crucial to our existence: thanks to the education imparted by our social system we know we don’t have to go through a red light, that we should not fight with a policeman or go to the Bank with a gun in his hand.
To understand how this type of conditioning we must take account of the fact that the cultural programming of our mind is not only responsible for our knowing: the cultural program also defines our way of being: we are civilized beings, beyond what we’re programmed to be for nature, “what we have been taught to be. Our values, our religious or ideological precepts produce our inclinations, our inhibitions. Our “social instincts” (even the appetite and sexual arousal) are determined by “cultural filters” misled us by family and social system (science has even shown that we see things, “objectively”, depending on how we have been taught to see it. [argument developed in the document “trails: psychosomatic system function of man”]).
The intelligence of man is determined by the integration of the two forms of biological intelligence and cultural intelligence. The “cultural intelligence” can be considered “higher” (from a man’s point of view, of course) than those available to other animal species, since it allows, for example, to extend the instinctual love for other humans in need of attention, but “outsiders” to our household (which is not the case in other animal species limited by their biological instincts).
the negative potential
cultural programming of human consciousness
This kind of intelligence can also have a negative role both as regards the safety of individuals both as regards the safety of our species, since this information is not necessarily in accordance with the instructions contained in our vital biological intelligence (in other words, the culture of man may enter into contradiction with the principles governing its biological life).
The problem lies in the fact that the “cultural intelligence” in the civilized man
overlaps its biological intelligence,
and ends to prevail on that.
For this reason a strong cultural programming, which inhibits instinctual, vital principles therefore can produce serious damage to the body and the existence of man.
On the problem of the possibility for human beings to go against the real needs of his organism manifests itself clearly in the “programming” done by banner advertising that causes people to eat much more than they should (and to eat foods which often have harmful properties, that a person who, as the animal was able to follow their instincts , do not eat at all).
And the possibility for man to transgress social rules from which the only biological consciousness would not divert is evident in the behavior of “gratuitous violence”, which is not present in other animal species (the animal applies the force towards individuals of his own herd only to the extent necessary to restore the vital balance to the community Since its “intelligence” suggests that every Member of the community is beneficial to the survival of the Group-and a predator that has already fed does no harm to its potential prey).
The man can commit murder “free” (not for absolute need of Defense) against members of the same family. And, as a result of “cultural programming, more human implement various forms of” gratuitous violence “against other humans of another ethnicity only because in his culture, based on distant experience, individuals belonging to that ethnic group are registered in his mind as a threat (in the movie Easy Rider you see this type of reaction against” hippies ” , according to the culture prevalent in some areas of the USA, would threaten social security-Hitler and Stalin have eliminated tens of millions of people because they belong to the communities that, in terms of their culture, represented a threat to their social system).
Cultural programming can then go against the principles of human existence. Many anthropologists argue that this is why today the human being “civilized”, has lost much of its “intelligence” (i.e. its primary intelligence) because, unlike the animal that is able, as regards food and life-style, to choose what is good and discard what hurts, man today seems almost to create conditions for the extinction of his species.
In other words the peculiarity of man to be guided by the “culture” of its social communities can be an advantage, but also a serious problem for humanity (is the old question of “free will”: the man has a “special gift” which, if used in the wrong way, can become a conviction). In our society, in fact, this “gift” is used in a way that, beyond the apparent immediate benefits, seems to cause severe collateral damage to humanity.
the condition of insecurity as a pre-condition for the manipulation of consciences uprooted man resumes after brief on cultural programming
As was mentioned, there are some psychological preconditions that facilitate the use of occult strategies. Here we see some of these conditions.
It has been said that a condition of “existential insecurity” makes man more manipulable.
Modern society produces, paradoxically,
These conditions of insecurity:
the man who lives in a modern urban reality, uprooted from his homeland, his “tribe” (his “extended family”), by the values which for centuries supported morally, and a culture of survival in the past allowed him to be self-sufficient, today leads an existence essentially dominated on insecurity (the life of modern man is, in a sense, determined by fear).
The problem lies in the fact that modern man fail safety factors that its forms of intelligence (biological and cultural) are used to search the surroundings (the perception of the absence of these factors puts him in a stressful condition insecurity, similar to the condition of a used car to drive with the seat belts, that we should put on a car trip without such a device).
This condition of existential insecurity is defined since the 19th century as “eradication”; and it happens on several levels [the topic is delved into other documents]. The forms of uprooting most significant are:
uprooting the traditions, linked to a move away from homelands and physical relationships with extended family members (and of the community: village – uprooting is also related to the abandonment of a life lived in direct contact with the mechanisms of nature).
the uprooting “morality” that takes place at the cultural level; in Western culture it determines, for example, in an increasing detachment from the “Christian roots” (the question is not the abandonment of religious dogma, but the loss of a “constitutional” assimilated people of Western populations over the past two thousand years); a posting by roots based on the structure of interpersonal relationships based on how compassion as sharing built on an affective level (the same quality of relationships that are presumed to live man in antiquity) [see document “***” for more information]) =
This form of uprooting causes in humans today a form of “cultural alienation”: these roots today are replaced with other cultural forms such as, earlier, of the Old Testament (set to a sense of “justice” in that application of “male” authority, revenge); or cultural forms of subsequent “reforms” of Catholicism, including Christian Protestantism (which was essential for the development of the current mindset of society-Market, since eliminated some moral constraints to wealth and “conspicuous consumption”, and introduced the “work ethic”; and has inspired new ethical ideologies “Protestants” as the lay Marxism, which, since ‘ 68, has pervaded our society). Finally, the original cultural Habitus of Europeans is replaced by that of Islam, which, in this context, can be interpreted as “Reformation” of Christianity, which brings back the religious ideology moral positions of the Old Testament: reintroduction of sense of authority instead of compassion, and the “fear of God” as a form of saving feeling.
The “cultural uprooting” (or-the term moral morality simply means “customs”) involves an ever greater loss of identity in people, and becomes an important contributing cause of existential anxieties that determine the manipulability of the consciences of people (canceling the identity of individuals is in fact one of the first strategies applied by totalitarian regimes to the individual: with that process becomes man from individual to the mass element).
Please note that this uprooting from his roots is to man a serious problem on the psychological level: not to recognise its origins, as is particularly evident in the case of a rejection of their parents ‘ mentality, means for the human being does not recognize a part of himself, and then grow up without an identity.
Because of our biological heritage (registered in our DNA) we are largely what are our parents; and this is also true for the imprinting received in the early years of life, a kind of psychic DNA, which, for better or worse, defines the Foundation of our character, our personality, our deepest “character” (which is what runs, from deeper levels of consciousness, our existence).
This uprooting from their places of origin, from the traditional community and the original culture has produced in the human sense of existential insecurity that accompanies him throughout his life. Here are some thoughts about it (parts are extracted from the text “reflections on Western civilization.”)
the “eradication” of man
We summarize here some significant points that have characterised this process of alienation of man.
Today the modern man (although, in some aspects of its progress, achieved excellent results) is a rooted man, he has lost touch with its origins (biological and cultural): because of this it is no longer self-sufficient (which was guaranteed by the lost synergistic relationship with nature), and feel the need to be directed from the outside.
In other words, modern man has lost the past: it is a “mental”, for which there is no longer a real memory of the past of mankind (esssovive out). The umo is modern, built to please his Ego (his aspirations, his grudges) history; but also a science, medicine and a philosophy based on new truths “intellectuals” who no longer reflect reality. As we shall see, today the modern man lives literally in a world of illusion
It basically lives in captivity: the man, pursuing the ideals of the Enlightenment, is finally able to build the new man, who, however, forcing himself to live according to the laws of the market, innovation and scientific “moral correctness” ideological, condemned to live more and more in captivity. And, like all living species in captivity, modern man is an animal that is out to its ecological niche. In a sense, having wanted to emancipate from dependence on nature, man has denied himself.
In its present condition of alienation, it ends up being haunted by those same principles which set the new Society: materialism (i.e. the need to provide for each event a rational explanation); the idea of “development” as a necessity of continuous growth (in terms of births, billed, GDP, etc …) and competition at any price (today in every aspect of life we are all forced to “sell” ourselves, even in affective relationships).
The existence of modern man is emptied of values and Emotions: this is because it has renounced traditions and values of the community and his family (his affective and educational roots, almost permanently abandoned the “cultural revolution” of the ‘ 68). And because it has renounced its “spiritual” native Culture (but today remains the desire of “transcendence”, which is satisfied by modern social Ideologies).
Our age is characterized by the sense of insecurity, in specific areas of:
• safety with regard to the environment: leaving behind the society based on synergies with nature man thought he had overcome worries due to the vagaries of the weather, but today, paradoxically, climatic phenomena such as hurricanes, droughts and the melting of permanent ice seriously threaten our way of life.
• security of livelihood: jobs today, largely of families has returned the spectre of poverty; not even the confidence to get or maintain a job; and the social security system is no longer able to make the Board.
• social security as physical security: our social system can no longer handle the urban crime (in Italy the 95% of thefts can’t be punished by a judiciary over-stretched, and who committed a crime remains at large). Physical security is threatened daily while traveling by car in the chaotic traffic of our roads (not to mention those who travel by bike).
• health and safety: the health system is, for amount of victims, the latter responsible for the deaths in our society. And the investigations conducted by insurance companies tell us that the majority of citizens still has the perception of having to terminate its existence among the suffering a serious illness; the loss of spirituality has produced a human race in fear of death.
• safety in regard to peace: the international situation is getting worse, we live in a highly conflictual world, characterized by a high number of violent clashes and religious ideological inside individual countries and internationally; the spectrum of threat of war has only changed in appearance, and the new look is more disturbing than ever: today there are more traditional clashes “between the armies” scheduled “regular”, but there is a “widespread” war, outside any rule, led by enemies with weapons of mass destruction that can be transported in a shopping bag.
Add the fact that the human being knows that reached the age of retirement will become a burden to society, unlike in pre-modern communities it was always with the “wisdom” represented by its long life experiences, of great utility.
And in these existential insecurity modern man is made, in fact, manipulated through new strategies of “persuasion” that rely on underground human fears.
the incompleteness of the modern individual
From a psychological point of view, modern man is manipulated as an individual is incomplete: his incompleteness (characterized by lack of faculty and feelings from the male, and, therefore, a real “awareness”) puts him in the position of being unable to face life without outside help.
This incompleteness also generates new needs that the individual himself is unable to provide: it’s an addiction so much material type (for example, man is no longer able to obtain directly the food); because of psychological type (new forms of psychosis that significantly affect his life). This increases its dependence on institutions.
This incompleteness “psychological” of civilized man is produced fundamentally by its eradication from places and cultures, even by its inability, within the modern education system, to transfer to the children a “empathetic” education (transfer affection, psychologically and physiologically positive habits, etc.).
the role of modern science
in creating a man manipulated because science has failed to remedy this problem?
The fact is that science is not Institutional much motivated to do so. Indeed, as has been said, the theories of consciousness manipulation of people were introduced to the West by scientists who are at the service of the institutions.
Let’s see why.
This incompleteness of the human being, from the point of view of modern institutions, is not a “defect”:
the incompleteness of the human being “civilized”
is a functional feature modern lifestyle system
Since, making people vulnerable from the standpoint of cultural and emotional, it becomes easier to “manageable” (this applies to the individual in his various roles as consumer, citizen, student, child, partner, etc.).
the issue of “shortage” as a vital factor of the market
We see one of the cases where the incompleteness is a vital factor in our system.
Modern society depends entirely on the market, which can prosper only if it can sell its products. If the market does not sell, the entire society does not work.
And the basic rule of business is that “you can only sell what is not available in abundance in nature”. That is, using the language of modern economists, you can sell only what there is scarcity.
Then the lack of something is a great opportunity for the market (in fact, according to our company from the market, the condition of scarcity, paradoxically, is a necessity for the survival of our system).
Modern man, incomplete, lacks of a series of “existential” capability that the market now is able to cover with its “products”. In other words, the current psychological condition of the human being, the meaning of “existential vacuum”, a “human induces strong desire” that leads him to a “consumerist attitude” (forms of satisfaction research as “compensation” of psychological inability to meet needs/wants more “natural”).
The functioning of our society in the last half-century can be summed up thus: this typical incomplete individual need today is satisfied the
by market l (this will get most of the “conspicuous consumption” that keeps our system today) and
by social ideologies (which are able to channel these people towards forms of fulfillment of “compensation”: social passions and hopes for a better future).
(A thought: the ideological thinking, hegemonic, is itself an “incomplete thought”, produced by incomplete individuals that, to feel “normal”, feel the need to extend to the world their vision of things-we know that who is believed to be Napoleon, for not feeling crazy, needs that others think that his concerns for the battle of Waterloo that he still faces , are more than justified. So ideological leaders today I extend to the whole world their negative view: and lead emergency, the masses to act in the direction of their beliefs) [these topics are developed in the “necklace” “paths”]).
The incompleteness of the individual condition is therefore the “modern way of life”.
Our company, in order to survive, are forced to breed individuals incomplete, teaching them, for example, the “fear of God” (ad, for example, in the “danger Ideologies of fascism”-and in new forms of current positivist science nihilism, Entropic vision of the universe and existence), and then to “addiction”
Then, as our “civilized” society must be able to manage the people, now unable to manage themselves; and since in order to manage these humans must be “incomplete”, today our social system must create incomplete individuals.
For this reason all modern education is so basically, an education that produces fear.
The company is perpetuated by transmitting its values from generation to generation. An incomplete incomplete individuals breed civilization.
This is possible thanks to the peculiar human hereditary (as has been said, for our species, the transmission of hereditary biological heritage, joins the “cultural inheritance”). That is, transferring from generation to generation of a culture that is gradually evolved.
To understand how this mode of “imprinting” the psyche of the human need to understand how the cultural programming of the mind, as normally believed, “mental” level (i.e. level of rational intelligence, on the level of verbal language). “Mental programming” takes place mostly on an emotional level: the process of transferring culture from generation to generation i.e. works as a kind of emotional programming (although it involves, mentally, using a series of concepts formulated in verbal mode, this process takes place almost entirely on an emotional level-in this form of “culture” have turned the recent studies by scientists such as Goleman , author of the book “emotional intelligence”, and a researcher in one of the most active international scientific community between those who are concerned with the study of the human mind).
In summary, in this process the company transmits its dominant ideas in the form of emotions (although the educational process seemingly based on a transfer of information on verbal plan implemented, actually it is based on the symbolic meaning of the words that are used, namely on “emotional memories” linked to them).
This way you can implement a mental emotional programming made up of “constraints” in negative emotional feelings related to fear and shame; and other positive influences related to the perception of emotions that produce sense of security (it is a mechanism for creating Pavlovian conditioned reflexes, which will direct the individual’s consciousness into adulthood).
These feelings are “imprinted” in the individual in childhood: as a result the human being, in the event that you apply a conditioning “negative” type, growing an adult becomes plagued by fears of Earth, on which you can leverage to guide his opinions and his attitudes (those fears are induced in the individual “for good”: you think a “God-fearing man” may take more easily correct moral attitudes).
In our civilization is induced in a child suffering continues in the first moments of life, through modern practices of nursing, and then through the early childhood education: when it is removed to the mother soon after birth, let it cry baby cot (while in other civilizations, account shall be taken of the fact that in the first days of life is determined by your baby physical contact with the mother); with messages that are passed through watching television for most of the day; etc. …
A significant example of emotional conditioning “negative” is the application of a rational philosophy of education of the child, which obliges the newborn to eat at regular times (and predetermined quantities of food): This causes the adult individual, having learned that their needs cannot be met by the environment that surrounds him when they occur talk not ever outside of direct requests for customer satisfaction (it remains in a State of perpetual “need”).
In other words this imprint produces in adult, in fact, hope that someone eventually will finally be able to meet the needs (and this is one of the influences that make it manipulated, because in these conditions it “employee” from each other: both in terms of its social; both in terms of its needs relative to worldly pleasures , that are satisfied by the market, which directs it to “artificial” consumption of satisfaction).
As mentioned above, the condition of scarcity, psychologically, is determined in a sense of “existential dissatisfaction”.
What makes the modern individual to manipulate is the fact that with the imprinting received through education it, “incomplete”, will have as an adult a request for satisfaction of needs that will never be answered. Hence the existence in the modern individual of a need that can never be satisfied, because it is a “symbolic” produced by the trauma of not having received satisfaction in the age in which the individual would have to, biological, be satisfied by adults (basically this is the need to receive something from their parents, that since the individual becomes an adult, can no longer “biologically” be satisfied-the person , plagued by this sense of need, for example, will require the spouse to be satisfied by a quality of love that only a parent could give him).
(note that the only way to stop this “infinite request” would be to “develop” these needs through a process of psychological therapy: current “official” psychotherapies are, unlike those used by alternative Medicine, in the same direction of education offered by the “system”, trying to bring greater serenity in the existence of the patient through compensation strategies of its real needs).
As Piscobiologia says, becoming bearer of a question that can’t be answered (the “infinite demand” by J.C. Badard), the individual becomes hopelessly unsatisfied. This makes it possible to move permanently, (so that the medicines they take a psychosomatic vision of the human being have identified mutual manipulation of individuals, took over instead of managing relationships so affectionate, the origin of many of the current physical illnesses).
This feature of the modern individual education is also the basis of the spread of antagonistic Ideologies: the sense of not having something in an age in which you would have had the right to be biologically satisfied, makes, among other things, the individual eager to see fixed this wrong; the individual grows so a request with “infinite” to satisfy its “rights”. Acting on this kind of dissatisfaction you can direct the individual, as it does in the context of “social” antagonistic Ideologies, to an emotional condition characterized by an intense thirst for justice “(the latter in the Biblical sense of revenge).
the educational process of the child in the “civilized” Society
How do you program the conscience of the individual so that his life is conditioned by negative emotional feelings?
This goal is accomplished through the educational process of the typical child of our era.
The “negative influences” of Institutional Cultures is very sophisticated and subtle mode (mode which, as we shall see, have been developed over the centuries by various forms of totalitarian State and from “seven”).
FVI are, in fact, two different “philosophies” of children’s education: a “positive education”, which is aimed to “raise” the spontaneity of the individual (to focus on the positive qualities of existence); and a “negative education”, which is instead aimed at “keeping out of trouble” the future adult inducendogli the fear of the “problems” that human life may present to the individual.
The forms of conditioning “negative” have always existed both institutional level (State, Religions with a strong ideological component-see principles of “an eye for an eye” or “fear” as a way of relating to God), both at the household level (see statements “If you make the bad is the black dwarf and takes you away”). Just as in antiquity in education while still being used some “negative” influences remained dominant yet basically positive “ideas” of human existence (and the existence of a transcendent level “of life: it is, for example, of the idea of the guardian angel), today, with an evolution (Revolution) that tends to cultural determinism increasingly radical, and so in a certain way the” materialistic “pessimism, things have flipped.
[see a deepening of the “materialist pessimism” on which our culture is based on the document “***”: modern man came to develop a negative thought “absolute”: not only sees the individual as “wrong” branch that you cannot “heal”, and the cosmos for entropic death for depletion of energy; but even think that any less negative thinking is a mental illness be eradicated from the minds of man].
Today on “ask and you shall receive”, previously perceived as a fundamental law of existence, is “removed” from the consciousness of people thanks to the revolutionary “scientific theories” of nursing which instruct parents to let the baby cry baby cot so that it does not grow “spoiled”.
(parents, devoid of perception of biological principles of existence, must resort to “experts” to carry out even their most essential biological activities, how to convey your feelings to a son: as if they existed to replace the techniques for communicating spontaneity on affective plan! And, indeed, in these courses is taught them that the child should be left to cry baby cot: in this reversal of traditional values the need to feed, emotional level, through relationships with others, becomes a Vice).
In this way the child lose sight of one of the principles that guided the lives of men in ancient times (the “ask and you shall receive”), and no longer able to meet his basic needs for affection, becomes hopelessly unsatisfied.
When the child is older then should “resign” to perceive the presence of the mother for long hours, when it is parked in the nursery (a practice that was founded only in the middle of the last century, because of supervening mother needs work). It will develop and then the feeling of loneliness that no longer met for the rest of his life (for a baby an hour of suffering is eternal).
The problem is compounded by the fact that the new rational education, which aims to produce a “rational man” better than “natural”, produces an imprint in the mind of the individual, which means that it will get deeply that many of the joys that life might hold are illusions (such as the perception of positive spiritual “level would be negative because produced by” irrational minds “) and therefore must be removed from the minds of individuals (you have a reversal of cultural values in which the background principles of existence become immoral-become “the opium of the people”-and attitudes linked to it are then “cured” with “cures” re-education, psychological and psychiatric drugs; which today are already extensively used to “heal” children from “irrational” attitudes that were once considered simply a sign of strong vitality).
The fear today in children is also induced by the media: incomplete parents are not able to do is keep the child in front of the television. And television programs for children, to get more plays, involve children with fear.
The negative conditioning through the comics has moved the U.S. Parliament to enact the “comics code” in ‘ 54, monsters and horrors from comic books. But today even the Walt Disney adopted a line that does not comply with the conditions imposed by that law.
The problem is that it is a vicious circle: the market to survive, cannot help but offer products that leverage on fear (this applies to the audience of children but also for adults who grew up in the new cultural dimension).
Today kids can watch a movie are already conditioned by fear, and then the terrifying movies are just what they want to see (this is the so-called “repetition compulsion”, which is evident when children tells a story that “scary”, and they want to hear repeat indefinitely). And then the media system, to survive, must, in some sense, continue to produce that kind of film (at least in this case, that finding cannot be taken as a plausible justification from the market, because the maturity of children’s consciousness in preferences cannot be considered to be that of an adult).
Significant that in the 2003 movie the most successful children’s movie was advertised by a poster that showed a close-up of a shark terrifying gaze.
After the infant stage, while he tended mostly to ensure that the adolescende “learn to learn”, today the educational path “standard” Western cultural system leads the individual to take on the habit to rely on “authoritative figures” from its ability to understand how the world works (characters embodied by the professors, then when it becomes an adult, by “experts”). This helps create an individual dependent on experts and institutions.
Through educational processes defined by the prevailing culture in our social system, are instilled in individual bases of those “existential beliefs” (remember that it is feelings, emotional memories and concepts not “mental”) that allow the application, on an adult, the techniques of “coercive persuasion” widespread in our society.
“Civilized society” people grow so with convictions (and feelings) against adverse life: will be intimately convinced of the fact that life is a substantially negative something, and that only with his intelligence, mental and then through its “selfishness”, you can survive.
In this new condition in society are then developed ones that were once considered “negative virtues”: i.e. will have adults convinced that tends to overpower them, and therefore should be smart enough not to succumb in their relationships with other human beings; and will also be convinced that if they need something none of them “will give anything” (no “open a door” to them), and then to be cynical enough to grab what they need, trying not to be discovered; and think that if they don’t go out at night with another man’s wife, for statistical reasons, they have no chance to find a partner; and have the perception that it is better not to reveal themselves to others, as it may not be accepted in society.
The human being who has received an education “civilized” is, in fact, to be in a condition that makes their conscience dissatisfied and manipulated.
adult addiction guaranteed by inhibiting its ability to learn
In the individual adult fear is then cultivated by inducing the idea that existence is constantly threatened by evil (from a moral or religious foe). In this way, institutions and ideological movements can then, as will be seen later, proposing a “salvific” recipe with which he promises the Elimination of this impending danger (today the institutions, the family, the State, the Church always pose as an instrument of salvation in this respect).
Notice how these principles are also set up institutions citizen re-education used for adults who have exited the “straight path” (drug recovery, psychological therapies offered by the public health system), in which it is transmitted the idea that such institutions are the way to liberate people from the evil that lurks in their minds (remember that the shapes of ancient Psychology and newer ones used in “alternative medicines” follow a sign approach opposite-the current approach is instead shared by all forms of institutional therapy, from Freudian psychoanalysis to NLP. A particularly significant: as much as the specific methods for adopted by these institutions are not too dissimilar to those used in “re-education camps” of the totalitarian regimes of the ‘ 900 organized by individuals who had not left voluntarily by shaping doctrine of regime).
The condition of “psychological weakness” of the individual institutional education induced is then grown, when it becomes an adult, through institutions such as the nuclear family (family type composed of 2 parents and children is a relatively modern invention, and brings a completely different principles and values than those transmitted by the extended family of rural society), or through institutions responsible for physical and mental health of man , which help to numb the sensibilities of man, physically and mentally with sedatives; or through television, etc.
With these therapies the person is kept in a condition of unconsciousness, and then ‘ addiction ‘ and easy “manageability” (ironically, “pathological symptoms” that intervenes with these cures do not represent any of the diseases, but simply a wake up sensitive faculties of the individual).
One of the features that make it impervious, not reformed from within, the modern education system is that it makes individuals incapable of learning. Our education system is based on fear, and fear leads the human being to “quit”: to learn you must open (this closure is linked to “removed”). Basically fear blocks learning, and then the evolution (both individually and socially); fear makes individuals dependent on something to give them, from the outside, a “sense of security” that they cannot find in them. This closure of people makes their psychological programming “reinforced”.
We will see later how this type of individuals handling signs of wear that sooner or later brings the civilized social system to a State of crisis. In fact the incompleteness of the individual produced and maintained by modern cultural system, if at first turns out to be an advantage for the system, at some point becomes critical to the evolution of society. This is due to the fact that a society composed of individuals who are in this state of existential insecurity, in order to operate require techniques of manipulation of consciences stronger (the institutions are not able to “offset” at a sufficient level this existential insecurity, and develops in people a sense of anguish it brings, for example such fundamental mechanisms such as jam).
Notice the absurd inconsistency of many aspects of Western civilization, which lives in a in a sort of “conflict of interest” that causes the conditions according to its own principles it should remove from society, are exactly the conditions which guarantee their survival [in the document “***” it highlights, among other things,
-as we are a company that adopted a rational mentality that tends to “split” (and is therefore inherently conflict flow); and how this makes it very difficult to reform the modern society
-as our company produce contradictions between which there is the “paradox of the affluent society”: to operate the market, from which it depends entirely on, it is forced to generate dissatisfaction (shortage)
-and like it, instead of promoting a process of evolution of consciousness of people (that allows citizens to be self-sufficient, and, for example, weigh less on State coffers), adopt strategies that maintain a low level of awareness of the individual (an example: it is easier to solve the problem of dependence on chemical drugs than from television)].
As we will see culture induced by our system of individual institutions is basically the same “culture of fear” is used here in a more “soft”, which featured the dictatorships of the twentieth century: a culture that produces a humus of negative emotions (instilled in individual through a sophisticated psychological programming “) on which the institutions can then leverage to obtain the consent of the people (of course this is a process carried out by the institutions “for good”: there is rarely in people who run institutions, an awareness of the mechanism that they apply and propagate). [we’ll see how the studies that led these strategies in the Western democratic system have developed over the years ‘ 50; and how they were conducted, among others, by Ron Hubbard, which then, by applying these strategies of manipulation of consciences, he founded Scientology]
The modern thought, has undoubtedly achieved high levels of knowledge, that have allowed man to achieve considerable progress in many areas of knowledge and scientific applications. But now the modern man, having to lead a society in which, to survive, must maintain “artificial” consensus of the masses, had to take a road in which it has gradually transformed the Western thought in a way of thinking that, according to the canons of psychoanalysis, might be called a form of pathological thinking.
This feature of our civilization is a critical factor of great importance, since it may lead to the decline of our society [the argument is developed in other documents, such as “reflections on Western civilization”, “***”].
the sense of insecurity
as a strategic factor of “civilized” System
Because the Western system cannot do without this conditioning of the masses? How is justified using this process?
Regarding the process of induction in the individual to a psychological condition that makes it “manageable” institutions, this is justified by the fact that giving Western culture for granted the fact that the individual left free to follow their instincts would produce damage to themselves and to society, give up these “management strategies of consciences” would create social chaos and suffering for everyone.
We must take account of the fact that in the absence of this condition of “governability” provided by “management strategies” our system masses, as it is structured today, would actually to collapse, causing huge material and psychological problems for citizens.
In a sense, today our social system appears to be forced, “for the good of all”, to act in this way: “Managing” the consciences of citizens
It seems that, paradoxically, our institutions are forced to induce in people a sense of insecurity, in order to maintain within the system, a social order that can guarantee a sufficient level of existential security (of course it also appears that, continuing on this road, most likely you will come to a critical point where the “perversion” of this process will lead to a collapse of the entire system thus artificially built-in “reflections on Western civilization” you search to understand if you have not already come to that point).
One of the problems that aggravate the present situation is that today so reasoning institutional, as “opposition” (which should instead, in dialectical process vital to Western society, follow a way antithetical to the institutional), have an interest in spreading this ideological sense of insecurity.
As mentioned above, you should consider how institutional powers ‘ concern in this case is founded: actually, if you were to suddenly give up this way of managing citizens ‘ consciences, the system would end up into chaos: people, deprived of this conditioning, would no longer be able to cover with the “moral force” social roles of primary importance within the system (there would be no more : the teacher must help to propagate axiomatic ideas without real foundation. the physician must apply treatments that are no longer able to heal people; the Court, which interprets the law in a personal way, a sentence just because this person is “objectively” dangerous for the system; the presenter who feels justified, for the sake of ethics professed by its ideology, to produce tendentious arguments to discredit a public figure, etc.).
In the absence of such a monitoring system would be less consciousness existing incentives to “consume” products listed do not have a real need (or people would look more television programmes of their own stupid and boring defined, etc..), so the market would go into a serious crisis, and with it the entire social system. Citizens also will stop vote in politicians who did not, to put it mildly, no confidence (as they do today, “nose over”).
We see better today because the institutions have interest in pursuing a road of “consensus” manipulation of the masses (both in the case of official institutions, and ideologies that would “revolutionize” the system).
As has been said, from an institutional point of view, a mass society like ours needs a uniform mass in which individuals are perfectly integrated.
Let us not forget that the Western system shares the ideology to it most successful antagonist, communism, the conception of the mass of workers as “ox” (the idea that part of the theory of Taylor and Ford, and was officially adopted by Stalin). This is the idea that the worker may not be able to reason: not only that, but any thoughts produced during work can distract, and thus his “social efficiency” (the human being must be functional to the rational system for this to survive: an individual whose mind is not perfectly aligned with the standard way of thinking of a system is a serious setback for a rational Society).
In addition to the need for a “uniform system” regarding thoughts, values and aspirations, our institutions, in order to work, they need to obtain consent.
By definition the conception, democratic institutions have need of a consensus from the bottom (this is true of at least the façade level); the consent of the people is necessary, in particular, for the establishment of our system: the market (to buy a product, in the West, is a “democratic” in which the individual to consent to a specific product).
And in order to obtain this consent is necessary, of course, operate over consciences.
In our system, consent is obtained through “political communication” and advertising (but the new mindset of Homo economicus created by modern communications, now pervades every aspect of his existence, so every interpersonal relationship has become a matter of “prudent” management of consent of the other, and so, in a sense, handling).
How it works, in particular, the management mechanism of consciousness?
People are more easily manageable “when their minds are brought to operate at a level” not rational “(in the language of psychology, is a high level of” removed “, in which” rationality “is blurred by emotion).
This is a level of consciousness in which people feel to be conscious, but where it actually lives in a State of profound unconsciousness: in this condition, the individual works on an emotional level, and his rational side, “reasonable”, is almost totally blocked.
Due to inherent limitations of the human mind can have no awareness of this condition. The fact is that the man as the eye cannot see itself as she looks, is not able to think his thinking (cannot “see” each other and thinks). In other words the man, through his mind, cannot realize its mental conditions (for this reason even the most good psychoanalyst, whether it has any psychological problems, it doesn’t try to solve it by itself but turns to a colleague).
This is a self-referential system in which man is deceived by his own mind: is a condition in which you end up thinking, like Baron Munchausen, to save from drowning, clinging to the hair. It is the typical condition of drunk who thinks he is much more sober than it actually is (also keep in mind that who is believed to be Napoleon thinks he “really” be, and believes that others, when they don’t understand his speeches, to be crazy).
This condition of “rational” mind block is defined by the Treccani Encyclopedia as a sort of Hypnosis condition in which there are “changes in consciousness similar to those of sleep [the term hypnosis comes from the Greek word that means sleep] and with a prevalence of representative-emotional functions on critical-intellectual ones”; the encyclopedia also tells us that “there are hypnosis States that the subject, in terms of waking consciousness, unable to escape the prevailing idea domain”.
The psychological condition of the person subjected to a control strategy of consciousness is just a sort of “sleep” of consciousness.
We will see later how modern communication techniques derived from techniques for brainwashing devised by the secret services of the Communist bloc, and during the cold war and the West study (this is described in detail in the book by v. Packard “the Hidden persuaders”). And as these studies is the persuasion used in political communication and market.
Originally these techniques were designed precisely to bring, and to maintain individuals in a hypnotic state in which they were called “sleeping in”. In such conditions they, while appearing perfectly aware, were at the mercy of their “programmers” who was able, by relying on some psychological mechanisms induced in their consciousness at the time of programming, direct the mind from outside to do their “dirty work” (the mechanism is described, for example, in the film Machurian Candidate).
In the previous chapters, it is mentioned that there are psychological preconditions which make man manipulated (the human condition rooted, incomplete).
Let’s see now, a little more specifically, like, psychologically, the manipulation of consciences based on an underground, nearly undetectable, sense of insecurity of persons (which only becomes more acute forms a more pronounced fear).
The sense of insecurity as a sense of lack of something insecurity
It has been said that our society (the market, from which our existence depends), to survive, are forced to produce masses management strategies that induce a sense of insecurity in individuals. And how paradoxically this negative emotion is developed in a civilisation that, radically changing the way of life of man, was responsible for the goal of achieving a greater sense of safety.
It is also said that the sense of insecurity is a key lever of consciousness management because it is a sense of “something”: it is an emotional condition in which man is strongly urged to meet their own needs by relying on external resources.
In summary: the management mechanisms of the masses of the Western social system will work only if it produces a State of anguish extremely strong underground, evoking some terrible feelings of lack experienced by infants (as to not feel satisfied his need to take breast milk). To understand the power of these emotions you need to remember that at that age, in the face of such failures, the child’s biological Intelligence produces a feeling of death. As adults, though there is no longer a clear awareness of the depth of these feelings, just a vague memory of this induces in the person of strong pushes to produce “mental strategies” (thoughts and compensating actions) which distract the mind from such terrible feelings.
This sense of lack cannot be bridged by the individual himself to the fact that it, driven by his psyche “distraction” to hear such negative feelings, “removes” a large part of his perceptive faculties: because of this atrophy of his senses it ends up unable to perceive many positive feelings that could lead you to recognize and cater to her needs (and above all her sense of security).
The fact is that losing a certain degree of perception (of self and the outside world) is also a loss of the sense of things: in this way the existence of modern man loses much of its meaning (this condition allows to ideologies to present themselves as forms of thought can provide a “sense of life”).
In this mental condition individuals become addicted to other people who can offer them some types of “distraction” strategy of their distresses.
As he reveals so funny Jack Nicolson in the film “Something has changed,” the sense of security that comes from these compensating actions typical of modern life is also what keeps us in a cage: prevents us from seeing what really happens in our lives.
It stresses that “compensation strategies” today from our current social System than the satisfaction of profound needs of our being that is producing a form of “dependence” in respect of “external” agents of satisfaction, just like compensation strategies pursued through the use of drugs. The dependence of these strategies comes from the fact that the surrogates used in such forms of compensation they provide only a temporary satisfaction of our deepest needs, and soon a new request for customer satisfaction (i.e. a new expectation to be satisfied by an external intervention).
Compensation strategies and distraction caused by mass producing Institutions i.e., in fact, a true form of “dependence” from “drugs” (in this case it is “psychological” agents that produce reactions in our body equivalent to those produced by drugs); which condition is exploited by the institutions to achieve a consensus of people (in the case of social Ideologies, it is euphoric stress inducing conditions adopted by “shaking” of the masses, which we will see later).
Then the sense of insecurity is functional to the market, namely the Western society: not only it is called for by the institutions, but, since the birth of “persuasion”, it is also produced by the system deliberately.
Please note that on induction in people with this condition lack is based on Marketing since 50 years, it has been found that people who perceive this “lack”, inside a supermarket are reported to carry greater costs much than it would under normal conditions.
As regards the market culture, as has been said, the sense of insecurity is described in the manuals as a sense of scarcity: the “shortage” is a fundamental pre-condition for the market to function, and therefore for our company to survive (it is obvious that in the classic rural conditions a salad crisper today would have little chance of doing business: the food business is thriving because modern cities are plagued by heavy conditions of scarcity of primary commodities)
As analyzed in the document “modernity”, this is one of the paradoxes of our society,
THE “PARADOX OF ABUNDANCE”:
on the one hand there is the intention to create abundance, the modern system can only survive in conditions of scarcity.
A significant example of the use of this sense of lack is the advertising message conveyed by a television advertising of many years ago in which he showed how the classic employee, assailed by this sense of lack (which was defined as “zinzo”), could solve its anxieties eating a snack (the Fiesta by Ferrero).
Let’s see how the process of managing people through fears can develop underground, away from the consciousness of the people.
the biological role of fear
The fact is that the problem of fear cannot be resolved from the mind, since it’s the same mind to produce the fear (the perception of “existential fear” by the civilized human being is a pure invention of the mind: in fact they are not “objective” a situation of fear is evidenced by the fact that some people may experience pleasure in the same situation in which other people “normal” feel fear).
The individual who lives in the existential condition of insecurity characteristic of our civilization is therefore devoid of tools to “exceed” its anxieties, and remains at the mercy of its unsafe condition.
But we must consider that fear itself is not a problem for humans. Indeed, anthropology tells us that fear is the basis of human survival mechanism.
Psychology teaches us that, because of this simplicity of fear in human existence, it should not be at all “deleted”: the fear being produced by our mind for a specific biological reason, it must be used for the function to which it is responsible.
The biological and existential problem of modern man lies not in the presence of fear in the existence of the individual, but in the fact that the mental strategies adopted by civilized man to solve “the problem of fear” away from solving his problems because his mind, overly “rationalized” and therefore inhibited in perceptive faculties, does not allow fear to carry out its task.
The main problem lies in the inability of the individual to perceive “civilised” fear for what it actually is, as the cat, who immediately sets in action (with attack or escape) to the first perception of fear; and never ceases to act until the fear (i.e. hormones emitted from your body in this occasion) is not completely “consumed”.
Modern individuals trapped in fear, precisely because they are not aware of the fear that they try (don’t know treat for what it is). And so the fear, as he reveals the Psychoanalysis, not being recognized by our mind, dominates us (affects our entire life because, paradoxically, we do not allow them to express themselves – in a way that puts us in this fix is the “fear of fear”).
We therefore, as civilized living conditions our “intelligence” filter signals of fear, we warn, instead of feeling organically induced by fear, just a feeling of “indeterminate” stress (stress of modern life “, as a spot of ad 70).
And this stress and distraction strategies offered by our system of life, become our cage, our existential prison: a slavery made “bad habits”, and a “dependence” from “external factors” as regards the satisfaction of our needs/wants.
Psychoanalysis tells us that stress is produced by fear. And that behind every form of fear is the deepest fear of man: the fear of dying (of course, stress can also be produced from the danger he’s another person that we eat).
Keep in mind that the “feeling of death” is the element that has always governed the survival intelligence of each animal: is the spring, working according to the biological system of conservation of the species, should compel us to adopt attitudes necessary for our existence. But today is perceived, and then “used”, in completely new ways.
The power of fear, even if in the form of indeterminate feeling of stress, so it’s always “fear of death”. What does this mean?
It is hinted that any fear that one feels in adulthood (the root cause of our troubles) is actually an echo of fear felt in early childhood. And fears that try in the first weeks of life are always basically related to fear of death (the hungry child who does not feel the mother’s breast a deep terror trial since, lacking the experience to understand what is happening, you feel death; as shown in the document “***”, today the Psicobiolologia tells us that fear that your child in case proof is physically abandoned by its mother is fear , recorded in his ancestral memory, that the child had primitive being eaten alive by a predator).
Basically our every fear adult trafficking is therefore always an echo of that first fear felt in our lives: the fear of dying.
(Although over the years the experience face the child understand that mom will come only a few minutes late, remains the underlying feeling of being abandoned each time it’s lonely to be in potential danger as when there is no single source able to meet our basic needs that , as children, we were able to satisfy ourselves).
In a State of terror so infuriating (which, we repeat, is not perceived in all its gravity because our biological intelligence we “limit” in the perception of strong sensations, which can damage our body) our minds accept any compromise in order to be able to get out of that condition.
Please note that manipulation of consciences by induction of subterranean fears is possible thanks to the fact that, as we know from psychology, our mind does not distinguish fantasy from reality is not able to distinguish signals from external reality actually, from signals produced by a part of our own intelligence. As indicated already ancient Indian Psychology (founded over 4.000 years ago) our body reacts in the same way that, walking in the Woods, we see our path a real snake, whether we see simply a lanyard that moment, you trade for a snake (organic reaction produced by two different objects is exactly the same!).
This means that our biological Intelligence produces an alarm condition even in a situation in which we imagine the existence of a threat; even in these situations, our body varies its operating parameters: producing specific hormones, altering blood pressure and heartbeat, etc.
This is because our mind can also work in “symbolic” mode: react to stimuli that IE “represent” a certain kind of condition when not actually present. Can react so “free”, for example, if you think about the possibility of being abandoned by your spouse, and create a strong stress (even if this possibility is only theoretical) because such thinking is, according to our intelligence, a serious risk to our existence (condition in which emerges the terrible memory sense of abandonment felt in early childhood , which produces a “way to die”): in these situations, there is no awareness of what happens in reality, the individual experiences the threat of the possibility of being deprived of a vital source of satisfaction its primary needs that, as the child is unable to satisfy itself.
These threats are purely “mental” (the obsession just described may not correspond to a real possibility being left by spouse) produce an alarm condition that causes deep alterations in the body (an obsession is similar to that which leads us to think that the plane we’re flying might be about to fall).
The problem for our body, and our existence lies in the fact that fear is in these cases recognized for what it really is. Namely that, intercepted by the mind, fear cannot be used by the body to solve the problem that created it (not just it is not used in a useful way, but not being “resolved” it remains, and with it the physical condition of alarm, which subjects the individual to a stress that can lead to his mental and physical meltdown – an example of constructive reaction to the fear of being abandoned by spouse : for those who have the ability to perceive this fear in a meaningful way, it would probably be a direct one’s life towards creating a wider affective environment that may reduce the existential “dependence” from the presence of spouse).
∙fear as a factor of submission
In the maddening conditions so intense stress, and that is the point, the mind becomes “more malleable” and “open” to compromise, concessions (the typical case of totalitarianism that offer “a greater sense of security in Exchange for a waiver of part of their freedom”).
This is the condition in which a character or an authoritative institution can come forward suggesting a saving recipe (as has been said, at this point the individual doesn’t matter anymore if anyone offers to alleviate suffering is also, in some way, responsible for this problem: we also willingly submits to your torturer-our bodies don’t care about moral issues or principle : it is set to survive in the biological sense, and then to soften any way physical tension too strong).
The process of manipulation of consciences through the use of fear to a level takes place away from the individual’s awareness to the fact that this process develops through the mechanism of “removed”: namely through that action with which our body numbs a part of himself to a State of “shock” no adverse physiological damage (remember once again that it is always , underneath, the terrible fear of death felt in childhood, which produces the strong variation of our organism).
As demonstrated by the Psychobiology investigating brain functioning, with this process of removing the body, first island, a part of the brain that contains the memory of a shocking sensation. And from then on the individual totally lose the awareness of that memory (to the point that it will deny having had in his life, that particular problem). The fact is that that area of the brain “anaesthetised” in this process is connected to specific functions of the body (which shall regulate the functioning of organs, the secretion of hormones, etc.) that are so inhibited.
It is this removal of some faculties that make man a slave of his “removed”: individuals unknowingly become a slave for the rest of his life, the contents of that part of the brain, as the synapses (the memories) that contain those memories will continue, without his knowledge, to manage his body, and thus its existence (an example of unconscious conditioning linked to childhood trauma : the person who has been refused by a parent, despite not being clearly aware of what, not only will feel always rejected by others, but will do, unconsciously, everything to be rejected by the people to which it binds emotionally).
The individual victim of those removed (it’s almost all individuals “civilized”) is an individual manipulated: the secret services of the countries involved in the cold war had found that, by understanding what are the mechanisms of removed present in a person’s mind, you can act on them as if you had a remote control, determine that person’s attitudes (in fact, modern science has also discovered as you’ll see later, how to introduce these mechanisms in the minds of individuals).
Western man’s mind operates on a level that, in a sense, is determined by a removed condition. In this condition the people end up resorting very frequently, even so “innocent”, “management strategies” of the mind with those individuals with whom they are related (the current Psychology tells us that most of our emotional relationships are actually characterized by the intent to manipulate the other).
The mechanisms are removed then the handling strategies of consciences. Today the institutions are able to use the mechanisms typical of civilized man removed to influence the way you see things, and to direct behaviors (in a State of “civilized” life there is always a form of “removed” on which children engage-and the “models” of typical Companies removed are easily identifiable: modern science could then develop some standard types of mind manipulation , and use them in advertising and psycho-politics).
Today the institutions (public and private) are still able to induce and to “cultivate” forms of fear “secondary” (which, for example, recall the individual fear of being abandoned by his parents) to direct their reaction to such emotions towards a specific goal (as stated, due to the mechanism of repetition compulsion, much as adults children victims of some removed are attracted for example, forms of entertainment that they relive their emotions from what are scared-50 years in supermarkets, psychological strategies are applied which produce insecurity among customers that they, to satisfy this condition frustrating emotional are drawn to make large purchases).
The most advanced strategies for manipulation of consciences are those adopted by the ideological movements antagonists, which are able to channel a particularly effective these fears produced originally by a problem of relationship with parents.
These strategies are based on the fact that, from the point of view of the child, the children’s psychological traumas have always lived as “injustices” (the child has instinctively sense that you have the right to be satisfied in its biological needs), to which the adult can be easily convinced to be a “victim” (basically the adult is convinced he was the victim of an institution in which it can detect , on a symbolic level, “parents”). In this way the resentment can be channeled toward the enemy created ad hoc (of this idea are based post-Marxist theories on authority, specially developed by Marcuse, which are at the base of the rebellion to parents and social institutions carried out by the student movement in ‘ 68)
Keep in mind that in psychology therapy the patient can eliminate its existential fears only when it fails to understand that he had not suffered any injustice (to understand that it was an unwitting mistake by a parent who simply thought that behave in a certain way was the best thing to do for the good of the child).
This process of “processing” and healing of negative emotions affecting the life of the individual, goes in the opposite direction to that implemented by manipulative social ideologies: namely, freeing the individual from a psychological condition that because of the trauma was established in childhood, causes and take responsibility for its existential condition, and to work on himself to get out of his condition of suffering (as in the manipulative process the individual is brought to project as a child, the responsibility for its condition of suffering on someone else; and to attempt to “break free” from a condition of social subjugation rather than a condition Interior of “slavery” in respect of products from her psyche influences).
Acting on their “original fears” then people’s minds can then be brought to react automatically, for one purpose, to specific environmental stimuli. This is the mechanism that forms the basis of “consensus strategies” implemented in our society against the masses.
As we shall see, a more sophisticated type of these strategies is the one in which “authoritative sources” (in the eyes of the people is any institution, from State officials, the political party to which it adheres) manage to instill a “hope” of salvation to the citizen who feels powerless in the face of the tragedy of his existential condition.
Today we live then in “artificial society” of the Enlightenment (in society delineated by Bacon and Hobbes). We live in a social condition in which people must be managed “from above”, since they lack the inner guidance (which had a decisive role in the “biological instincts”) which had the men instead of the pre-modern society (small-community-based village where he led a life of “tribes”, with intimate relationships, and close contact with nature).
And, indeed, to be able to handle an “artificial” society like ours, it is necessary that the people who make it up are “manageable”. Hence the manipulated man of modernity: because everything goes with “order” our society needs to have individuals malleable, “suggestible” (which, according to the encyclopedia Treccani: “people too sensitive to suggestions of others”).
We said that the institutions are able to “manage” the thinking and attitudes of people exploiting the fears experienced by them in the years of childhood and later working, unbeknownst to them, in their subconscious. Today Science has done a step further.
As mentioned above, after the second world war, our system has produced a culture very sophisticated and very efficient tools for what concerns the manipulation of the masses (used in “persuasion” of advertising and the psycho-policy adopted in communication and in the ideological propaganda).
These systems, initially developed and used by totalitarian regimes, were later taken to the West (in particular the USA, through the secret service) when, with the onset of the cold war, Western nations have begun to study the methods used by the Communist bloc to obtain “conversions” of ideological political prisoners (Koestler, who had lived these experiences firsthand, he described a case in his novel “darkness at noon”).
What has been discovered is that to achieve the consent of a person
You must manipulate the conscience
instilling in her a mix of negative emotions.
The negative emotion is the same root that produces psychosomatic illnesses: a sense of normality is interrupted.
This is the condition of shock due to the feeling of being faced with an unpredictable situation in which you feel abandoned by all, only “against” the world’s problems, and absolutely helpless.
Today the drugs that operate on the basis of Psychosomatic Medicine (and in particular the new medicine. Hamer), have identified in this psychological condition the cause of most of the diseases afflicting modern man.
The sense of deep anguish produced by this existential condition is what makes man manipulated: the individual, in that State, relies on to anyone who can provide you with some “hope”.
As mentioned the mechanism works even if it is just the executioner to act as Savior (this is the method used by the Church during the Inquisition as institutions of Communist countries)
In both cases it is the offer of salvation “transcendental”, since it was, especially in the most recent case of correctional practices “used in prisons and gulags of Communist regimes, to convert to new ideas people who knew to be sentenced to death.
As we shall see, it is a psychological condition, which has similarities with the Stockholm syndrome, in which the kidnapped girl falls in love with her captor.
This type of manipulation of people is actually known and applied by the man in power of an individual towards other people (keep in mind the methods used in the prisons of the Communist countries were inspired by the “conversion” practiced a few centuries before the courts of the Inquisition).
In our society this strategy of “Managing relationships” with other people, unfortunately, is not limited to the management of institutional power, but is also applied to individuals in each kind of interpersonal relationship (in loving relationships between partners, between parents and children, etc.. -Today, as described in document *** relations prevail affection manipulation).
Ground level, this strategy of manipulating people apply through social ideologies (such as those resulting from social utopias, enlightenment or various forms of socialism).
As already mentioned, the process of ideological manipulation of consciences is based on two steps, which serve to prepare, and then to direct, the consciousness of the people:
■ in the first phase, there is the development of a “critical conscience” into “negative” way: they train minds to highlight the negative aspects of the context in which you live (which is not bad in itself, but it becomes if the critical attitude becomes almost exclusively than “positive”, with whom he would rather than identify the positive aspects of life and developing them).
(this is the thinking defined by Marxist doctrine evolved version in ‘ 68, which derives from the theories expressed by the Frankfurt School, according to which “the company has never right”; and then psychology would only the social purpose of making critical beings citizens can oppose knowingly to established power. In this view, man is no longer a be affective, but an individual “politician.”) [the topic is deepened in the paper “reflections on Western civilization”] The existence in this context is therefore conceived as social life “, which is seen primarily as” a problem “(problem that would be produced by an enemy with a clear identity: the institutions).
■ the second step consists in what is in the Christian religions is the prospect of “the promise” of solution to evil. This is a message defined by religious dogma as “message of hope and comfort” (they say also “saved in hope”): refers to the people living in this “Valley of tears” highlighted the “critical conscience”, the “right” way for their salvation (the idea is that it’s all sunk in bad; and then, removing the bad , we can finally move on to a better life condition).
Regarding the first point, namely the development of a critical consciousness “negative”, this phase is crucial to prepare the ground, in the consciousness of the individual, allowing then to get a membership to a “battle plan” against the common enemy (the devil, a social class or people). This is the first step in the process of handling:
you create a need for “healing” or Salvation
making the unhappy person
(or, at least, it accentuates his State of misery).
In fact, hardly a person’s consciousness in a positive condition, without such a need, it can be manipulated (i.e., difficult to manipulate the consciousness of a person who thinks only to improve its existence without having to fight against someone). For this reason you must instill in people a “negative thinking” (until the obsession).
In this case you are developing a form of “critical thinking” is different from the traditional one, which had the primary function of “criticizing”, erected in moral judge of a situation; but had the purpose to analyze the situation simply in order to understand the mechanisms that determine (in the new shape, critical thinking focuses just on moralism and unfavourable judgements).
To be clear, that of Kant (who is one of the best known critical thinking) was a “criticism of …” and not the current “criticism …”: Kant, like all the other philosophers, with his “critique of …”didn’t want to produce a” condemnation “of a certain situation, but simply wanted to try to understand how things in Western society (in case he wanted to try to understand what the specific situations may not work properly, with the ultimate goal of improving, however, and not deleting them).
The current form of critical thinking is an “opposition” position, which is destructive and not more “constructive”; in the sense that it is no longer contemplated the possibility of transforming the “wrong” places of people, trying to track down in these positive aspects, and to develop them (trying to empower these people towards their attitudes); but you think more simply “delete” problems (eliminating people instead of transforming them, as in the Marxist doctrines): the concept is summarized in the slogan of ‘ 68, which States the problem “comes crashing down and you don’t change” (in the “good” of the face Critical social ideologies adopted in recent decades, the purpose would be to eliminate, through a “psychological”, only the way of thinking of “wrong” people, and not the people themselves).
the Foundation of ideologies as
non-rational State of emotion
This point probably cannot be understood by the mind – while all ideological before it can be included as long as there is minimal knowledge of the psyche.
-in particular is difficult, perhaps, to understand the issue of genenericità Marxist ideologies
The success of the current critical Ideologies (current social Ideologies as forms of “radical Socialism”, or the ideology of “progress” scientific-industrial) is based on two key features:
■ the aforementioned a-criticality of ideological thinking (think “ideological”): in “modern ideologies” explores how this a-criticality of “critical thinking” encourages the expansion of current mass Ideologies: the disabitudine to reflect on the meanings of things (taken from an “emotional” State induced by the current communication strategies) makes the “critical” thoughts and actions of individuals can be directed towards any specific objective without these realize the nonexistence of any problem that is raised to justify the action (usually a moral issue) [the question of absence, ideologies of social derivation Marxist, specific contents, is addressed in the document “the era of post-Communism”].
■ the thesis critical comprehension is another winning feature of ideological thinking. This factor makes this thought form a sort of “empty container” to be filled with content ad hoc, case-by-case: this feature makes it particularly effective critical social ideologies, giving them exceptional flexibility in adapting to any situation of “dialectic” (they define in the conscience of the individual, in fact, a generic critical condition – for example a person today, defined as very rich It may be, must be, to be an enemy than a friend. nationalism is a positive thought for the cause, whether from free thinking).
This is a consequence of the doctrine produced by “psychological” School of Frankfurt (today adopted by universities and by institutional therapeutic psychology), according to which the task of Psychology would be to increase the individual’s conflict against the system: according to current institutional psychology, social psychology, Psychology’s task is therefore non-therapeutic and political in the traditional sense: this form of psychology , produces a critical emotional condition, which allows the individual to “heal” temporarily from its existential anxieties by developing forms of pride and sense of revenge against forms of authority that are in community.
It may seem absurd, but in this form of Psychology it is believed that a condition of normality (being a moral Ideology you speak of “right condition”) is that of resentment against the parent and institutions: people unable to feel a sense of “rebellion” are people from “healing” with the new form of Psychology (this is defined by the official texts of our universities : it is believed that these people who live in peace with the world is suffering from a serious form of illusion, and that their condition is, among other things, harmful to society).
Current mass ideologies are based therefore on propagation (through strategies applied on an emotional level) of a thought that does not relate to specific content (on the concept, for example, that the poor are not responsible for their condition, and therefore should be aided by the social System) but is delineated in a generic fashion as a form of “criticism” a priori against an “enemy”.
Social ideologies like communism are based e.g. on the repeatedly reaffirmed by the leaders of the movements it inspired, on an “anthropological superiority” of members – it does not matter that they behave similar to the behavior of “enemies”: who is offline will always be “breaking down”, while party leaders will always be somehow justified (they are inherently in the right : can be “companions who err”, temporarily – but they are justified by their contribution to the cause).
The absence of specific substantive content ensures that these ideologies will end only, always, to raise some “moral issue” which are never addressed the specific contents (the enemy is invariably a “bourgeois” or “fascist”, without anyone knowing even what is the definition of the term applied).
It is an attitude dictated by emotion, which lead people to focus their attention on the preconceived idea to be on the side of good, and then the need to firmly opposing any form of opposition to the moral line (every ideological opponent becomes “immoral”, extremely dangerous for the community: guilty of being “against” the good of society).
Notice how, in such a condition-critical issues, creating doubt about the underlying fundamentals of ideology:
-such as simply communism has never risen to power by popular revolutions (with public support), but with coups against the revolutionary Government established by the people (in the case of the Soviet Union, for example, the so-called October revolution is actually a coup of the Bolshevik militants who have blown away the people’s Revolutionary Government established with the previous revolution , and closed newspapers, etc.-the same goes for Mao and Castro). And yet in Italy shooting a false Vulgate Soviet historical, and when it comes to revolution is believed to be actually of that October.
-Another great truth made for the masses is what communism (Marxist Leninist and/or) aimed at the dictatorship of the proletariat: Marx always said clearly that the proletariat was a lower Middle Class; but that, to put an end to the conflict, the proletariat class could be the only “tool” that can be used to eliminate other social class (in his vision the proletarians were manipulated because impoverished, while the burghers were glad of their situation and they would never have joined a lawsuit of this kind). The explicit end of communism has always been a dictatorship communist intellectuals on citizens (the Proletariat). Emptying the Communist ideology of this Foundation has made it a demagogic recipe, flexible, adaptable to any cause (the idea is that the radical left is “on the side of the poor, the oppressed”).
The criticality of people involved mass ideologies is thus a basic condition for the survival of such ideologies: this mindset makes sure that individuals who adhere to ideology do not reflect on underlying principles and meaning of specific lines of action taken.
In these forms of thought is to assume that the “fundamental issues” were addressed, with due seriousness at the time of the birth of the movement. But the fact is that, within those ideologies, not just anyone can define what originally proposed explanations, but adherents of such ideologies are not even able to tell which of these were in principle these issues (this condition is easily verifiable trying to ask questions to people who today adhere to long-standing Ideologies underlying principles or about any “apparent” contradictions in the application of these principles through the actual lines of action of the movement-it is significant that a person who votes a party that, albeit indirectly, is based on Marxist ideology, you will not be able to explain what Marx’s theories posed).
We must detect a quality of Catholicism that turns out to be for it, in a world founded on demagoguery, a severe limitation: the dogmas of the religion are very clear. If you ask a practicing Catholic as are the fundamental precepts of his religion, it knows how to respond in a comprehensive manner.
A condition similar to that of leftist social Ideologies, of course, is that people who embrace the ideology of modernity institutional scientist (our culture): none of these people is able to explain what constitutes “progress” on what grounds it is based (the discussion of Darwin who would have you believe, much to the horror of scientists dealing with the matter , which the English scientist has shown that man is descended from the APE, is an example of how to operate this type of manipulative strategy of consciousness [the argument is developed in the paper “reflections on Western civilization”])
Having to do with people unable to exercise their normal thinking faculty provides these ideologies an important political advantage: such ideologies can act as an empty box of specific content, defined only by a “moral” that address, as we will see later, is basically a condition without emotional references to reality (that can then be filled according to the specific needs of the moment). The “generic” address given by emotional and moral consciences in this way allows oriented support (“warrant”) the various lines of action taken with respect to political objectives, producing specific arguments that Orient, from time to time, mass in favor of a “just cause” or against an “enemy”.
Some examples of this “flexibility” of thought: if social ideologies under the centre-right Government was legitimate do satire against majority politicians, with the center-left Government that has become “inappropriate”; the justification provided, Dario Fo a interview on Rai: satire is dangerous (now us) “because it creates disorientation left in our audience, who does not understand (…)”. (of course the concept itself has no meaning, but the fact that a Nobel Prize winner specifies that the satire at that time did not go well, is something that influences, not just rational, people’s beliefs).
Also: If the previous government wiretapping were correct instrument to unmask the villains, with the center-left Government, when an Executive like Fassino is caught red-handed (was informed of the coup on the market prepared by Unipol), they become a disgrace (keyword to delegitimize emotionally-an action or moral thought is “unacceptable” , which finally closes any possibility of dialogue on the subject).
And again: when entrepreneurs-“crafty” (Radzi, Gnutti, Consort) were the main backers of the left, they are remitted to their seats; When it comes to rightists, with much less serious offenses are criminals-Fajardo will come even to assert that there is no harm if his party owns insurance companies and banks (and, according to telephone records emerged, handles directly).
And if the Guardia di Finanza does his duty in searching one day and one day no businesses of Prime Minister Berlusconi, when Prodi, while does not cover no charge institutional, turns out to be guarded by finance (at the same time political opponent), the latter becomes responsible for an illegal action (the vertices are deleted).
Or when a right-wing Politician under investigation for a possible complains fury on the part of judges is considered to be immoral; but when Prodi and D’Alema are involved in a process that has overwhelming evidence on their guilt, from day one that magistrates are removed (Forleo and De Magistris).
Psychic conditions of criticality and moral purposes of comprehension in which are kept the consciences of individuals (with zeroing of memory “”) so you can turn previously adopted thesis, without any contradiction emerges (still this aspect of Marxist ideology is stigmatized with the joke, which incorporates a traditional attitude of PCI: “countermand companions”).
Significant that Napolitano in autumn 2006, being considered by Hungarians, properly, a moral accomplice of the Red Army who choked in blood their attempt to get rid of the Communist dictatorship, uninvited guest, he laid flowers at the tomb of the martyr of the revolution by stating “I made this tribute at the grave of Imre Nagy (…) in remembrance of those who ruled Italy in 1956 and took a firm position in support of the Hungarian uprising against Soviet military intervention “. On this occasion allows Neapolitan pun which is silent on its direct responsibility in respect of Nagy’s death (he was in the entourage of Togliatti that put pressure on Moscow to obtain the intervention of the Red Army): basic contradiction that is not “perceived” in any way by much of the Italian public opinion without historical memory and critical tools.
“agit-prop” is the essence of social ideologies propaganda
Remember that in order to maintain this condition of absence of reflexivity and historical memory in people you must induce in them a certain emotional condition (in this case, we could say, of an emotional condition of preconceived critical towards certain categories of things).
This emotional condition has been one of the main objects of study of science of totalitarianism of the ‘ 900: this is the psychological condition institutionalized by Marxist movements called “shaking”, a euphoric stress condition (the euphoria is the result of the reaction to fear skillfully exploited ideologues) that leads people to join with emotional addresses transport-proposed by moral movement.
“agit-prop” is the term Marxist movements defined this psychological condition that is, in fact, deemed to be highly positive for the human being.
The underlying idea in these ideologies, as has been said about the Frankfurt School and the new social psychology, is that every form of society so far appeared on Earth is essentially unjust; and that for this reason it is absolutely essential that man develop his faculties “criticism” (in a bad way). The “shaking”, namely the emotional condition in which the human being is able to express his resentment particularly effective, is therefore a desirable condition.
The key thing for the current market and political propaganda is that Soviet scientists have discovered that people “in turmoil” are particularly manipulated (the previously parsed concept of stress as a pre-condition for the manipulability of consciousness).
Communist parties in the field of propaganda was called agitprop (agitation and propaganda), because in these ideologies assume that to convince people of the revolutionary idea is just need to shake people beforehand. It is significant, in this regard, the description that Steimbeck ago, in “the battle” (a book, being written by an adherent of the Communist movement, becomes a very important witness of the problems inherent in such an ideology) of occult work produced by militants of the radical left to lure American workers in a region to take a strike to extreme levels of violence.
Very significant is the fact that Veltroni has grown politically in the PCI as head of agit-prop.
memory function in humans
The emotional condition in which the manipulation of consciences strategies retain individuals is also a condition in which you do not create a memory of things that happen (that is to say: a psychological condition in which the individual is not able to learn from his experiences of reality).
In this condition the people attend events but are not able to “Digest” what their mind implements: events are not assimilated by minds kept in this psychological condition (this effect is due, in large part, to the continuous bombing that media channels carry out with a tremendous amount of information, which makes it, in a sense the brain impervious to what arrives; a little what happens to land during a rainstorm).
The mind of the individual is today held by the cultural institutional System in a sort of “hibernation” reflective faculties.
This may be due to the fact that the civilized man lives in a constant existential stress condition (a continuous anguish underground) which leads him to take refuge in a “mental” conditions in which he can no longer accurately reflect about what happens to him.
It is a kind of “distraction” condition continues (now chronic), of a neurosis that distracts him from the substantiality of real life (as mentioned, biologically speaking anxiety condition in which there is today, leads man to block some parts of her brain to not feel negative emotions produced by some memories recorded in it: because of this it takes refuge in a world in which “mental” doesn’t perceive most of stimuli from outside).
The mind in the typical condition of modern man, is no longer able to record events which helps (although scientists studying the human brain, like Montalcini, have discovered that the brain, in terms of quality of reasoning and memory go improving with time, most people today no longer young is subject to big blackouts-also to be taken into account that the Alzaimer , increasingly prevalent in our society, which is not produced by external pathogens but by an alteration to the functioning of our biological intelligence, determining a loss of a person’s ability to store new memories).
The fact is that, as shown by recent studies, memories are fixed in memory thanks to a storage mechanism, but “rational” positive sensations produced in our bodies from substances like dopamine.
[LThe latest findings about the dopamine (hormone that until now you thought needed simply to provide pleasant sensations-for recreational purposes, say) have shown that this hormone help people fix in mind the memories.
The mechanism works like this (it was already described, albeit in other terms, less scientific, theories of ancient psychology): when he learns of a new concept (through, for example, reading a book), this concept remains alive for a while in the mind, but you have not already done so. To do this right, i.e. to “Digest” with their minds so that it becomes a real memory, you need to at a later time “on that concept” brooding (as does the food ingested herbivore). It is a work that the mind does dealing with the concept of imagination; a plan that does not match the rational imagination, but imagine a typical, for example, of “Oriental”: a form of imagination in which our body produces sensations related to objects “designed”).
The secretion of hormones (which in our organism produces sensations,) is essential in order to implement this “view” process that is responsible for feelings that are stored in memory as keepsakes.
Dopamine, as it turned out, plays a decisive role in this process (the decrease of its normal levels in the human body is responsible, among other things, certain characteristics of Parkinson’s syndrome).
(Of course this dopamine deficiency can also be caused by external agents. Please note that we are what we eat: some substances that we ingest into our bodies induce increased production of dopamine compared to others).
So basically, there is no setting to remember if there is, upon receiving an external stimulus, for its formulation of a “mental”, thinking a fixation of such thinking through the same imaginative level (in terms of feelings). It is those conditions pursued by “Eastern” Philosophies, and produced in the West from that State of consciousness that is called “faith” (and thus deemed to be negative). Conditions under which the individual enters spontaneously in many moments of the day: this is what happens when you take a break from work and, as you walk (or is in the shower), suddenly “includes” what, until then, had only a “mental” idea. In this way a rational concept takes on a broader meaning and deep (at that time the concept that you’ve learned connects with other our life experiences, and we can do it “our”).
The second step in the process of psychological manipulation of consciences is to canalize the suffering of individuals immersed in a “negative thinking” (i.e. in a nerve-wracking feeling of suffering due to resentment awakened in their psychological strategies outlined above) to a bad solution (formerly located in an “enemy individual” thanks to critical judgment “suggested” from above).
This is namely to propose individuals, kept the strategies analysed previously in a State of constant anguish, a saving recipe.
A recipe that, according to modern ideologies, it is always a struggle for the Elimination of negative factors that generate such suffering (a fight that, in the ideological movements, develops both the physical, moral or culture).
This second part of the strategies of manipulation of people’s consciousness is made possible by the fact that he brought the individual to continuously focus its obsessive attention on the negative aspects of his social standing, and then to produce a strong sense of frustration and a deep insecurity.
At this point you have a good game considering the individual a solution that, at least on the surface, to remove these existential suffering (in more advanced ideologies such as Marxism, they turn these negative emotions of resentment in the sense of revenge, revenge-as has been said, the mechanism uses just the sense of frustration within the present modern civilization, in the great majority of adults : the sense, the unconscious, that he received a grave injustice to children).
In psychology a “guilty” of their existential problems, used by the individual to reduce the sense of responsibility for their condition (in fact these strategies are also called, in the language of ideologies, “alibi”) are called target (are defined as “mental” strategies in order to compensate for the inability to recognize, perceptual level, their real needs). +. The idea that is passed to the people at this stage is so basically:
I promise you I solve the problem
If you give me your support.
To understand how the mechanism will work you need to remember that there is another determining factor for the implementation of this phase of the process, manipulative is mentioned: the individual is already, in itself, influenced by the “negative” cultural education typical of modern thought (“materialistic” education). Let’s see, at a glance, in the next few paragraphs, it is determined, in our civilization, this form of negative thinking.
Here are some thoughts on the quality of negativity (basically “pessimistic”) of Western rationalist thought.
[[from the paper “reflections on Western civilization: Introduction”]
Much of the current psychological problems of Western man, and then the manipulability of his conscience, are produced, depending on the negative view of the world from our spread enlightenment culture: namely, the idea that nature (that of the human being and the Earth) is “flawed” and should be improved by man with his rational mind.
We recall in this connection that Hobbes, the philosopher who most influenced the modern way of thinking, said that man is inherently “bad”, and that it is therefore necessary to lock him up in a kind of straitjacket so that it will not damage himself and his neighbor (this should be done through coercion applied by a Member State). This idea was later retaken by French revolutionaries and Marx, to make the Foundation of the current “left thinking”, according to which the people should be controlled from above
because people do not have sufficient social conscience (do not have a capacity to handle themselves).
This ideology was then enhanced with Freud’s contribution, stating that the “spontaneous” human beings must be subject to rational intelligence.
This “negative” conception of things has subsequently evolved in Western thought “official” with the definition from the Science of institutional Entropy concept; a concept which, although lacking in scientific basis (this is in contrast to a cornerstone of modern physics, the first law of thermodynamics), popularized the idea that the universe is destined to “die” for a breakdown of energy (from the scientific point of view it is a kind of new “secular” religion and pessimistic).
This last concept is very important in the development of “Western mentality” because it introduces the justification of actions such as the exploitation of nature (which leads to a fatal condition of Earth-system malfunction), or the use of nuclear energy (which leads to an irreversible increase in radioactivity of the Earth). [the argument developed in the document “The dead end of modern science”].
Another contribution to the negative view of the world gave the Darwinist evolutionary theory (this is, again, a doctrine ideology contrary to the principles of Science, born in past centuries by the transverse movement of opposition to the Church, in which the new intellectuals met members of the new social Ideologies-Please note that Darwin is not the creator but simply a scholar who has attempted to demonstrate the validity through research of specific tests).
The Evolutionary conception of life on Earth says first that nature develops “at random”, because an intelligence of nature (called “intelligent design”) exist only in the mind of the “religious” people. This led to the current conception of the world (conveyed by the media and taught to children): since everything is the result of the “case”, the human being would evolve to a series of “accidental” events.
This conception, not scientifically proven (has been abandoned by the same Darwin’s successors), introduces in the minds of individual underlying vision of existence extremely negative: “I am an accident of nature that lives in a world that develops” at random “(it is no longer possible to think, as did the ancients, that faced with a problem you can identify a cause , and then try to solve it).
Note, this is also the official dogma of late 900 Medicine: your doctor no longer has to analyse the causes of a disease, but simply intervene with administration of medicine indicated by Institutional data, based on the symptoms. With this system you get today for a chronic disease (i.e., following market interests, such an addiction “for life” of the individual medicines). But you also get to cure illnesses of which nothing is known (like Alzheimer’s), have some positive effect than to increase revenue in the pharmaceutical industry.
Also note that the Darwinian evolutionary theory, disclosed as “scientific theory”, from the point of view of science is hardly such. This is a simple “assumption” of human thought that borders on metaphysics (from a scientific point of view is an ideology); which contains, among others, a fundamental contradiction: according to this conception, there is a “design” in nature, there is not even the principle of survival, which detects the presence of a “design”, which is a cornerstone of the same doctrine.
Today the “accidental” conception of the world, and hence of human existence, is so ingrained in our culture, that Umberto Galimberti, one of the “most followed” psychologists in Italy, can claim on an Italian newspaper that anyone trying to find meaning in pain is just deluded (keep the fact that the pain biology has a specific physiological function!) and therefore it is good to try to eliminate the “pain” of our lives with psychiatric drugs.
On this road, “negative” and pessimistic, as many analysts have pointed out of our civilization,
modern thinking tends to evolve into nihilism,
and the idea that man will never be able to reach a “positive life” (reflecting the fact that the so-called happiness, which was still posted as end of man in the u.s. Constitution, is today considered to be a “religious illusion” social ideologies).
The nihilistic vision stems basically from the fact that the modern mind, seeing the world through the filter of rationality which reduces the perception of reality, it loses touch with reality, and swoops in fear: since that time the existence of the human being is regulated by fear.
World Vision provided by modern thought then produces a mindset that, compared to most ancient cultures, turns out to be “pessimistic” (unlike, for example, of ancient cultures, the kind prevalent in areas of the world not yet civilized “and, in part, by the Christian: that cultures tend to emphasize” good “that there is in existence).
Modern man sees life through the entropic vision “, thanks to which the ideologies” opposition “as those can indeed justify institutional positions based on the idea that the world is destined to succumb anyway, regardless of whether you keep all ecological behavior and” moral “.
This entropic vision of a fate inevitable negative of the cosmos, along with the “Darwinist” accidence “significant facts that determine our existence, produces in people a way of seeing things, and then an attitude in which the merits are deleted from every aspect of existence, and the idea of a” design “made by laws of nature (and thus, among other things , is the perception of the existence of absolute rules, biological).
In this new conception of the world people end up experiencing a sense of inevitability of suffering (is, as we shall see, the basic concept of modern Existentialism, adopted by the new social psychology: is the “nausea” sartriana) and “impotence” towards things (due to the idea, “atheistic rationalism induced” the inability to identify the laws of Nature by which transform things when they don’t go well).
By definition, the man becomes evil and the world a Vale of tears: the individual ends up believing that it is unable to resolve the problems that it encounters in life.
This new human condition reduces the individual need to be driven, in their own lives, by others. Take the individual to seek those who offer a “message of hope” (as it is said, today the most important popular science magazine is based on articles that do not describe the real achievements of science, but above all, speaks in terms far, scientific achievements that modernity would lead us over the next few years).
This feeling of “negative” background typical of modern man (feeling in which Alternative medicines have identified one of the root causes of the diseases of modern times) then yields the masses easily combinable around “Ideological causes” (promoted by institutions or by “militants”), in which individuals become a very powerful tool in the hands of experienced leaders who can find, from time to time , specific arguments to address the people’s consciousness toward the attainment of specific practical results they sought.
Ultimately our system enacts “spontaneously” sophisticated psychological manipulation strategy in which people on the one hand, it induces in people a strong inner sense of insecurity and, on the other hand, there arises as a solution to the problem: the system fills man’s existential anguish that it created with a promise of satisfaction that creates the dependence of human consciousness towards a dogma , and an elite of people who hold the culture (i.e. the “truths” that can save the suffering people).
Account is taken of the fact that religions are, per se, at least in part, of ideologies.
See, for example, ideological strategies already followed by centuries by some Protestant branches of Christianity: the man is “saved in hope” by religion.
But it also concerns the essence of Catholicism, where the Gospel of Jesus was added an important “ideological” part which enables the Church to strengthen the consensus against mass: the idea of evil, Jesus dying on the cross, wanted to remove by man (original sin) is reintroduced to Catholic dogma, and then makes the professing Church dependent (as Jesus was “beaten” to make people independent of the churches).
With the introduction of evil, of original sin in people (a “factory default”) the Church can then pose as an instrument of salvation.
As we shall see, the Catholic Church introduces a more important ideological element: not only it makes all guilty again by definition, but reintroduced in Christianity sense of Justice as proposed by old testament vengeance, although Jesus, according to the original tale, went knowingly to his death in order to tell the world a new alternative to the sense of Justice of the Jewish religion (love that He opposes the idea of “a tooth for a tooth” : the idea of “turn the other cheek”).
This ideological base was then taken up by Muhammad and from Marx to develop their ideologies. The success of an ideology as Marxism-Leninism derives precisely from the fact that it adopted the methodologies already in vogue with Catholicism (or, in the case of the Soviet Union, the Orthodox Church-Stalin, that he “perfected” the Marxist ideology and studied for years in a seminary for Orthodox priests).
In Marxist ideology you reintroduce elements such as: the original sin (one of which is “genetically” guilty the bourgeois class, which has, in fact, inherent flaw in history, that man cannot heal)-the prophecy (the bourgeois class, according to Marx, will be settled by history)-the promise of salvation (the Elimination of the middle-class as elimination of sin from the life assured by communist doctrine)-the comfort provided by the movement (“solidarity” provided by the Group towards the other adepts , or militants, thanks to which it is possible to channel their resentment toward a “target” deresponsabilizzante). [see document “****” an analysis of the similarities between the “religions” of Moses, Mohammed and Marx]
As mentioned above, the justification of social Ideologies, which are always, remember, defined as “good” (even Hitler thought he was doing a favor to humanity by applying the world his ideology), derives from “pessimistic” conception of existence typical of modern thought: the enlightenment conception according to which the human being is inherently unhappy. Conception of existence in which then happiness can only come from outside (Hobbes/Marx/Freud): namely the institutions (the Church, the State Party); or by the company as a separate entity that, in the new conception of the individual-Marxist Freudo, replaces the individual-male (a company that positions itself as a moral institution which “intellectuals” are, in a sense, the new priests).
The result of this conditioning process of consciences is that, in order to follow the road that leads to salvation, the man gives up something of himself: basically, for modern social ideologies, renounces his freedom (in this way it can give, i.e., its responsibilities, one of the highest aspirations of modern Ego-“new ideologies”, shows how the renunciation of property indicated by Marxism , enable people to ease their sense of social responsibility).
susp//In this condition (this is obviously a “trick of reason” … that human beings under these conditions of negative emotionality. a sort of hypnosis … fails to unravel) becomes doceile and gullible (manipulated).
In the previous chapters you’ve seen how Western institutions have developed “management” techniques of working masses psychologically (“manipulation of consciences”), which rely on the sense of insecurity.
And as the process of manipulation of consciences divide two phases: (1) formation of a psychological condition of frustration (“negative thinking”), and (2) promise of evil that solution is like that shown as the source of existential suffering.
Let’s see now how such mechanisms have developed in the history of our civilization.
The stages of the “consensus management” (of power), in the evolution of Western society, in a succession of increasingly subtle strategies and effective (which operate on an increasingly psychological).
These phases are:
1. physical coercion, on the most basic level and brutal: submit the individual holding it, for example, chained to the car that must operate with his physical strength, and whip to “stimulate” to work.
2. induction of behavior using physical threat (for example, kills himself, under the eyes of all, a person who has not complied with the rules): this is a more sophisticated system than the previous one, because in this case it is not necessary to use force to compel every single person to obey; assumes the use of violent physical action to keep alive the perception of fear.
3. cultural hegemony: a management level of consciousness even more sophisticated, developed in the West since mid ‘ 900, which puts aside the physical threat (which continues to operate on an unconscious level), and submit the “working people”: in other words it “normalizes” the culture (and therefore of the individual consciousness) according consent to a specific system.
4. creating and maintaining emotional condition of exaltation: the most effective form of popular consent management (which is still used in a condition of cultural hegemony, which is the daughter), made up of psychological strategies that bring people to a level of “exaltation” which increases the active consent of the people. [see document “Obama Era”]
It is the most classical phase of slavery characterized by pure restraint typical of the most primitive civilization (a classic example is that of the slaves in chains on ships).
This original mode of management has subsequently evolved into the softer forms of slavery are typical of successive regimes: a type of less physical coercion has permission to manage, with less effort, masses of people more extensive (in this case did not make sense to speak of consensus management people).
This stage survive for millennia until the mid ‘ 900: still in the Soviet Union after World War II prisoners who were no longer able to stand were executed in an exemplary manner as “deserters” (this is the same case of slaves working related to primitive machines, or ran on ships and collapsed from fatigue).
With the Enlightenment, and then with the development of a better understanding of the mental mechanisms, one begins to use a form of psychological coercion: physical violence, psychological violence is replaced, i.e. the form of coercion (developed from the French Revolution, which has definitively imposed, social level, principles and values of the enlightenment – and introduced, on those principles , the current regime of democracy).
We’ll see how two successive stages in the management system of the consciences of individuals by institutional authorities will be further refined. As well as these new systems the fear is used together with that of gratification (the two emotional conditions are used with carrot and stick function to obtain the consent of the people).
It is a more “modern” phase of the previous; thinner and improved, this methodology allows management of masses less expensive and more effective.
Keep in mind that the term hegemony in this case is simply used as a synonym for totalitarianism. A euphemism which today methods of ideologies seem acceptable today reminded citizens of democracies.
The term derives from the theories of the founder of the Italian Communist Party, Antonio Gramsci. The idea has been refined in totalitarianism Fennell and those they wanted to give a democratic face of ‘ 900, and is an update of previous power strategies, adapted in this case to a civilization evolved from a cultural point of view (i.e., most suitable to a literate population).
This type of strategy is based on being able to shape the consciousness of persons with cultural programming through the institutional forms of Education issued by the company (as the people are, what they know, or what they believe to be; you can then define, through specific strategies of psychological training, what individuals think they are).
Basically this type of strategy is based on the principle that, offering a unique, in every form of training and information produced within the system, a certain kind of culture (in this case is decisive overshadow every possible form of alternative culture), then the citizen ends up taking for granted what they are told (by the media, institutions, etc.).
Because the cultural hegemony strategy to work, you must simultaneously implement a strategy of “political hegemony”; cultural hegemony must be accompanied by complementary strategies: one of which is the almost absolute control over all the “powers” of democracy (it is also not usually powers intended as such, which are playing an increasingly important role in modern democratic systems, the Media and the judiciary School, taxation [see document “the era of Post-Marxism”])
The idea of cultural hegemony is not new: all great totalitarianism have always felt the need to eliminate all forms of culture that they might somehow embarrass the regime (Hitler had burn in the square books belonging to different cultures that do not conform to the Nazi-a precedent: the destruction of Islam, the great library of Alexandria).
Thanks to the establishment of a system of cultural hegemony, it is possible to manage the masses without a direct physical threat: the threat affects the cultural plan, with a very subtle psychological level (although this type of regime, both by the institutions that the opposition, however, is used to forms of “psychological terrorism” that will be analyzed later on).
We can consider these forms of totalitarianism as “cultural dictatorship” (because, in fact, a sense of physical threat should continue to operate on an unconscious level).
As has been said, in Spain the Zapatero’s Socialist Government was elected, resoundingly overturning forecasts two days before the elections, thanks to the train bombings carried out by Islam, who did not want to see a re-election by a right-wing Government hostile to it. And Putin won the election thanks to the attacks “Chechens”.
This chapter is, compared to others, “political”: many things can not be understood, and be thorough (but only after you have explained, in the subsequent chapters, the mechanisms …). Maybe this thing should be introduced briefly: “this chapter, being expressed in an extremely concise, … aargoemnti introduces very important … and, just because (or could itself be a “maniplaizone” of culture?) … in depth elsewhere as this document, or in other 8era documents of post-comuniso, …)
The strategy of cultural hegemony has assumed today a crucial role for the management of consent in Western democracies: it is worth briefly analyze what its ideological origins [is dedicated to the topic “the era of post-Communism”].
The concept of Cultural Hegemony has been conceived in terms of social theory, Antonio Gramsci, from which arose the problem of giving the Communist totalitarianism a “human face”.
It is a “reform” of Marxist doctrine with which turns the idea that in order to improve society we should eliminate a social class, in the idea that we can achieve the same result “purifying” the culture of a company thinking shapes which do not comply with the Marxist thought (in practice this would eliminate a slice of culture of the people instead of deleting a part of the people themselves so people at the end is “come” to the principles of morals, and Marxist society could make a quality leap without bloodshed is typical of Communist regimes).
To better understand the views of Gramsci, which, although for part of his life of PCI leader completely subject to the ideas of Stalin, in some of his writings appears as a democratic thinker, we must understand what perspective he valued the reality: Gramsci, like all Marxists, was adamant that the world was plagued by a fatal evil bourgeois culture that would bring the man to ruin. Evil, which could only be corrected with the Marxist recipe.
We need to understand how IE Gramsci left the essential idea that bad go deleted. And not, as in religious thought, for example, of Catholicism by the idea of a “bad condition” which can be “cured” (in Catholicism is not that evil look good: the devil is in the service of God, and his action only serves to reawaken the “good part” of man).
Gramsci, however, took quite different position from that of his party, for two reasons. (1) could see that a form of “soft” radical “Socialism, national socialism (Fascism) could work better than Marxism in social peace making (he observed the first phase of the development of fascism, which was born as a form of socialism in opposition to Soviet socialism); and (2) was opposed to the violence that is the basis of any Communist strategy (Marx: “violence is the midwife of history”).
For his “niceness” Italian philosopher, has been at pains to try to eliminate all forms of violence by what he considered to be the necessary care to save our company: the Elimination of the middle-class (in the new version of communism would not remove people, but they would be forced to “conversion”).
The birth of this theory presents a paradoxical aspect, which contains in itself the underlying defect of this way of seeing things: Gramsci’s ideas were taken from his party, but made the world know a rewritten version (“proper”) of his writings; and he strove, with success, to physically delete the author (thesis turned out to be the same and later discharged, the official historiography).
It is, paradoxically, the first significant example of manipulation of culture theorized by Gramsci. As clearly reveals his correspondence, Gramsci was, for these ideas, “condemned” by his party (in particular from Togliatti, which at that time was, in Moscow, one of Stalin’s Deputy), and was then forced to remain in jail despite Mussolini pardoned him, until he got sick so irreparable. Gramsci States in fact, in his last letters (especially in his last letter to sister-in-law), I understood how he was kept in prison thanks to the intervention of his party; and being come to the conclusion that he was wrong to join the Communist ideology! (That letter Gramsci understood also States how the party had given him a KGB agent, and as the children which it had had been used to manipulate it).
Unfortunately, in compliance with its own theories, these statements are gone of his official correspondence (but remained in the hands of his heirs).
But the most significant fact of Gramsci’s politics that, paradoxically, reveals the effectiveness of his theories of cultural hegemony, lies in the fact that he, after discovering the scheme perpetrated by his party to his damage, has expressed, as his last wish, request that you did, because Togliatti came into possession of his writings. How to tell his family, instead, just after his death in the trunk of his manuscripts were confiscated in Moscow (where his family lived and where his writings were sent), despite the physical resistance by opposing family members (children and basically cognate, as his wife was a member of the KGB), by the Soviet political police, and delivered in Togliatti (who rewrote his own what is now known as the works of Gramsci).
Already in his first application the principle of cultural hegemony has worked well. But not naïve mode designed by its creator: even in the case of Gramsci’s thought, thanks to the manipulation of culture by himself conceived, what the world today knows as thought of that author is actually a revised version of what they really thought the philosopher (manipulated by the Prtito that the author thought would guarantee through new strategies devised by him, a new moral integrity in the world).
In any case, the basic idea of Gramsci was adopted by Stalin and Togliatti, which included current posts in Communist doctrine, Marxist-Leninist.
Post-Marxist doctrine is applied for the first time in Italy in World War II. Here, already just after the liberation of ‘ 45, when the base was ready for PCI armed uprising (actually had held, in weapons, the Prefecture of Milan; and had already taken steps to eliminate more than 20,000 “bourgeois” in Northern Italy), Togliatti, coming directly from one of his periodic talks with Stalin, carried out what is known as the “Salerno turn” , in which he declared that from then on the task to operate PCI was a new form of revolution (Army) that it was based on a gradual takeover of the institutions through a “soft” way (was definta “from communism good face “).
This strategy, which is also referred to as cultural Hegemony provides, rather than the physical elimination of antagonistic to the proletariat Class, a phasing-out underground way of traditional culture of the Italians. But also, in parallel, through subterfuge, borrowing from the PCI institutional powers (taking possession of the structures of Democracy became from that moment instrumental compared to the creation of a Communist regime in Italy).
Communism opened up a “new course” (in Italy, but also in the world) the need not to provoke the reaction of the allies (at that time still exist in Europe), and to capture the consent of large portions of the population of democratic culture (from a part of the militant Communist unable to accept this turning point came later, through a historic handover the birth of the Red Brigades, operating instead under previous teachings of Marxism-Leninism).
With the turning of Salerno “Marxism has thus abandoned the way that adopts the violent revolution, theorized by Marx and Lenin, to take the new route of the” cultural revolution “, or cultural hegemony, which will characterize, Marxism in the West up to the present day.
– later the policy implemented by the breakthrough of Salerno was further evolved in the Eurocommunism of Berlinguer; and the next “turn of Bolognina”, in which he gave to a PCI Occhetto face post-Communist (basically by changing its name to PDS, without any Executive he disowned his past Marxist-Leninist).
And afterwards with another breakthrough, described in a later chapter, was further perfected by Walter Veltroni, first as Manager of PCI’s propaganda, then as Minister of culture (loads typical of totalitarian regimes, invented specifically for the occasion), and finally as Mayor of Rome (a significant example of the application of the strategies described above: in the new cultural hegemony regime defined by Veltroni happened a case , perhaps unique, censorship by the political authorities to advertising: in October 2006 from a spot of Telecom, a private company of which the Prodi Government had just disappeared, reclaiming a ironic quote made by character by Cristian De Sica, the Mayor of Rome).
The strategies based on theories of cultural hegemony revealed an underlying defect which produced insurmountable problems that have forced the Marxist parties to produce further turn into their strategies described in the next chapter.
The strategy of cultural Hegemony has a gross naivete (or, to put it with the Marxist language, a flagrant contradiction); or removing a misjudgement brought out from totalitarianism appeared in recent centuries: the Elimination of a culture can only evolve in eliminating people who adhere to that culture (there are examples of Nazism in which passed by the burning of the books; and “real” communism and Islam, all of which are “forced” to eliminate people who do not convert and that, with time, become then an insurmountable obstacle to the realization of their project-but the Mao’s cultural revolution will show even better as, in fact, “work culture” leads to operate indirectly and to eliminate underground people uncomfortable to the system).
The basic contradiction of Gramsci’s theory is related to the fact that, as mentioned above, a culture is not a simple set of concepts, but a legacy of memories and ways of being in which the person identifies themselves (as we shall see, it is just “the way of being of the person”, a kind of cultural DNA).
In such circumstances, it becomes impossible to eliminate a culture from a company if you do not delete people who adopt: people cannot forget their culture because they cannot cancel their way of being produced by a long educational and experiential work lasted generations (or, at least, it is not possible for this to happen to the entirety of a people). And people who do not cease to belong to a certain culture will continue then, spontaneously, to propagate (not necessarily in a spirit of “opposition” to the totalitarian regime: they will simply drive, inherent in the human being, to propagate its culture). And they will do it with ardor, even at the risk of life: a gentore do anything because his son to grow up according to the principles that he considers it “healthy”.
The more rigid totalitarian regime will continue to survive “unconverted” people: culture does not conform to the “Reformed Church” will continue to be transmitted, even in underground levels, from parent to subliminal child within the household (However, as totalitarianism, or in our democracy, just for this reason, the child is taken away from the family to be subjected to an “institutional education”); or the artist who puts meaning in his works do not conform (Sostakovich was sent into internal exile and threatened several times by Stalin for having composed an opera “romantic”: eventually convert producing an opera finally performed for speed – but in our democracy Director Muccino was rejected by “Committee” that handles the cinema in Italy because the jobs they sought were devoid of ideological content “right”, and was forced to “exile itself” in the United States where he arrived to compete for an Oscar with the same film rejected in Italy); or professor that although “aligned”, adds, in fairness to the subjects “educational” reformed small information that can “affect” the mind of the students (in Italy the most important historical, according to colleagues around the world, De Felice, was deprived of his Professorship because of information, wrote that although true, according to the PCI was not appropriate to reveal); the shopkeeper that adds remnants of traditional knowledge at its daily recommend products to customers.
Account is taken of an inherent weakness “of cultures” regime: they, as set out in the document “reflections on Western civilization: Introduction”, are always inefficient, because aimed almost solely to justify the thinking and actions of the State. I.e. they are devoid of real content, and are therefore able to provide answers to the problems of citizens, whereas most traditional cultures are much more effective (which now applies, for example, for alternative medicines and religions).
The weakness of the cultural hegemony strategy is due to the fact that the schemes that attempt to rely only on strategies of cultural hegemony is that failing they ever on this road to reach the necessary condition of almost complete hegemony, people cannot be totally controlled, and totalitarianism remains vulnerable on the inside. In other words, these schemes will always be wild tendencies to use alternative cultural channels; and always will be dissidence movements that will oblige the institutions to return to more explicit forms of repression, thus triggering a historical phase, where public opinion is more reach to think in terms of democracy and to digest forms of repression, a vicious cycle of dissent and repression.
For this reason, as mentioned above, the political forces that enforce cultural hegemony strategy must at the same time, in order to maintain power, monopolize the “powers” of democracy as the judiciary (which is, in a Western democracy, a “military wing” much more powerful than the traditional army-in “coups” today the judiciary has, in fact, replaced the armed forces). [this topic has dedicated a section of “the era of Post-Marxism”]
An example in Italian democracy, one of the most important exponents of the left thought, Giorgio Bocca, having no arguments to spend instead of Pansa (for other, also exponent of the left) than in past years have clarified some historical truth, very little uplifting, communist resistance, eventually dismantle the truth “built” and preserved until our days thanks to the strategies of cultural hegemony , has felt compelled to make a plea to the Government (in the hands of his own party) that were emitting State law that would make it possible to condemn people who express a critical attitude towards the resistance (applicable so even if you Pansa, which does nothing but reveal historical truths).
Ultimately, to eradicate a culture from one country is therefore always required, at the end, with more or less covert actions, “neutralize” people who adopt (where neturalizzare means or assassinandole, or richiudendole to life in prison camps). Or, as has been said when they saw the Nazi bonfires of books: “If you burn the books sooner or later they will burn people too”. Or, to paraphrase, “If you delete the culture sooner or later you will have to delete the population that adheres to that culture.”
ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF MORALS:
The lack of reality in the IDEOLOGICAL THINKING (thought)
Because in the next section we will address the issue of strategies used in modern civilization to achieve a social condition of cultural hegemony, it is considered appropriate to precede this section some reflections about the concept of morals.
In this section we address the topics: the nature of moral learning mechanisms of morality (as it is widespread in the society), the psycho-biological mechanisms that determine the beliefs and attitudes of men.
This section is also devoted to the examination of risks for a civilization, inherent in the loss of culture and traditional morality.
We open this reflection on moral concept with an analysis of the concept of ideology, to which the term in his particular Moral sense is closely related.
The term Ideology is a form of thinking in which subordinates all reasoning, every explanation of facts to a fundamental Idea (according to Tan the ideology is “the complex theoretical presuppositions and ideals purposes (…) every doctrine not scientific processing with the sole intellectual and documentation without undue punctual needs feedback materials»).
the “intellectual moral”
The term indicates a Ideology “mental condition” (or, to use the term used by Tan, “intellectual”) in which an Idea takes on the role of both theoretical supposition, that ideal end of existence (normally the moral Purpose of a political movement).
Any reasoning of those who embrace this kind of thinking is therefore always a specific declination of a preconceived idea assumed uncritically and not the result of a rational, reasoning that derives from examining the actual reality of things (under products in the reasoning of ideologies provide explanations derived from axiomatic ideas, and you don’t ever check the reality of the facts on the basis of “material evidence” : for this reason today we tend to recognize that ideological attitude is based on an unscientific approach, but theological).
To better understand the concept of ideology, let’s jump back: the modern thought represents an evolution of human thought founded on Ideology: it is a mindset (“Cogito ergo sum”: I know I exist because I realize I “think”) with which the human being, in the West, in the past centuries came into an intellectual dimension, abandoning much of its “think” directly linked to the sphere of perceptions (empathic perception of himself and nature surrounds) that had characterized its existence for millennia.
In modern civilization “think” (reflections on his life experiences, and therefore the conclusions about what is best to do to improve its existence) is in fact confined to the rational part of the brain (and, as we shall see, any form of rational thought “evolved” makes his arguments in “absolute ideas”).
While the man of ancient civilizations “reasoned” using what is now called “brain biology”: the various parts of the body that provide useful feelings to take the correct decision for a physiologically healthy existence (brain neurons are also found in abdomen!).
The two ways to “reason” are summarized in two basic slogan: “cogito ergo sum”, of the modern René Descartes (where cogito singnifica think “mentally”, only with the part of the brain in the cranial part contained). And the “know thyself” written on the Temple of the Oracle of Delphi, its philosophy of Socrates, that sums up the ancient teaching, which indicates that the meaning of things in the world can only be known through the feelings of our “intelligence” (Plato, along the same lines, argued that the “modern” method of transmitting knowledge through the books, can’t work because limited to the mental plane of our intelligence).
About the mode of “thinking” man, we’ll see over the next few years chapters as modern science is unable to explain what has already been established by the ancient sciences: human intelligence “natural” is “distributed” throughout the body (as has been mentioned, extends, for example, to the “belly”).
The intestine is, in fact, a very important part of our “brain”: this is the “brain” enteric, in which there are typical neuronal connections in the brain. But in which, above all, there are the paraneuroni, the cells responsible for production of “emotional thoughts”, which cannot be produced by the brain within the skull, which does not have the Faculty of perception (we know you can tap the brain without the person perceive any sensation).
It is enteric brain (the “brain” below), that, as most immediate funzionalia, can “feel” If a food is poisonous, and vomiting to expel immediately the ingested substance; or, if the perception is late, to expel him as soon as possible with a bout of diarrhea. It represents that part of our intelligence that allows our body to “decide” whether what we assume is harmful.
But most of the decisions can be taken from the brain, from the belly. Humans belonging to pre-modern Cultures (or live location in Europe is not fully “civilized” societies) “reason” in this mode. And hypnosis will appeal to this emotional brain.
A culture like the modern one, which does not consider this aspect of thinking, it is a culture that allows humans to exploit the potential of its “intelligence”.
In the Western way of life such as missing a proper attention to the functioning of the digestive system and intestines (the result is that in our culture are practised forms of medicine and power that destroys the gut substances that are responsible for the production of “emotional thoughts”, and then an important part of human intelligence).
Also our culture, not recognizing it the correct importance of this part of our intelligence, strives to “remove” as incorrect form of instinct: a limited education schools to the development of “mental” intelligence leads to atrophy of this form of emotional intelligence (and adults are thus led to believe that the best form of training of their game shows are cerebrum and la Settimana enigmistica).
As we have seen, the result of the education of man “civilized” produces an individual confined in a psychological dimension “intellectual”, in which he fails that fundamental guide regarding its decisions that characterized, for hundreds of thousands of years of human civilization. It is failed to man his fundamental guide “human instincts” (psycho-biological intelligence of the human species).
In modern conditions the human being it is lacking of “thoughts” empathic empathetic relation to reality (it is a mental condition in which is “disconnected from reality”).
Today the issue of the importance of “thinking” empathic (which according to current standards might be defined as “emotional thinking”) emerges within the same modern science, thanks to the discoveries of recent decades about the role of hormones in human actions. Discovered that despite being awarded the Nobel Prize, are still not taken into account by the institutional medicine. [see document “new science”]
We will see in a later chapter as hormones to develop in reaction to stimuli from the environment, and produce sensations that act as activators of the individual’s actions: i.e. how hormones are important part of human feelings.
the intellectual mindset
The peculiarities of Western man’s mindset is to be a condition almost solely “intellectual”: the modern individual having lost most of his faculties of thought has lost empathy, even much of the ability to produce thoughts “tuned” with the outside world (i.e. adhering to reality).
The modern man is confined to his “mental husk”, which can only produce “abstract thoughts” compared to reality. It’s a shell that modern man was created on the basis of his enlightenment idea of “imperfect” nature of “natural World”: a shell that protects it from a hostile world.
In other words, modern man has wanted to “emancipate” from dependence on reality, creating an artificial world and has created a world of “ideas” from which does depend on her life (absolute ideas of modern ideologies). Without realizing that this way it ended up confined a world totally self-referential, abstract: a world in which it has lost control of himself, and then the environment.
Modern man has become intellectual man: “intellectuals” the caste of people shown by modern Ideologies such as the company (in particular, this happens in the ideas of the French Revolution and Marxism).
One of the forms of thought closer to mindset “empathetic”, traditional Catholicism, became mainly because of intellectual idea of St. Thomas to bring the concept of the existence of God on “mental” plan (i.e. produce a form of faith based on a rational demonstration); breakthrough which produced the current deterioration of the feeling of inner Faith, and the birth of political parties to current Social Ideologies within the Catholic Church.
Because of that today Catholicism, which was founded with the aim of bringing the man to an empathic awareness, ask, exactly how modern social ideologies, moral institution (Catholicism changes its ending: the spiritual end (a “subjective”, Interior, human) replacing a social purpose (the creation of a “right” Company that is independent from the inner work of individuals).
susp//instead of an individual’s inner realization-see the current cases, which have become a majority within the Church, adhering to Marxism, like that of Dossetti).
What fundamentally changes in human life because of his almost exclusive development of his mental intelligence. And with the parallel adoption of ideologies as a guide for its existence?
In the next chapter we will see precisely how modern man in his new “intellectual condition” abandon its original Moral a moral “empathetic”, focused on a live “spontaneous” driven by “sensitive” assessment of reality (which allows him to interact in real time, on a case-by-case environmental conditions). To switch to an “intellectual, moral, dogmatic where it leads a life centered on a continuing focus of mind over rational compliance of their own (and others ‘) attitudes and thoughts to a default fee.
We will see that is how the adoption of post-modern culture man has lost its essential inner guidance. As with the adoption of ideologies mankind has transferred in terms of abstract ideas, issues relating to its existence (= ideas tending Ideologies): replacing an inner guidance that was constantly evolving (based on a reality that is in continuous transformation) with pre-packaged ideas systems (based on preconceptions, no longer subject to an elaboration of concrete experiences but such theoretical insight guru’s “intellectuals”).
And we’ll see how this shift has transferred the man’s life in a dangerous, for himself and for the environment, the world of ideas from which it can no longer exit (the world of ideo-logie, in fact: a dimension in which the human thinking enters the dimension of Ego, a comfortable condition in which man’s consciousness ends to justify “abstractly” all kinds of reasoning , and then all kinds of action – a world in which the human mind is no longer able to distinguish what to man is actually good or bad).
“The truth is a land devoid of trails. (…) cannot be brought to our level, rather we must climb to its (…) can not bring the top of the mountain in a Valley (…) the same way you cannot organize a belief, a faith (…) are intimate aspects, we cannot nor should arrange (…) If you do die, crystallize, they become routine, seven convictions or religion from forcibly imposing on others (…) when creating organizations with these purposes they become props, impairments, chains, which will hinder you until you mutilarvi will recognize your uniqueness “Jiddu Krishnamurti
So in this chapter analyze the moral conception of the human being: how the “moral” has transformed over time, from “Guide” the Interior of the human being (“linked” peculiar instinct of man-based on a natural “programming”, “factory”, consciousness), in a series of mental beliefs (ideologies, dogmas or moralistic with which modern man today aims to reform society).
To better understand how can be this process of detachment from reality of human consciousness, we analyze the concept first.
It is necessary to mention that
the moral is a Convention.
An agreement crucial to the existence of the human being: but always just a Convention (for the Treccani encyclopedia this is a “collection of customs and standards recognized as rules of conduct by a person, a group, a society, a culture”).
Thus, contrary to what you normally think there is only moral.
There are multiple forms of moral,
each of which is tied to a specific cultural context
(every form of moral is valid only for this specific context).
In other words, as an individual, from within its specific culture see his morals as valid in absolute (a valid Principle for any human being), any form of social morality is a “moral” relative to a specific social context (see next chapter: “universality and relativity: the universal level of morality”).
Ethics is not something different f+rom morals, nor so even higher: Ethics is synonymous with morals.
According to Treccani ethics represents “criteria for judging the morality of human actions”, and is labeled as “doctrine or speculative reflection around the practical behavior of man”. And a practical behavior is never absolute, as would be the moral ideologies, but is always relative to the circumstances of the moment (in fact the ethics is also defined by the same encyclopedia as “moral norms and customs that identify a specific behavior in relationships referring to particular historical situations”-in other words, ethics morality represents a set of duties “that man stands out in specific historical circumstances).
As mentioned above, the moral is a set values (positive or negative) to be attributed to things; a code by which the rules of conduct necessary to operate a community of human beings: in the absence of such rules, the company falls into chaos.
The problems currently facing society are due to the fact that, paradoxically, the “intellectual control system” of conscience adopted by it in its new setting without the support of the “rules” of instinctual human morality, allows you to operate the company just so apparent: in fact, although things within a system so set actually “go forward” the company on this way artificially evolves in relation to human needs, and continually produces negative factors (recurrent crises of the Western system).
The fact is that our society, having moved away from a path of “natural” evolution, is intended to meet a profound crisis which can be fatal (in other words, a company like modern artificial is intended, because of defects of origin present in the principles adopted by it, to take a vicious spiral from which it is no longer able to exit : in this direction, although you can DAB the specific crisis, sooner or later you reach a crisis “era” that produces an irreversible decline of that company).
This deviation of modern civilization than the evolutionary direction of natural society “(all forms of non-Western Civilizations), derives from a change in man’s consciousness that determines a man’s moral change.
the Intellectual society is based on control
In our civilization, is that the human being that now belongs to modern intellectual mindset must be directed from the outside: how it was said, the conscience of man educated in the use of the rational part of his intelligence loses most of the “natural” perceptual abilities; and therefore the individual loses the interione Guide made of sensations or feelings, which, from its origin, an inspiration for his behavior (it has been said that in this way you will lose the original conception of knowledge, described in the West by Socrates: knowledge of the world as “self-knowledge”; that is, the ability to perceive reality thanks to the perception of sensations that develop in the body in relation to the world around him).
Man’s consciousness (intelligence) is so incomplete now: the problem stems largely from the fact that in this condition the incompleteness of the individual conscience is troubled by what he doesn’t know.
In this condition the individual becomes that is incapable of managing their own emotions, and therefore perceived a strong need to be driven (and encouraged) by other individuals.
That is, in cases of social Ideologies, the individual feels the need to be subjected to “control” from people more capable than him: it is precisely control practiced today “from above” in most democratic forms of Western society; and, defined as ability to self-control “mental” (review by the rational Ego), today advocated by our culture through the institutional Psychology.
Note that this form of control is central to social theories of the father of modern institutional Psychology, Freud, who, in his “Discontents”, it was expected that the company began to implement forms of repression against the spontaneity of individuals; stating that “each civilization must build on coercion and on the renunciation of drives”; and that “you can get scared in front of the massive use of coercion that will be inevitable until the achievement of these goals. The grandeur of this plan, its importance for the future of human civilization cannot be disputed “.
The underlying defect in a company like this is that the need to control individual generates a need to develop more control: This creates a vicious cycle that, over time, leads to the decline of the society this is the fact that the rational control of the individual produces the so-called alienation of the individual.
The problem is that the ‘ simplification ‘ of the mindset of “civilized man” (from whose consciousness have been deleted non “mental”) produces a chain of negative effects: in fact in the process of citizen control produces a veritable alienation of the individual (loss of contact from themselves and from reality).
This means that once you reach the first level of alienation, it is necessary to intervene with a further tightening of the control of an individual now unable to take a practical attitude to the Community (e.g. with a tougher system of fines for infringement of speed limits in the city). But what proceeds with a vicious cycle, because the citizen, farther and farther from reality, needs to be managed with continuous control increases (for example, at a later stage should be introduced to control cameras on a larger scale breaches of the highway code).
Beyond an apparent and temporary improvement of the situation, in this way you will not only increase the level of alienation of individuals (rather than intervene with a “cure” developed psychological level that allows the individual to recover the original integrity of conscience – and its condition of citizen acting in “functional” social community).
In other words, modern society has a moral system based on rational control of the consciences of individuals, produces a substantially escalating alienation of citizens. And an escalation of anti-social attitudes.
In this vicious circle we are forced to control more and more aspects of life of the citizen, and to apply a more strength (being a democracy and not a strong totalitarianism in our society currently excluding the repression as systematic and explicit use of physical force; but you end up adopting forms of control that make our company only apparently different from ancient tyrannies).
A significant example of the need for ever greater control of a social system operated with rational criteria, is precisely that of urban road traffic: the introduction of traffic light systems introduces chaos (motorists begin to use alternative routes do not regulated by traffic lights); It is therefore necessary, at this point, to intervene with greater distribution of traffic light systems.
But gradually, motorists from those measures to a level hardly tolerable stress (due to, for example, traffic queues) are beginning to stop accepting the limitations “imposed” by public institutions, and it then goes to a “regime” of free interpretation of traffic signs: becomes “natural” with the first yellow, then red (it is significant that we Italians , we are completely immersed in this phenomenon, we are not able to recognise this problem as it would recognize immediately an Englishman instead).
In this case we have a form of “control” in the beginning, relatively bland that it becomes, because of the limits of the human mind to accept rational fixes, in a situation where you need to intervene heavily with important actions of repression.
We’ll see how one of the biggest problems produced by ideological condition of the human mind, resides in the fact that it in that condition of alienation, due to a limited perception of reality, consider not only the lack of real freedom of citizens as a negative factor. But, since it, in its limited consciential condition cannot handle himself so “responsible” sense as needed the strength and pervasiveness of product control institutions.
We will also see how the problem of Western democracy is, in essence, that initially conceived as a democracy, as the institution responsible for the protection of personal freedom, is located in a transformed much like totalitarianism. In this sense social ideologies lead people not only think that the “strong” action of the State, such as that implemented by the Government in 2012, is a necessary condition. But also not to be able to reflect on the true meaning of democracy.
In this way, the modern civilization becomes a “totalitarianism.”
No matter how smart or “good” is the person who assumes the authority: “process control” applied social ideologies is “inherently” contrary to the principles of the operation of “moral” (and also, as we shall see, scientific principles of the evolution of the human species-that is, first, an evolution of consciousness that man in the condition described above, is completely inhibited).
Also, as mentioned above, this process is inherently contrary to the principles of Democracy: for this reason the regime of modern democracy has taken a decline that seems to be irreversible.
Today we are witnessing the abandonment of the original conception of democracy which is founded on the ability of citizens to engage in an ongoing evolutionary process, a constant interaction with government bodies to develop the management of the company.
with the ideological regime stops the evolution of human society (and man)
About the scientific foundations of our cultural system, we must remember that science, with the law of the survival of the species, tells us that reality is constantly evolving; and whereas it is therefore essential that the organisms are able to adapt constantly to the reality: the species that are no longer able to adapt to the changing reality is extinguished.
The problem lies in the fact that social ideologies, with their method of “control” of humans, block this process of continuous adaptation of man’s evolving reality (which is a basic condition for its survival).
The fact is that democracy was born in ancient times as “physiological” system, which guaranteed a maximum personal freedom (actually it’s Responsibility/freedom) so that everyone can give their best (all “individual talents that have made real progress in human society were, initially, contrary to the rules of the system, if not” revolutionaries “-just a non-control scheme has allowed such talents to express themselves and produce new functional ideas to substantial improvements of Social system).
The current problem lies in the fact that the present democracy is instead a rigidly rule-based system and structures defined “a priori” once and for all (“the Idea”, inside of ideology, it is necessary to submit).
(see, for example, the fact that the Constitution, which is not “democratic” in the true sense of the word because it was stability without taking into account the opinions of the citizens, is considered “sacred”, untouchable even by the citizens).
As for morality, this meant that the traditional form of Morality, developed by man with long and troubled historical experiences, which works in the daily existence was guaranteed by a continuous vigilance of “sensitive intelligence” of man, was replaced with an “ideal” morale, which escapes the control of the intelligence of the human species.
It has been said that democracy is the regime created to defend the freedom of individuals. This is actually the modern definition, reductive. In fact democracy is defined as the place where individuals enjoy the quality of freedom/responsibility.
It is required when both the fundamental principle of national responsibility:
the things Democracy can only work if people take responsibility for themselves
(and therefore the society’s Government). There is another way in which a democracy can function.
A democratic Regime (of citizens) can only function if individual consciences are able to regulate itself: on the basis of what they perceive from the reality in which they live, citizens take their decisions and act accordingly (in this case they act “in good conscience”).
In the absence of a national capacity to interpret, through one’s perceptions, the reality that surrounds him (that is, in the absence of citizen awareness of their social role), democracy cannot function.
In other words, because in a democracy, the “social actions” are produced by the people (no matter how high the level of control by the Community institutions), and these must have an adequate social consciousness: in case of absence of such form of consciousness (of self-awareness in relation to the social environment) there can be no real democracy.
Any exception to this law undermines democracy in its foundations, and long term inevitably leads to a collapse of the social system (in this case the citizens are governed “from above” by people living an existence essentially away from the citizen newspaper, and then to lose the perception of the needs of “real world”, producing a form of Government more “abstract” compared to the reality of the country).
the original fault of Modern Democracy
To understand the essence of the current crisis in our democracy, it is appropriate to take note of the existence in it of a defect of origin: modern democracy was born so substantially different from the original one which it says of inspiration.
In its original conception, defined at the time of ancient Greece, democracy was in fact something substantially different: it was a participatory system. In its modern form, democracy has become instead a representative system. This has completely misrepresented the original idea of democracy; and it is precisely in this betrayal of its founding principles, the cause of the decline of democracy in modern form (note that the earliest form of modern democracy, the American, adhered completely to the participatory model original) …
The fact is that in the template you are currently using to lose the founding elements of true democracy: the participation of the national Government of social communities (democracy means “form of Government in which power resides in the people”).
It is then said that various forms of morals, or values (which are collective feelings that guide the choices of individuals), represent the ability of the individual, man or animal, to understand how to behave within their community.
susp//In other words, a person’s morality consists in its ability to assess in an appropriate manner, in relation to the context of the community, the value of things.
One of the fundamental characteristics of human morality is that it becomes a moral being, should be “educated”.
The animals don’t need them: their morality is innate. While humans coexist, as we shall see, multiple levels of morality: that animal, which it shares with the other living species on Earth; and a peculiar man who can be defined as a “cultural” level.
Because the human being, to live quietly with his similar, needs this moral more complex than those taken by other species of living things?
the differences between sociality of the animal and of the man
Let’s see first how does the existence of “social” level for the other animals.
The fact is that the animal is much easier (spontaneous) live in a functional way to its social community (while, of course, to achieve the same level of social harmony, people need to be educated for this purpose).
Although not all human Sciences have agreed on this point, there is in any case an idea on the topic: the idea that although the existence of the human being and the animal follow certain common rules, there is still a real, substantial, difference between education that must receive the man and that receiving the animal. Or, in other words, the social life of a human being is essentially different from an animal’s social life.
What human sociality differs from that of animals?
The fact is that, as we view our science, man and animal differ greatly from each other, at the level of their “mind” (“psychological level”).
We’ll see how science has discovered that, although it may seem that pets can experience feelings like jealousy and guilt, in fact they do not feel at all things as men (the human being puts into these sentiments of “shades” of the sensations that the animal’s biological system cannot produce-not for this it can be argued that animals are inferior to man; nor that they have fewer rights than men).
In other words, men have a level of consciousness that you add to the level of “intelligence” basic shared with all animal species: that corresponds, with regard to the brain, a part of the human body which is particularly developed, the bark.
So the man
has basically two different levels of consciousness (of intelligence): the first, that it shares with the animals, and a second unique of its kind.
A first indication of the existence of these two levels of consciousness in human beings provides us the difference, in our culture, including the definition of the breed and the people or nation (we take the difference between Asians and Europeans: some Europeans may be very similar to Asians, but there are some differences in their biological intelligences, for example the ability to digest certain foods).
No nation, except China, is older than a thousand years; While the human races originate some millions of years ago. It is, in fact, two different levels of characterization of an individual who coexist in human: an individual’s membership in a race represents the basic biological level, that man shares with the animal; and membership of a people, which is instead defined by a level that man has grown so exclusive: culture.
This is obvious if we take into consideration the fact that cat of Julius Caesar was identical, in his way of being, a cat of our days. The feline species has had a cultural evolution: the fact is that animals are not able to develop a cultural aspect of their existence (and therefore not develop forms of civilization, a history). They lack a piece of mind, and “thought” that allows them to do so.
What is the basic morality, that man shares with the animal?
The morality of the individual is its ability to take actions that are in harmony with those of the other members of his community.
“Animal” level of morality is a kind of altruism, set automatic instinctive programming that relies on biological need for survival of the species.
To better understand how this level of morality, you must bear in mind that the
“fight for survival”, as defined in Darwinism, the existence of living species on Earth is not aimed at the survival of the individual.
According to modern science, “regole” imprinted in animal intelligence, that determine its behavior automatically, i.e. they are aimed at the survival of his community (the animal obviously doesn’t “think” in terms of species, but of communities).
We know that an individual waiver of the animal world to life, if this is necessary for the continuation of the life of his community. And that an animal will never be “excessive” in its behaviour, nor other members of his community, or with other living species: animal (unless you live in captivity), unlike the man, never makes acts of “violence” against other living beings (the Wolf and the Tiger, for example, passing a man doesn’t “think” at all to attack him if you really don’t need to do it , for food or to defend themselves).
In this way of life the animal, devoid of human feelings, basically follows a principle of Economics: do only the things that are actually needed. And needed not to himself but to the community. It is a kind of altruism instinctual automatic.
some mechanisms of animal morality
In the last century the ethologists, the scientists who study animal behavior, have brought to light some mechanisms of “animal morality”.
Frans de Waal, primatologo and author of the essay “Primates and Philosophers: How morality evolved» noted that chimpanzees, seeing another person of their kind roughed up, embrace to help him recover.
In other experiments is seen that once a chimpanzee who had been educated at crush, when a certain sound, a button to receive a punishment, not seeing another in the same dangerous conditions, he’d do the same thing to stop the punishment (note that it saw the scene on a monitor without sound , from which he can then hear the signal related to punishment: it was simply unable to recognize the other person’s face a form of panic that urged him to press the button to stop the punishment to it).
The scientist previously Ladygina-Kohts Nadia, which raised at home a chimpanzee, was not able to get it down when it ran on the roof, even letting him see her favorite food, bananas; until he found out, pretending to cry, induced the chimpanzee to fall: the animal then renounced to his freedom, to comfort her (in a way that shows that in primates has more solidarity than the food).
So, while not offering a moral human, even the animal is moved by something that appears to be essential in the various forms of morality taken in human History: the “altruism”.
This level of morality is also present in the human being. Where, however, there is also a different level of morality, his peculiar species: a level that you can superimpose to the more “basic”, with results that can be both positive and negative for the human community.
In what would be the level of human morality?
What the moral of human type would be different from that of animals?
While animal morality is related to “rules” of survival of biological species (most aspects directly related to development of the life of the living organism), and then to a condition that, in relation to the Social context built by man, is regulated by many simple and rather mechanistic rules, in the case of man things “complicated.”
In a sense the male, to adjust its existence has a much more “powerful” than those that the animal has: human consciousness. This condition, of course, can bring great benefits, but also enormous problems.
The man, than the animal has a right, which is defined by how free will Philosophy, which can, on the one hand, let it evolve, reaching heights of “morality” (basically, a better level of well-being in social life). But, on the other hand, this possibility can lead human beings to behave “arbitrary” (to take a “free” attitude with respect to the real needs of the social community).
This produces behavior mode of trouble for the individual and for society as a whole, (if not immediately, this will happen in the long run).
In other words the man received from nature a sort of “gift” that (as Spider-man talking about his powers), is as much a blessing as a damn. Man can that is, acting on his “feelings” (using his peculiar consciousness), “go beyond” (positive) to its mere survival instincts. But it can also cause damage to himself and to his community (as we shall see, it can get, in extreme cases, to self-destruct).
One of the characteristics of human consciousness is to produce a particular form of affection, not present in animals.
Human consciousness has, among other things, the ability to feel an affection that “transcends” race membership. An example: If there is an ethnicity that threatens another ethnicity, a human being, unlike an animal, it may also, depending on a shoestring’s idea of two communities, not to attack an enemy ethnic group belonging to that enters its territory.
Concepts such as forgiveness and love romantic (but also the misplaced guilt or resentment in the mind) do not exist in the animal world. In addition, animals do not develop metaphysical concepts (such as that or God; or “ideal” reasons behind the modern Ideologies), may not have the idea of Home, etc.
These are concepts which, in fact, belong to cultural identity, moral, or human beings (human culture produced by his peculiar mind).
(We shall see in a next chapter, some specific contents of morality).
the role of education in the human
Next to the characteristic of being equipped with a moral conscience, man has another peculiarity associated with it: the need to be “educated” in a particular way to hire a social identity.
This type of education, which aims to make the human being a social being (living in the best way the social interrelations), is purely a moral education. An education of the future thanks to the Man which it becomes an adult, “responsible” and capable of dealing with the “socially correct” next (while the animal, as has been said, “in this sense is born learned”: it “spontaneously”, following the laws of conservation of the species, knows by instinct, at least in large part, how to make his “good” match with the good of the Group).
Basically, unlike animal that needs no “education”, man must be educated to acquire an ability to stay in the world with a typical identity of its species (this is why children need many years to learn to live, while the baby animals a few weeks).
In other words the difference consists in the fact that the animal, as it can be grown in total captivity, i.e. in the absence of the educational contribution of other members of its species, is able to “know”, as an adult, how to provide for his personal hygiene, how to choose food or understand how to behave with other animals.
The animal is able to live in the manner typical of his species although it wasn’t polite.
in order to find its own identity as a human being,
must be educated to be from previous generations.
For this characteristic of having to transmit a culture through education, the human species, unlike other species, not only can save itself over time, but also can “evolve” (this is the evolution of civilization, which takes place on a cultural level: the biological transformation processes within any species are, in this case, marginal; important changes in the animal world, are only characterized by the advent of new species).
In a sense, regarding the broadcast of “heritage”, along with genetic characteristics the man goes on to succeeding generations, in this case through education, even a kind of cultural DNA, which is constantly evolving (is one of the latest conclusions to which they arrived scientists geneticists).
The evolution of man is the fact that
humans, unlike other animals, can transmit to others his life experiences: in animals, the wealth of experience accumulated by the individual in his life instead, hopelessly lost with the death of the individual.
In other words the possibility of being educated permits man to “accumulate” experiences from generation to generation.
Notice how even the metaphysical cultures of the past have faced this issue with arguments of type “symbolic”: humanity evolves through some sort of process of “reincarnation”.
According to modern thought this process takes place at the level of human consciousness, but the modern scientific idea does not differ much from the ancient one.
For the ancients the peculiarities of the human being was to be, in part, his own past: ancient philosophy this was a metaphysical concept of spirit, while modern psychology is a psychological inheritance (our psychology is based on the idea that the individual is subconsciously identify with their ancestors, at least in the 3 previous generations).
The man then must be educated.
If not polite,
the man is not able to become a “human being”
(not a civilized human being):
the man, unlike the animal, is, in fact,
what he was taught to be.
Wherever there is a human being “civilized” there is always someone who is busy to educate him on the basis of those that are current precepts of a given cultural context.
Anthropology studies have highlighted how individuals who grew up in the early years of life in the absence of human presence, have become “animals and not humans (such as abandoned babies found in Woods and small in age, which were” tarzan “who” knew “not even posture and walking of man, they were unable to use their voice , to express and understand concepts. etc …).
The evolution of humanity is so through this process of gradual evolution, developed from generation to generation, of a peculiar “genetic heritage”: its moral and cultural heritage.
Although the genetic term today is mostly related to the heritage of genes, and is used with a biological significance, it actually has a much more general meaning: “that means genetic origin, training” (Treccani).
Is derived from Genesis: “with reference to a work of art, and the ways in which its first conception has come concretando in the mind of the artist.” But the term is known in our culture to be the title of the book of the Bible which is the origin of man (conceived by God).
Therefore the term indicates what genetic origin; and genetic means generally regard a wealth (assets, tangible or intangible) that are part of a person, a family or a community from its origin (outside of biology, can speak, for example, of “genetically related languages» Treccani).
In other words, from a cultural point of view, the term gene pool indicates that collection of values (material or spiritual) representing inheritance (or tradition) for the individual or the community.
(remember that culture is not only a set of notions, but also a way of being of the people-for the Treccani “set of intellectual knowledge that a person has acquired through study and experience, also rielaborandole with a personal and profound rethinking in order to convert the concepts from simple learning (…) in self-awareness and their world “).
the new concept of genetic
(besides the “double helix” of DNA)
We have to remember what has already been said about the Genome Project: the modern genetic science has abandoned the idea of the ‘ 900 in which the genetic material of living organisms reside on chromosomes (i.e. on the steps of the DNA Double Helix).
What survives today at the closing of the Genome Project is a “commercial” part ideological and science, used to support the actions of institutions and market (which is based on the interests of the big global bio-chemical industries). Because of this lack of a really scientific foundation, the “Science market” continues to release genetically modified products “whose effects are, to put it mildly,” unpredictable “.
As mentioned above, one of the features that distinguished man from animal is its ability to evolve a civilization (this is the peculiar form of evolution of his species) through a gradual process of “genetic heritage” (which, in his case, includes its cultural DNA) inherited from previous generations (“genetic” means from the source).
But, and this is the point, as shown by the studies cited earlier, it is possible that this flow of transmission of this heritage is lost (in this case within the civilization has a dramatic loss of hereditary heritage accumulated over the centuries by a population).
The fact is that the particular evolution of the human species, now called progress, has its fundamental value in that elaborate cultural heritage for millennia of experience with reality (in other words, this wealth of knowledge maintains itself, together with the results of the latest evolution of man, due to its being the result of extremely ancient roots, something that goes back to the origin of the process).
Then the reset of this “cultural heritage” (also referred to as “tradition”) pursued its modern social ideologies with the intent, paradoxically, to create a new culture better than the last, also involves, necessarily, a reset of the evolutionary process of man (the one pursued by ideologies is a “social revolution” of thought aimed to rebuild from scratch the foundations of culture, as was the case for the cultural revolution made in the West in the years ‘ 60 you will essentially lose content “genetic”, a native, human knowledge).
In other words, with the introduction of modern ideologies, man coming to lose the connection with
the origin of its culture, with its cultural roots, loses its identity as a human being
(remember that culture not only a body of knowledge, but is also the basis of the “to be”).
Alienated man is therefore not a “mistake” of modern civilization:
It is the product of the process of modernization.
Modern ideologies produce i.e. alienation of man (his loss of identity of the human being), bringing his mind to perform at a level “artificial” (rational), due to the fact that the individual in condition of alienation is more functional to modern society (the “society of control from the top of the people”).
In summary, modernity is based on a social ideology based on the idea that Nature is defective and should be replaced with a rational system that corrects the deficiencies.
In other words according to our way of thinking about “Nature” should be redesigned from its foundation by the rational mind of man (this idea today is the basis of both the institutional Thinking, born with the rationalism of the Enlightenment and was completed with the reforms of Napoleon and the industrial revolution).
Alienation (the State in which “consciousness became estranged from itself”), which is the human loss of some fundamental qualities, it is precisely the condition produced by modern education aimed at developing almost exclusively the mental sphere of rational individual.
Because of the process of “modernization” of culture, man today become “intellectual” separate lives (“estranged”) from the set of knowledge and existential feelings that traditionally provided the “meaning of life”. In this way, i.e. the individual has lost much of its “humanity” not by chance the man who lived in totalitarian regimes (but also what plays in political parties that adhere to the totalitarian ideologies), is described by those who have had a direct experience, as a non-human.
Let’s see then what is this form of human disruption with the roots of human culture (i.e. his way of being traditional), operated by social Ideologies.
And what are the most immediate consequences of this process of “revolution” of the traditional culture of a civilization.
Perhaps the concept that follows a bit complex, philosophically …
The study of cases of newborns abandoned in forests seen previously highlighted as in the case of loss of the “cultural heritage” by an individual, you have a total loss of his human features (individuals who have lived in this particular condition appear like animals).
The same phenomenon occurs in the event that this loss of traditional cultural heritage takes place at the level of an entire community.
In human history this has occurred, for example, through the laying on of a people of new cultures by other peoples; but also through the imposition of a culture of a social class, until then in the minority, on the culture of the previously dominant class. Significant examples are the invasions of Barbarians against Western civilization; the taking of possession by the Islam, of Alexandria, the heart of the “Western” Culture (the destruction of the library that collected all the knowledge of the time); the expansion of the Catholic Church in the Maya territories; the Bolshevik revolution within the context of Russia and later the cultural revolutions of totalitarianism of the ‘ 900.
Of course, unlike the case of loss of cultural heritage by the individual, resetting the culture of an entire population does not result in the regression of the lives of individuals belonging to that people to the level of beasts (at least, not the appearance), because the new “reformed” culture are still maintained the basic elements of human existence. But still involves a loss of “humanity” as “loss of the specific characteristics of traditional cultural ethnicity or social class (meaning a loss of cultural identity, or the individual’s alienation from his peculiar psychological characterization of ethnicity).
The “new culture” produced by social classes or Peoples “conquering”, bring a “new order” (the term used at the institutional level of totalitarian ideologies of ‘ 900) in which people actually live in a seemingly very tidy.
From a large number of witnesses of the 20th century we know that many left-wing intellectuals in Western Europe, the study visit in Stalin’s Soviet Union, were impressed by what they saw. In the new Soviet order not only in the newspapers there was hardly news of crimes, but in the “jewel” of the Siberian Gulag system, where people were subjected to forced labor, the visitors saw the application of a method for creating a new man: a person finally freed from those bourgeois impulses “useless” (as the “bourgeois” feelings).
The definition of “love” is a significant example of the ideological vision of the human being: to Marxist ideology ordinary affections of the individual are unacceptable, since the human being away from her daily work to a achieve salvation of human material; affections, as defined, of course, loves a distraction, would be dangerous because it would represent a “superstructure” created by frivolous minds who don’t want to deal with the real problems of man. Would then be non-real “feelings” that are part of those aspects, as spiritual worlds, which represent a “drug” for consciousness (Marx termed them “opium of the people”).
The feelings as the affections are torn from the bourgeois then Marxist ideology, as obstacles to the realization of a society “tidy”.
Lenin, for example, claimed to never talk about music, because it would distract him from more serious thoughts and engaged.
In the radical left ideology still remains, in part, that idea.
For example, art, traditional culture expression of human feelings, as described in the encyclopedia of “militant” Publishing House Einaudi, becomes a tool for the creation of the company foreshadowed by Marx (in this Encyclopaedia, now widespread, you support these claims with quotes from Lenin).
Modern arts today, exists at the institutional level, the Marxist vision: Chabrol, one of the directors of film reference left, to which his brother wrote, “you see that you were in college by priests and who you are, despite your going through the world, feelings,” says “bourgeois” the bourgeoisie is a class, but also a condition of the spirit (…). The borghese mindset will survive in all social systems and the worst part is that the bourgeoisie, inserted in their work, they are not that unhappy: just make money, there are no more problems. “
This way of seeing things remains the basic Ideology that institutions In Italy dealing with culture: today the directors “engaged” (led by Salvatores and Ministerial Committee in charge of Cinema, which has forced to emigrate abroad Muccino to continue to perform his job) would like to delete from the Italian Cinema fools “amori” (bourgeois came to the proclamation of militant Salvatores , Christmas 2008: “I challenge the movie Christmas with my black Fable”).
And the critics mostly rejected the film not “engaged” in case of ideology, with the typical motivation: “deal with emotional crap” (a case for everyone: leek, the film critic of the Corriere della Sera).
The same position was deployed Freud (who in fact mentioned the Soviet Union, as it is seen as the best example of civil society): the man would be equipped with negative feelings for the company, then the ideal society is one that is able to suppress the “feelings”.
Even in the world of song developed the same vision: one of the earliest examples is the song of “revolutionaries” Giants (who had written the song in which they said “the revolution eventually will win”), another song they sang “true love does not exist, it is only in the hearts of those who had a sad youth”). The same San Remo Festival, traditional stronghold of “a sentimentalist Culture” of the Italians, was monopolised by the culture of radical left, which made a pulpit of ideological propaganda.
the “saltus” in evolution
Modern culture aspires to a re-establishment of the company rational mode under various forms (of left-wing ideology whose objective is to establish a “fair World”, whose purpose is to create a world “convenience”, etc.).
Implemented by these ideologies, from the scientific point of view, is a stretch of natural evolution of human-specific cultures.
Forcing that produces an important “genetic” damage to humanity: uprooted people from their traditional culture lose functional existence values specifying that people.
This is the loss of a wealth of knowledge accumulated over thousands of years of experience in the specific reality of the place: it is not only a wealth of knowledge produced at the intellectual level, but a complex memory system that determines the specific habitus of a people which allowed up to that point in history to individuals of that ethnic group to live in a functional way to their environment (depending on the weather orographic characteristics, vegetation and fauna of places; and a level of social interaction with other members of the community, in touch with other neighbouring populations, etc.).
You have to take note, at this point, a question of fundamental importance from the scientific point of view: modern ideologies, with the idea that it is necessary to rebuild man’s Culture with a phase of “rupture” (called Revolution: scientific, industrial, cultural, etc.), leave from the denial of one of the fundamental principles of scientific thought: “natura non facit saltus”.
From the negation of the idea of science common to all civilizations, man the evolution of things happen in a gradual, progressive, and not to jump.
An example of forcing in spontaneous evolution of a culture is represented by “globalization” forced local cultures (shown until a few decades ago with the term “internationalization”).
The loss of identity in people is induced in these cases also from “ideologies” more “soft”, as that is the basis of the current market, or that which is based on the architecture of the second half of the 20th century: systems of thought that are “international”.
The imposition of such forms of International Culture (values) in local contexts, in the name of “progress”, involves the Elimination of local value systems: a case in point is the proposed international style by the architect Le Corbusier-Marxist ideologue, who proposed the houses-“Beehive” identical in France and in India (in the latter, the local populations have ended rearing cattle!).
Examples of lifestyle “globally” induced today in various populations from Western market are, in General, a significant example of how we can eradicate the individuals feelings and traditional behaviors (an interesting anecdote, raccontatomi from a Marxist, architect on inadequacy of global culture than to local contexts: in a pro-Soviet African country the site of an airport seen from Russia delivered a piste Maintenance Kit which included a snowplow).
the loss of the ability of spontaneous operation of the company: the “dependence” of civilized man
The problem prompted the adoption of modern ideologies is so that, with the Elimination of traditional cultural instruments, the company loses its way of working “spontaneous”.
In this way it is to lose the “spontaneous harmony” of the individual with the surrounding environment; and then the traditional “common sense” that led to thousands of local people to make decisions that are compatible with the feelings and needs of others.
It is said that this loss of human qualities entails, among other things, the loss of autonomy (freedom) by the individual: failing that “substantial” culture that allowed the individual to live in a relatively autonomous from the third party support, was born in the individual sense of having to be led by people “experts” and authoritative.
This new “dependency” condition of man who joins the “new culture” is in the “concrete” (in this condition arises that is a physical addiction than daily practices that in the context of traditional life were carried out directly by the individual), and partly a psychological feeling of insecurity (in this condition, the individual is always looking for existential safety lost).
This form of physical and psychological dependence on the part of the individual is the end of the cultural revolution made by social Ideologies.
Both the “rational” ideological systems of modernity, the market and social ideologies, need to work, just a “dependency” condition of the individual.
A significant case of this sense of dependence of individuals from people in authority, within company ideologizzate, is strongly represented by the case of the Iraqi citizen who, immediately after the fall of Saddam Hussein, interviewed by a foreign TV, said: “now who will rule us?” (was clearly resentful against those who went to “set him free”-the case of Iraq is just an example of the inability of Western thought to take into account the location of the culture of a people).
The dependence of Western individual is revealed by the fact that no national aspiration is to become a “free” worker (self-employed), but a “dependent worker”. (according to recurrent surveys by magazines such as Panorama and Espresso).
Addiction is a must for the modern society:
in order to function optimally,
It must necessarily bring people
such a dependency condition: and it does, in fact, even through the “impoverishment” of the traditional culture of citizens.
This process of eliminating traditional cultural heritage is a required step for the realization of modern society.
This applies to both its “conservative” and “reformist”). Gramsci’s theory on “cultural hegemony” is, in fact, towards the eradication of the culture of social Class responsible for the company’s woes. But the market also, had to work in order to “conquer” with populations of traditional cultures, overlap to local cultures a culture “revolutionized” (culture of the scientific revolution and industrial).
The psychological sense of dependency that is produced by Western society is the same as in totalitarianism was inculcated in the centers of “re-education” in those individuals that were unable to “integrate” into the system.
That kind of “re-education” of consciousness is a practice used in our society today in new shapes, thinner, analyzed in detail later.
In the Western system today have abandoned the strongest methods such as lobotomy and shock therapy (some doctors are suggesting the recovery of this practice), but some practices remain very similar to those practiced in totalitarian regimes: even today it makes a massive contribution with powerful psychiatric drugs to “fix” the consciousness of individuals not in line with the company (which are referred to with terms like “misfits”).
In particular the increasingly widespread use of Ritalin, a powerful drug that inhibits in children the “excess” of nervous energy that makes them too restless to, for example, follow the order imposed by institutions in the education system (it is simply found ways to apply shock therapy, albeit in chemical form, also for children). The television programs are now, essentially, a form of “brainwashing” that refers people to a State of “compliance” compared to modern social model.
As the animal born in captivity, the modern human being today needs a master: it is not longer able to fend for himself, to sink the vicissitudes of human existence, it ends up to be “governed”.
education as a form of empathic transmission
The problem for the human civilization is that traditional cultures zeroing is virtually irreversible: the traditional culture of a population (the ways of being of the individual) are irretrievably lost when making a “cultural revolution” that replaces the traditional culture with a radically new culture.
This irreversibility is due to the fact that the wealth of experience which we call human knowledge, can be “streamed” only through direct contact, empathetic mode, between people (at a “sensitive” level, and not through a predominantly rational channel: empathy is a mode of interaction that is based on the possibility of perceiving “the mood and emotional situation of another person instantly, mostly without resort to verbal communication.» (Tan)).
The fact is that the transmission of the “genetic” cultural heritage within a company can only occur when there is direct contact with a person who, in his lifetime, has transformed his direct experiences in intimate knowledge of things (we’ll see later how transmission of a person-to-person experience plays an important role as a sort of “resonance” that body cannot be separated in fact, from direct contact, “sensitive”, among people).
In other words, culture is not something that can be “taught” Western mode (this is not a teaching training, an education).
Let’s see what are the qualities of a real teaching.
Basically (1) the teaching of knowledge can take place only in the presence of people who are “something (which are essentially expert in specific aspects of existence; and not by people who have learned something in school” learning paths “).
In a process in which (2) people who come into contact with them “become” something: this is not a transfer of knowledge, but of an induction of memories “sensitive” level (in other words, culture cannot be studied but experienced).
This is quite evident in the case of transmission of a language (i.e. a dialect) or craft: there must be upstream of the process of the people who are actually something (or a person of “mother tongue” or “skilled workman”-«capable, proficient, competent, experienced, valid»). In the absence of this condition there can be a real teaching.
Moreover this direct contact is essential for the transmission of individual and intimate, (3) can only take place under conditions of ordinary life experience (during an actual sharing of experience); and not, for example, in a classroom. Under these conditions only the person of “mother tongue” or the craftsman, make another complete experience that allows the “pupil” of record in his consciousness the profound meaning of the words of a language, or a craft technique (basically learning is an experiential process, not a transmission of knowledge).
It is therefore the life experience that, as argued ancient cultures, increases the “wisdom” of persons (or, if we want to see the thing so utilitarian, the social value of people). And not, as claimed, a “teaching” notional.
Modern culture prominence however this conception of human wisdom: experience-dependent today, among other things, the institutions seek to “rejuvenate” the leaders of the State and enterprises, and teachers. While in the non-Western Civilization is considered the missing young man lacks that “cosy culture”, or wisdom, which has an individual elder.
The ruling class rejuvenation is a ploy to “revolutionize” the traditional culture, or create a discontinuity in the evolution of the tradition of a people (Marxist societies more evolved as the Cambodia of the Khmer, were attributed to children Institutional functions).
susp//(not only because … fewer years of experience, but because he lived a less than nuomeor historical phases of evolution of society …).
One of the defects of the modern society is to
having abolished, mostly, the traditional methods of transmission of culture, to replace them with inadequate teaching methods than what a human formation of real people.
With the adoption of forms of modern riduzionistiche education, i.e. limited to a “mental” level (verbal, logical-rational) of consciousness, you are losing in society all those deepest values that determine the real knowledge of a way of being, a practice or a language.
And this loss is irreversible: you create a “saltus” in the transmission of the cultural heritage of a civilization.
“Genetic heritage” so lost cannot be recovered through the evidence “” received the new generations (no new forms of transmission of knowledge, even the most advanced multimedia, unable to play even the empathetic relationship, “physical”, necessary for effective communication between human consciousness, can guarantee a recovery of lost culture).
In the modern scheme of life you lose “being” (replacing “” being with “”having).
It is to lose people who type “are” something: namely that “know” things really, that is the necessary condition to transfer to others who (is the ancient concept of testimony, or “example” for other persons: only when a person is actually “a living example”, other people can learn something from it).
Note that essentially means genetic ab source: in this case it’s genetic heritage started to develop from the origin of the history of man. Then note how this will create in a sense (at the cultural level, the “way of being) that problem of the extinction of Aboriginal individuals (original inhabitants of the place) which in our civilization, in words, we care very much.
From this point of view, modern society is a system in which institutions are founded on the illusion: in managing institutions (Companies, State, school, etc …) there are people “who are”, and then “who know” actually but only people who “think they are” (who “think they know”: people who live “appearance”, which took the appearance of a person “expert”).
The knowledge of these people is a something superficial compared with the individual’s knowledge of non-Western cultures (you know that one is not more knowledge), linked to the abstract world we live in.
Knowing that is no useful
in case you have to relate to the real world:
as we shall see this is the underlying problem that caused the current crisis democracy-system market; and that prevents the “experts” to find a way out: nobody has the idea of where the problem is, and all turn round without being able to solve anything.
modern man as a human being regressed
So basically, in our society, because of its endemic flaws, what has been lost is the general cultural heritage of human civilization; or that “way of being” people who can no longer be recovered unless people who have preserved their original quality (anyway this heritage cannot be recovered through the rational teaching methods adopted by our civilization).
Summing up the above, modern society causes a disruption of the process of transfer of cultural heritage between generations on two levels:
• a “cultural revolution” that eliminates traditional cultures (culture forms “genetic”, ab, origin of individuals of a civilization) to build a “new culture” better; This is done either in the form of violent revolution (in the explicit totalitarianism), and in the new “soft” form of cultural egemonizzazione practiced social ideologies (in this case, a “cultural revolution”).
• by adopting a method of “rational” teaching that, paradoxically, with the intention of conveying culture in more effective ways, relying predominantly on the “rational” level of thinking, does not allow a human being to transmit a “substantial” culture to new generations.
In this way
the modern civilization wiped out the culture of human genetics
with the prevalence of modern civilization at the global level,
a general regression of human civilization.
In fact, with the loss of her cultural DNA, the human being has lost its ability to “being in the world”.
That loss is determined, the following issues:
■ Today civilized individuals have essentially lost most of their actual knowledge: they are no longer able to live on Earth in a functional nature and their species. They first lost the capacity previously accumulated by mankind to perform basic functions like get food, the perpararlo in the absence of sophisticated technologies, provide for their health or build their own home, furniture, clothing, etc.
■ but more importantly, the modern human being is no longer capable of “natural”, and therefore effective, his relationships with individuals of his community: and therefore it is no longer able to operate the community he formed (from the family to the nation).
The man has lost “the” family and social roles that had managed to develop in millennia of experience (no longer exists the grandmother, mother, father or even your doctor; it is more the one who takes care of people, but has become a “performer” mechanists protocols). This creates a particularly serious damage is the loss of those intimate human knowledge such as, for example, that made a woman a mother: today the mothers who are no longer able to raise children in the traditional way (we could say that they are no longer able to breed humans).
■ The man is no longer able to cope with even itself, both in its physical health issues, both in its “natural” against fears of existence: you lost the spiritual and psychological “Culture” (or, as we used to say, philosophy). The man has lost the knowledge of himself, and with this he lost his self, his soul (and hence the belief in the existence of something that transcends the material).
In other words, with the loss of this genetic heritage man has lost much of its characterization of the human being, namely the characterization of “civilized person” that had been built in millennia of history: man is no longer able to live as a “human being” because he lost the knowledge that allowed individuals who belonged to the oldest civilization to do so.
Although our society has, in fact, achieved some effect “conquests”, it produced a regression in relation to the level of actual Knowledge that had reached the man thousands of years ago-today the human being has lost even the ability of the use of fire, the proverbial man conquest dating back millions of years ago (part of which has been preserved in niches of our civilizations like the Boy Scouts).
The man, with the final stages of the “revolution of modernity”, has lost even the knowledge of much more recent origin, which were instead of human heritage of the eighteenth century: it has lost its “Arts”, knowledge of artisans and farmers in our civilization are somehow survived to the boom years, 60 years, but in recent decades are virtually extinct (this occurred for example, due to the demonization of medieval feudal society implemented institutional ideologies, namely the Scientific culture of the industrial revolution, and Marxism-although now with the idea of federalism, you try to recover at least part of that size).
The modern “cultural revolution” has also produced a transformation in the relationship between man and nature: with the loss of who held the man closely linked to nature, the new knowledge developed at the Rationalized level are oriented to the domain of nature, and is no longer a “sustainable use” (new technologies are all “destructive”, as says the girl protagonist of the film “the fifth element” : “you people act in a strange way, what created the used to destroy” – and not only speaks of the weapons, which, in any case, other civilizations were not “definitive”, namely self-destructive for the man, like ours, like those from culture).
Modern civilization has produced a culture of break, the last of which is the so-called “globalism”, evolution of culture produced by the industrial revolution: the dogma of extension of modern way of life to other civilizations.
the role of education of children in the loss of culture
The transmission of cultural DNA of a civilization between successive generations takes place through two phases of life characterized by its different modes of education.
(1) in the infant stage, in which the individual is formed in its essence (formed in moral principles, in its ability to know himself and relate with others; and then, among other things, to continue to increase their knowledge even as an adult, etc.).
(2) the individual, in the adult stage, can be learned and refine learning of “practical” issues necessary for its existence (the trades, the most sophisticated formal mode of human interrelations. Etc..); but it can also improve the knowledge of himself on a more subtle level of that learned as a child.
What develops in childhood is also the deepest learning process, because in this period of his life, the human being is more receptive to the teachings (modern psychology defines that term as developmental age, where not only the consciousness of the individual is still a Virgin, but there is also a strong request to receive teachings).
In any case, the ability of a civilization to form the child to become a responsible adult and “conscious” (and thus able to refine his knowledge and skill, and especially with a consciousness of human being) is crucial for the proper functioning of the system (in this stage of education is transmitted to the future adult “social model” that makes “individual morals”).
A mistake made by the community at this stage of the formation of the individual, can cause irreparable damage to the company: the formation of individuals incapable of having a positive role in the social system (that is, essentially, the risk is to train individuals unable to evolve by itself and then, as we see in this chapter, unable to contribute to society evolution under the terms of the laws of evolution of the human species).
To understand how a social system that does not apply a functional training on the characteristics of the human species is subject to a right of recourse, you must consider two fundamental characteristics of the human being and his social systems: the man has a free will, and the evolution of consciousness of the individual is not an option but a necessity.
free will as certain factor of human evolution
Being equipped with a special knowledge, man is subject to the so-called free will that is the fundamental quality that allows it to evolve as a human being.
Unlike other animals, human beings possess a conscience that offers the opportunity to live free
from some laws of nature:
This condition allows him to acquire new knowledge, which is to evolve his “conscience” (which is “fundamental tool for the development of its Civilization).
But the freedom that gives him his conscience can turn to him in a negative factor of its evolution: when it respond in each case to some fundamental laws of nature (e.g. the biological laws), the absence of rigid constraints (the typical intelligence products of other animals) can induce a “mistake” in his choices (the peculiarities of the human being is to assume an attitude “arbitrary” laws of nature).
We must take account of the fact that “freedom of conscience” also means the freedom to build a transmission specific culture: the man can pass on to succeeding generations a cultural heritage “arbitrary”.
evolution as need
There is another feature of the human being which we must take into account when trying to analyze social systems it produces: the evolution of consciousness for humanity is not a possibility, is a necessary condition.
This is true of the fact that, as revealed by our biology, what characterizes the life, is, among other things, the evolution of the living organism. “Growth”: living things grow (the absence of growth means death).
In fact if you look at a microscopic rock and coral, we note that the first, unlike the second, changes and grows. The living plant is distinguished from the plant life that grows. And when it stops growing is because it has taken the step of her life that leads to death.
Even the simplest organism, the cell, when life is in constant motion. If you look under a microscope, it presents a continuous beat; This movement is, maybe almost inaudible level, its internal organs. This activity of his internal organs constantly produces a condition of transformation of the whole human organism: a cycle of 6 years each cell is completely transformed compared to the past.
More generally, anything that has an “organic” and cannot evolve. Here’s one of the fundamental “rules” of existence:
a physiological existence does not provide a “static condition.
As w. Dyer reminds us, one of the pioneers of motivational psychology, this rule also applies to the human psyche: “this is true even in the psychological sphere. If you grow up, you’re alive. If you don’t grow up is like saying that you’re dead. ” And, by extension, it also applies to groups of persons, such as human communities: where there is a continuous evolution, there is a decline, a decline.
The human being has always evolved because from the day it appeared on Earth following this biological rule of his consciousness, that imposes continuously evolve (civilizations that have not been able to maintain a State of constant evolution have disappeared from history).
In other words there is no static History:
the story raises or virtuous circles or spirals vicious.
When a human society enters a static phase, stopping to evolve begins to decay.
In summary the evolution of civilization is linked to the specific evolution of the human species:
a civilization can be developed only
from individuals living in condition of freedom
(freedom of conscience):
when they are able to evolve their consciences.
In the absence of this condition there may be evolution, and there is a regression of civilization.
And if, as is happening today, civilization in regression is also dominant globally, you are likely to see a regression of humanity.
-the current problem for the world is twofold: first, the declining Civilization is also the dominant Civilization compared to other civilizations. Secondly this civilization has developed technologies that are able to “dominate” (“non-sustainable” mode, or to destroy) nature.
For this reason there can be, as in the past, the extinction of a single Civilization: the extinction of the entire human Civilization (or his species? if they continue to evolve, climate change or the spread of nuclear weapons).
The traditional learning skills are replaced by specialization of knowledge
As we have seen, the child needs a “education” in order to become a “human being”. Because of modern education to which it is subject in our civilization, with which stops, with a form of “reduced” education quality at rational, transmission of the genetic heritage of human values, the child cannot become a “human being” in all respects.
The adult “civilized” is missing
the essential quality of the human being:
freedom of conscience.
Western man has thus ceased to be an individual “responsible”, that is capable of providing their own personal contribution to the evolution of its society.
(this is essentially due to a loss of its ability to evolve himself, that determines quality, collectively, the company’s evolution: the modern man not only has erased much of the ancient culture built over thousands of years by humanity, but it is no longer able to learn from direct experience with things or people; in other words it doesn’t have in its formation phase “learn to learn”: one of the essential qualities because man can evolve).
As mentioned, this is because modern man is the opposite of the “responsible individual” means an individual is “dependent”.
Modern man depends on other people in almost every aspect of his life which was not until a couple of centuries ago: today depends almost entirely by people “experienced” (which at critical stages such as the current one highlighting the nullity of their knowledge). And indeed, as has been said, the human being, in our society, it sucks, at least on a mass level, to become “an employee” as regards his work (seeing the thing from a historical perspective, we could say that modern man aspires to be a servant).
The ability to learn to learn is essential for the human being: this is the quality that distinguishes man from animal, which should be trained by humans to learn new things that come from the Board of its limited knowledge “.
Because as has been said, the evolution of the human species coincides with the evolution of the conscience of the individual (with the evolution of individual Consciousnesses), the evolution of man is based on the ability to drive-training of each individual: any external training for the individual becomes a limitation of his ability to evolve his conscience. And then to evolve his species (in other words a “strong” education by institutions outside the family, as regards the levels of training, such as morality, produces a serious limitation of the future evolution of the individual adult).
An aberration produced by modern culture is to delegate to others the issue of the acquisition and management of knowledge.
Knowledge is the result of an experiential process, and then a process that takes place within each individual consciousness (even if the knowledge can be shared and processed collectively-to stay, from a scientific point of view, a real knowledge it must still be based on initials “experiences” of reality first-hand-made by individual – but, in any case even the new truth must be collectively processed successively evaluated “on their own”, with a personal experiential scientific process, by the individual).
Delegating to others the question of acquisition of knowledge, creating a society in which the “experts” are individuals-“researchers”, while specialized each individual should be “researcher.”
For this reason, today, in modern civilization, knowledge no longer corresponds to real knowledge.
In a system like that of Western civilization in which the man instructs others to acquire new knowledge (while he basically spends his life to carry out the instructions, i.e., orders of those people) stops the progress of human knowledge
In other words where the individual is no longer “researcher” of knowledge, there is more societal trends.
the problem of limiting the ability to know at the childhood
Another aberration of our cultural system is to limit the human evolutionary stage at the infant age (Science recognizes only this moment in the life of man as “developmental phase”).
It was said that evolution is a necessity for animal species: is a process that guarantees the survival of the species to adapt to the continuous transformation of reality (in the case of man cultural evolution prevails on biological evolution). And it is also said that, for a scientific law where there is no evolution, there is decay.
The evolution of man is, in fact, that it allows individuals to follow the continuous transformation of reality (nature, but also of other cultures), an ongoing process. And being a process that, as has been said, takes place “inside man”, we can say that human evolution is a process that takes place first at the level of individual consciousness, “for a lifetime” (the man who lives in a physiological condition, as the male non-Western civilisations, is able to learn constantly until his last day of life : just in front of the death it is likely to be able to learn the most important things).
Then confine the evolution process of human knowledge for a limited period of his life, a phase in which, moreover, the individual is not conscious yet (i.e. lack of that self-awareness which is present only in adults), means a significant place to limit evolutionary potential of a civilization.
This is done for because in Western society do not recognize the ability of the individual to develop his knowledge; reason why you delegate to “specialized” individuals “growth” of human consciousness (the pursuit of knowledge). The problem is that Western civilization stands in a position of not being able to use profitably the peculiarities of the individual belonging to the human species is, in fact, to be able to increase, during its existence, his knowledge, his knowledge.
Because of this approach to knowledge, and build Western knowledge on Ideological dogma, the evolution of Western knowledge is almost solely on a quantitative level: what continues to add to the already accumulated knowledge is nothing more than a set of “abstract” concepts, which concern only the technical refinement of axiomatic base , (not only ideological: in this condition you are losing those forms of knowledge acquired by modernity, as quantum science – we shall see later-that fundamental description of reality that should guide any new production technology, has become a “cultural phenomenon”).
In this conception of Know there are more then those discoveries “from below” (i.e. the part of each individual), which are the true human knowledge, because they are the only forms of knowledge aimed at real improvement of human existence-new discoveries of modern science, as development of preconceived ideas, in a predetermined direction (e.g. from the market) have not then nothing but justification purposes of cultural or ideological positions of the use of new technologies that might be referred to as non-sustainable.
The new development of knowledge mode adopted by modern civilization, “discoveries” are therefore essentially false discoveries (have no real usefulness to humans).
For example, medicine with a new doctor who does not acquire more knowledge in first person (which featured quality instead of the medicine until a few decades ago), but relies on the mere application of knowledge transmitted to him by scientists through publications, ends up producing a knowledge (which in turn diffuses in society) that do not go in the direction of man but the system (basically, it’s always a refinement of a Business: the development of new technologies to sell on the market).
In this new condition of human consciousness in medicine is only able to refine the protocols relating to truth, and preconceptions cannot, for example, to discover new truths about the most important diseases of the century (which I can do, with tangible results, “alternative medicine”, operating instead depending on how traditional knowledge).
The problem is that, by limiting the learning phase of the individual at the infant age, our civilization has created a form of culture that paradoxically makes the conditions for its decline.
The fact is that to satisfy the needs of a society based on rational Ideologies has come to banish from the Culture human conception of human existence, nature and society.
You are finished i.e. to force the vision of reality: Tayloriana a mechanistic system in which man attends a school that aims to create an adult can be pigeonholed into an ordered System in which, if it reasoned with themselves, would become an imperfect gear that would clog the “megamacchina” of society-market (basically in the evolution of rational thought 900, the company extended the concept of the Assembly line).
With these purposes you create today of adults “learned” once and for all: in this way it builds a company easier to manage, because it consists of “addicted” individuals (workers and employees).
Ultimately, this condition of modernity, knowledge is no longer intimate knowledge within the individual. And then, of course, is no longer true knowledge.
Our system, to attempt in any way to get out from the devastating crisis that is afflicting him, is trying to recover the traditional evolution of knowledge.
It does, for example, in the world market, where the idea takes hold that true innovation is a “bottom-up innovation”: a general process of compound micro-innovations, not from scientific research, which is not on a human scale (and therefore, in human language, not at all useful).
One of the ways in which modern civilization inhibits the transmission to new generations of culture developed in millennia of history, is the non-recognition of “parental authority”.
The fact is that the enlightenment mindset adopted by Western man that must prevail a rational order, brings the Western man to think that children can be taught better by institutions not by families.
The issues are basically:
• In its intellectual dimension Western man cannot distinguish between education and education (schools, despite their current purposes, are not meant to educate, but to instruct). Modern culture has developed in relation to the origins to the point that today it is very difficult for us to understand how the original process of education was substantially different from the current one, which is all focused, since the early years of asylum, to a level almost entirely rational education.
• The Western modern school system, as in totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, replacing the child’s education with family status (the system was founded by the first of the tyrants of European modernity: Napoleon). The State essentially forcing children into a sort of “workshop” in which individuals end up, after a period of twenty years, to be fully formed based on the dominant ideologue. Note that if in the early years, the kindergarten, the child and “forced” to attend educational courses as an alternative to a family education (the alternative, for parents, is the prison; and it’s not just theory, the law has already been applied); but later in life, as it is for university studies, the individual is now completely absorbed by the system, and continues its “Institutional Education” on a voluntary basis.
Mental education (purely rational) practiced in schools of Western democracies not too dissimilar to that of totalitarianism, or the school created in u.s. Indian reservations at the time of the extermination of the native populations, to “kill” in children (Indians) their part ‘ uncivilized ‘ “
A further discredit the principle of parental authority is the action of ideologizzate parts of the Italian judiciary, which often escape the kids parents just because they do not live according to the canons of modern ideology.
The problems induced by this transformation of culture are mainly:
-no longer the child who develops its full potential, as it was in ancient cultures, but are the institutions that deal with frame in a social role. In this way the company can preserve its ideological values, but loses the support of the talents of individuals (the great geniuses, as happened to Einstein and Edison have been marginalized from the school as abnormal, and could donate their qualities to the company only after many difficulties).
-stops the stream with which man passes on its cultural heritage, and then stops the evolutionary process of man.
-a “normalization” of local cultures.
Modern Western institutions derive their justification of this action by the arguments produced by social Ideologies of the enlightenment: “the child of harmony in three years will be smarter and more suited to the industry than they are in ten years many civilizations that children at that age they only dislike for the industry and the arts. The education of civilizations does not bloom in baby in cot nothing other than antisocial quirks; each exercises in deformargli ways, waiting for the age at which they will deform the mind “(Charles Fourier, the theory of the four movements, 1808).
“Prohibition of work for children! The total abolition of child labour is incompatible with the existence of large-scale industry. Its implementation would be reactionary because, if you take precautionary measures for the protection of children, the Union between productive and timely teaching would be one of the most powerful means of transformation of contemporary society “(Karl Marx, critique of the Gotha program, 1875).
The moral is passed then from generation through education of the individual in childhood.
Given the fact that the earliest years of life are those crucial to define the social identity of the child, and that during that time you cannot “reason” in rational terms with it, what is passed in that education process, went through channels “sensitive” non-rational. It is transmitted to perceptual level, sensations, and not “mental” level, understanding intellectual concepts (one must take into account that the Western Method of education of the child, all focused, since the early years of Asylum on a rational level, communication is extremely different from that adopted by all other civilizations).
In order to understand the workings of morality in human life, it is necessary to understand this quality of “culture”: its morality be based fundamentally on a set of sensations (on feelings in broad sense) and not on rational concepts, beliefs.
(What is rather rational in moral Culture Ideological part: an attempt, in retrospect, to justify through axiomatic theories, the specific positions of ideological movements).
The neurologist Antonio Damasio said, according to the results of an analysis conducted on the neurophysiological level man, that the mind is not a computer: consciousness is feeling (from which “I feel therefore I am”). “All the things that we invent from laws and ethical standards to the music, literature, science and technology, are directly commanded or inspired by revelations of existence that gives us the conscience”.
The knowledge takes place i.e. when in reality it puts its focus on “something else” wake up “in the body of the beholder.” In other words the knowledge through a form of empathy (“a kind of body resonance”), through the body, and not through a mind operating at a rational level.
(Damasio says, for example: “Through measurement and analysis methods such as MRI or electromyogram have established that when we observe actions but also still images of shares causes an activation of the motor system.”)
The education of the child happens at this level: an imprint of sensations in the “memory” extended to the whole body.
Imprinting means literally “print”. It is a process that is embossed, so indelible, something in the memory of the individual.
This feeling is so strong that governs the entire life of the individual, even against his will; for this reason, when in the formative process of the child are committed “errors”, the memories imprinted in this way are not only very difficult to remove (psychoanalysis is to solve this problem), but this “programming” will be even handed down from the individual “disturbed”, subsequent generations (in the form of anxiety, resentment, perverse moral rules, etc.).
As we saw in the previous chapter, these “insights” are then printed so (almost) in the individual’s consciousness because it conveyed to the child through a channel more “profound” than verbal: it is a process of empathic communication that, by definition, develops to a level “perceptual” (a non-verbal level of sensitive knowledge perception are imprinted in the mind of the child so “stronger” than the storage level of intellectual concepts : in the form of feelings and emotions, which reside and operate on an unconscious level).
The memories at a level as deep of the mind are not ordinary memories: they are “active” memories, namely memory programming (i.e. inducing afterwards, in the adult, of conditioned reflexes). These emotional memories of Earth represent a sort of “filter” which is automatically activated to receive specific signals and determines the reaction of the mind to such signals.
Such memories are responsible for conditioning, for example, of how we judge things.
Every judgment is driven by this programming. The “impressions” that signals that originate from the environment they awaken in us, in fact always derive from the action that the filter produces conditioner on our nervous system: our perception is based on this filter, a subjective connotation of sensation (each a “knowledge” of things and situations different from the others).
As a result these filters affect the way we act (in terms of psychology, determine our “character”).
Imprinting, determining the way of seeing things and acting in response to messages coming from reality, so has a fundamental role in the creation, within the consciousness of the individual, of that “inner Guide to behaviour” that is the moral.
You can say that the process of “moralization” of the individual is through the imprinting of emotional sensations programming.
the condition of child dependency (recreated in adults)
The imprinting process of conscience of the individual works best during early childhood education because, for intrinsic biological characteristics to humans, unlike the adult child is fully dependent on adults; that is totally open to their teachings (the child has an approach towards adults than in adults would be defined as “gullible”).
The dependence of the child is one of the biological mechanisms of evolution of the species: it favours the transmission from generation to generation, culture accumulated previously.
This dependence is primarily linked to the biological mechanisms that cause your body seemsto be secreting, for example, when it strays too far from the mother, hormones that produce in him a strong sense of anguish; and in this way the baby is literally crippled in his movements, and this prevents move further from its protected environment (in the adult this feeling will be labeled as “panic attack”).
In this condition of dependency by the adult child, two factors that are particularly favour the transmission of culture of parents: the extreme sensitivity of the child’s consciousness, and his lack of a conscience.
First, the baby is still knowledge the whole “unconscious”: only later, during the stage of adolescence, the individual will be constrained by biological mechanisms intrinsic to his being, to become “mature”, and in turn a part of his consciousness in “conscious” (the “maturity” of the individual takes place when developing sexual urges will push it to venture in the world; and will begin to face life without the need of protection of the family).
The transmission mechanism of the cultural heritage of a community is so favored by the fact that the consciousness of human beings in the first years of life is most receptive: in this phase of its evolution, the individual is “sensitivity”.
In every form of communication the child incorporates so deeper than what, willingly or not, is transmitted in various forms of communication between individuals: it is the most intimate emotions that adults develop in every attitude (most sensitive parents know that with your child you cannot bluff: it still perceives the State of mind of the parent even if the latter tries to conceal her emotions).
The other factor that favors the empathetic consciousness of imprinting child by adults is the absence in it of an “identification” with himself: the child does not have an identity, and then identifies with the world around him (for example cannot distinguish if the sensations that are produced by a part of him or if they come from the mother, and are introiettate by him).
In a sense, in childhood, the individual is still tied to the mother by the umbilical cord, which forces him to depend on it for thinner than needs to be satisfied when it was in the womb.
These two factors, total dependence and strong feelings, make the child can “absorb” optimally that culture that he will represent, when adult, the “Guide to life” in the world around him (and that humanity is, potentially, a further evolutionary step).
The condition of the child is then total dependence: in other words parents hold absolute power over his life.
This is a summary of the mechanism played by totalitarian regimes for the management of adult individuals: people are put in a condition of powerlessness towards life, so that you feel depend wholly on others with roles that arise surrogano than their parents (in this produce feelings of anxiety and depression, which combined with a lack of self-esteem , and then a lack of vitality, prevent the individual to manage their existence by their own means).
In totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, as well as in modern democracy, you create a dependency of the individual by a parent institution (Hobbes ‘ Leviathan, or the party-State of Marxism, that surrogando the role of parents, manages the existence of citizens).
The education of the child develops through a process in which both parties, adult and child, operate on an unconscious level, that “feelings” plan defined emotions.
For its part, the child, having not yet received a complete cultural education, not being able to associate specific meanings to words, and therefore of communication produced by adults it feels more like what is transmitted in non-verbal level, sensitive. For example, perceive the emotion that the adult is living while talking, conveyed through tone of voice or facial expression.
This process happens completely unconscious level, even by the adult (although the man belonging to believe Western culture often communicate in a “rational” to his son).
In the process of education of the new generations the adult does interpret unknowingly his role as a parent, educator or if it is a teacher, according to the pattern which he inherited from the previous generation (the whole process develops in almost total unconsciousness level). In this process the adult communicates with the child through stereotyped behaviors in which, beyond the words, sensations are transmitted (emotions).
It is, in fact, of sensations, which is scheduling imprinted in the child’s consciousness as “controls” that will affect its future behaviors: a true form of “software” that emotional brain Act in the form of conditioned reflexes (e.g., whenever the child become adult is about to face a walkway it will not remember any verbal teachings of father; but feel that “thrill” provocatogli in that situation When he was a child, from a certain tone of his father warned him of danger-the adult will be affected even more complex sensations, such as that relating to conditions of attraction or sexual rejection experienced by the parent to other people, and passed to his son through the “underground” empathetic communication).
We have seen that the human intelligence is not confined to the brain, but is a form of “thought” made of sensations produced by various parts of the body (e.g. by neurons present in the abdomen, the brain, the seat of enteric “unconscious”).
The constraints created by the imprinting does not rely on “ideas” then, but on feelings recorded in various parts of the body, which work with a cause-and-effect mechanism of Pavlovian type (reflexive): to a specific event is associated with an emotion that affects an individual’s reaction (there are typical idiomatic expressions that indicate certain functions of this mechanism: lump in throat, stomach punch , “winks” feel “” belly etc …-most of the decisions are taken on the basis of these sensations).
In non-verbal process of education of the child is transferred, at the level of total unconsciousness, the cultural baggage of their civilization.
A lack of modern education is precisely to try to speed up the development process of “rational consciousness” of the child (in the Western education system directs the teaching toward a logic level, making learning, for example, very soon the child pointer arithmetic). This will drastically limits the time period in which the child is able to absorb, through the right channel for this purpose, empathic communication, deeper culture developed by its community.
This imprinting process of individuals in childhood is then transferred from generation to generation those commands that operate subconsciously in the mind of the individual in the adult individual to make an individual “moral”. At the appropriate time will emerge such constraints so that the individual-specific environmental situations react instinctively “, in the” right “than the cultural context in which it is inserted.
Essentially moral values (values that the human being to carry out things attributed to her daily choices), addressing people’s morality is an emotional address (addressing belly, stomach, etc.).
In particular it is a guideline based on basic emotion produced by our biological system, aimed at the survival of the individual: fear.
While in the early forms of civilization that it was a fear explicit (fire, predators, …), advanced civilizations it is underground, fears that operate at the level of the unconscious (as we have seen with the example of the rope mistaken for a snake, which creates a strong physiological reaction, the rational mind, which is the part of intelligence contained in a part of the brain, cannot distinguish the sensations produced by the environment from those “invented” by the mind itself : the existential fears of modern humans belong to this kind of feelings).
This explains how modern man of rationalist education, can be “managed” by control mechanisms of consciousness based on fear.
Later we will see how the difference of approach of the various civilizations to fear.
What allowed the civilization that preceded us to overcome fears, feelings of a level higher than that of emotions: security, calmness, courage does not reside at the level of emotions but feelings (courage is not a product of the “belly” or “stomach, but of the heart – the discouragement, loss of courage , was conceived as a loss of “core”).
Our civilization has defined a mindset of individuals focused on emotions, and is therefore no longer able to overcome fears: that level of consciousness in fact you fight an emotion, basically a fear expressed by other emotions, which are, in fact, other forms of fear, but in the form of “positive feeling” (modern psychology tells us how for example, any form of desire is nothing more than a form of fear “compensated”).
The process of neutralization of fears in our culture takes place at that level for the fact that the mind of the modern man is not able to take into account the feelings (these reside at a level too thin for it to be considered a mind stopped in forms of deeper perception of those related to rational sphere , “material”).
Sentiment, already used by ancient Cultures to overcome fears (it was mostly by fears generated by the environment, as much as the evolution to a rational Ego had already produced the “existential fear”), is a form of perception, on the part of the brain full of harmony which integrates the “affective” relationships between people, and between the individual and the various elements that make up the Earth , and the universe: some glands in our body are capable of recording the “transmission” of electromagnetic waves emitted by precisely terrestrial bodies and celestial ones (in other words, as claimed by the ancient cultures, the sense of serenity comes from the man “recognize”, in level of empathic feelings, in a reflection of affective feeling All-these are all forms of non-Western thought that identify an absolute reality as superior to human rational mind) [see doc. “Trails: …”]
In our culture, based on forms of emotional perception more than “sentimental” you prefer and then, as we shall see in the next chapter, “negative imprinting shapes” to educate children: an education based on fear.
Unable to perceive “positive feelings” (the essence of “feelings” that bind us to the elements that make up our world), the idea is that it is better an education that focuses on opportunity to avoid the future adult situations “dangerous” both from a moral point of view (don’t go around naked in the street, don’t raise your voice, etc.), both from the point of view of purely biological (“put your sweater that’s cold” “don’t go near the kitchen”).
The problem that you want to highlight in this document, sinking it later in greater detail, is that some forms of education (that is, the programming of the individual consciousness) brought about by parents and educators “institutionalized”, can not be “natural” (in a sense “not human”): i.e. can be non-functional for a physiological functioning of the consciousness of the future adult (can produce psychotic characters) and social community.
In Western culture the moral is thus induced, in the conscience of the individual, through an imprint of “sensitive”.
For the purposes of learnability of control mechanisms of the human mind is important to analyze the two possible ways of imprinting of the human consciousness (both apply to the consciousness of the child and the adult, although the first form of consciousness is very “more sensitive” to the second).
It is very important to clarify this point because these two types of imprinting also define how, in the social sphere, are used to “steer” the consciences of adults.
In both cases, use mode to create sensations in the individual active memory programming that will be his “moral conscience” of an adult. They are:
□ a condition of pleasure: the positive feelings that stores psyche will be recalled in specific situations which will require our response. Or
□ a regrettable condition; a most effective mode “from the point of view of the future” control “in adult tissues, which is based on the” emotional “storage of unpleasant feeling.
The first mode, positive, aims to ensure that the individual developments by itself its own “common sense” to guide him in matters of adult life. This is the so-called maieutic method: the individual is encouraged to find within themselves their “feelings” that may indicate the meanings of things (remember that individual’s morality stems from its ability to attribute values, meanings, things). This mode positive induction is a method of education which are transmitted to individuals specific behavior basics, but it “induces” an individual “consciential attitude” based on the ability to recognize itself “feelings” towards life (in this way, among other things, the individual develops a “sense” of things in which the “size” of his life and the lives of others are one).
The other mode, the one used at the institutional level in Western civilization, is one in which the individual are specific behaviour basics inculcated (while in the previous case is “raised” in the individual the ability to “invent”, from time to time, a specific way of action according to the demands of the environment). The peculiarity of this mode of behavior “pre-set” is to grow principally through the transmission of unpleasant feelings. This is basically an educational method based on fear, whose original purpose is to inhibit (or suppress) the human impulses that dominant culture are considered to be “wrong” (the enlightenment conception of the human being, according to which the individual is a “Crooked Timber” to straighten with a crackdown by compelling social tools; which, as we saw , was also adopted by Freud).
See you in the next two chapters, so a more thorough, can what co-exist the two modes of imprinting of the human consciousness.
The way of positive education focuses on the positive aspects of existence.
In this vision:
■ life depends on the development of the potential of the human being (and not by repression of impulses).
■ a serene existence (of the individual, and for relapse, of people that surround it) depends on the ability of the individual to follow a principle within, “instinctual” (remember that the human instinct is different from animal): this principle is defined by modern psychology as the pleasure principle (we’ll see that in the negative view there is no inner substance of the individual; and that there should then be guided from outside).
This is the psychological insight of human existence that impulses are never “wrong” (it is substantially different from the current modern institutional vision of the Enlightenment, “negative”, which instead sees people’s instincts as dangerous for the individual and for the community).
In “positive view” of the existence of human instincts are always to the needs of the psycho-biological intelligence of the individual (which is somehow connected, integrated, with the intelligence of the human species). And then these instincts must be taken into account, their “negative” appearances, as detectors of real needs of individuals: it is possibly by transforming them, process them, but never by “delete” (forms of ideological thought, as our institutional Medicine, psychiatry and social ideologies, such as drives see diseases).
Western cultures highlight how each drive is always the expression of a real human need, and is not so different that an element that human consciousness should somehow use to evolve (a metaphor used is: “apparently, negative emotions are nothing more than the firewood needed to feed the inner fire that produces our vital force”; in this case, there is the idea that it is “burning” those elements that may develop human existence: through a process of transformation similar to that of burning wood which turns into heat and gas).
In other words, the unconscious part of our intelligence, it’s just working with elements from it products that you can get a qualitative improvement of our consciousness. (unlike in Western culture, which is based on the ideas of Freud, the unconscious products items are “negatives”). Do not take into account such expressions of our consciousness, or even worse try to delete them as you do today, means making sure that the internal cause that underlies this expression continues to operate, although apparently “removed” just so “negative” (resulting in “negative attitudes” of man, that operand from the depths of the unconscious, produce a deterioration in the mental framework of the individual, and then forms of compulsion even more harmful than the previous one).
This has, of course, a relapse in the social (social community being a complex organism consisting of a collection of individual consciences). That is, ignoring the existence of individual drives, or worse their repression, produces social degeneration: causes social problems covino under the ashes, and in the long run surface with harmful effects greater than those that may be produced by the original shape of the drive.
In non-Western life even aberrant “events” are the contributions to the development of the individual and society (because they are useful qualities, there has to be a complete human being “able to develop instincts who produced them). The repression of socially negative quality of the individual is not only a loss of an opportunity to improve people, but also a dangerous encroachment on the whole big picture, psychological and social, which invariably ends up undermining the delicate balance upon which the social community.
Let’s see how, from the point of view of our own Science, rational instincts apparently “bad” should be processed in some way and not removed.
Also a manifestation of violence in society by a group of people, for example, in its general context view, is nothing more than a manifestation of a fear inherent in the psyche of those who expressed this way: it is a product of human intelligence that is first and foremost a valuable indicator of a serious social problem.
As such fear may be the fruit of the imagination of the subject, it is always the expression of a form of existential insecurity that the community cannot resolve: this form of expression that is in any case reveals a flaw in the social system which, if not addressed in a comprehensive manner, can create more damage than those produced by the manifestation of social violence produced in the first instance.
The idea is that of traditional medicine (now called “alternative”, played at the institutional level in the homeopathic approach or not rigidly Freudian psychology), that there are people, in whole or in part, “wrong”. but rather persons who have not completed their period of “aging” of a part of herself, without a re-instatement of this part within the individual psycho-physical system, you can’t get a complete individual “means an individual that is able to produce a State of” health “itself, and then” the good “of society.
Similarly the harmony of a social community don’t get, in this context, “removing” people who generate problems (what happens in totalitarian regimes and the current form of democracy), but “integrating” in it.
Of course the approach of non-Western forms of thought is much more complex and subtle than ours, and is able to track down anyway, “perverse” forms of expression of individuals, a “reflection” of the “universal good” (is one example, in the Gospel, the parable of job, in which the devil is just at the service of God: and then produces a Bad instrumental , which actually contains a form, that can be detected only if there arises in the face of such evil with a form of attention “superior” to that obtainable through the rational mind).
The form of “positive education” is a form of education that could be defined as oriented education “good feelings”. That is aimed at the development of feelings of pleasure.
Ancient philosophies, as well as in modern psychology, this methodology is identified as a “way of the heart”: the heart (we could say “positive feelings”) in this case acts as a moral Guide for people. I.e. in this case the “affective feelings”, from time to time, the individual the best way forward for the good of the community.
As we shall see, in social Ideologies tend to delete everything about “the core” (for radical leftist ideologies it is “bourgeois feelings” to be deleted from company) and instead tries to develop the so-called “critical” intellectuals of the individual.
the empathic universal moral
As has been said, both in the forms of ancient thought, both in modern psychology closer to the deeper questions of the human psyche (see, for example, Maslov), sense of affection lies at a higher level than that of the emotions (the latter refers to negative education mode, or modern forms of communication, such as marketing, designed to induce people to act in a certain direction).
According to this ancient conception of human consciousness, which is the basis of the current “alternative medicine”, there are two possible levels of “sensitive intelligence”: what develops emotionally (it even says “think belly”), and the affective level (the reason “with heart”).
While the first level represents the “downs” instincts of man, the level closer to wildlife (such instincts are themselves an expression of real needs of man, and temporary, they must be “processed” and not deleted), the second level is rather peculiar human (perhaps even from other mammalian species), and includes the sense of spirituality.
This dual description model of human perception derives from ancient science, which was able to locate in the human body involved in the production centers of sensations (also known as chakras, which correspond to major nerve plexus and major hormonal glands).
In this model the lower centers, those located in the belly, are defined as “sea of worldliness”: are the leaders of a first level of development of individual consciousness.
While the higher centers, which include the heart and some hormonal glands located in the brain, are the centers that can produce insights that allow humans to evolve into moral and spiritual sense (even in this view of things is not possible to evolve this second level without first “processed” the first level of the baser instincts: namely to achieve higher levels of consciousness “is necessary to” elaborate “first lower levels; the Idea of” delete ” , by repressing it, becomes a harmful IE shortcut, which ends up affecting the whole process of evolution of consciousness).
From the social point of view, this view of human perception mechanism, people who live on an emotional level (also known as “spiritual”), live spontaneously so “universal” because the level of sensible intuition they reached possible forms of intuition are extremely rational intuitions more complex: If the latter are abstract because they lack an empathic link with the world ,
sensitive insights bring the individual contacted empathetic
with the environment, and then with a sort of “natural morality”
(it’s a form of Morality is not accessible to the rational mind, since it cannot be decoded: when you “minutes” this is moral loss of its essential components which deprives sensitive quality of universality).
The universality of the behaviors that is guaranteed by the fact that in this state of perceptual awareness of personal needs satisfaction corresponds with the satisfaction of collective needs (in a context of perceptual awareness there is a form of fulfilment if this cannot be shared in any way with the rest of the community: as described by the ancient philosophies, the human being is not able to try a deep pleasure at the level of “Feelings”, if it is unaware that his satisfaction corresponds to the sorrows of others in the community).
For this reason, the actions of the man who lives in that State of consciousness, tend to be in harmony with the actions of other individuals: from the viewpoint of morality, in this case the goal is to be the end.
The underlying defect of modern Ideologies, seen from the point of view of pre-modern cultures, is that they would like access to a “higher” level of consciousness without awareness development at lower levels (their “processing”). Modern ideologies offer the individual a shortcut which, quite naively intend to delete as expression elements of “evil”, the “lower” impulses of man which are actually her essential needs, and should somehow be met to ensure a “physiological functioning of the human being.
In summary, the positive vision of education focuses on a conception of morality of the individual based on its ability to “tune in”, while the daily experiences of life, sensations produced by his body (using the extended brain representing the sensitive intelligence – this is the essence of the thought of the ancient, summed up by Socrates with the concept: know thyself, and through the perception of yourself you know, the world). Based on these individual empathic abilities is capable of producing functional attitudes to the situation that is experiencing (via empathetic is therefore the only way to achieve social attitudes to the community).
For this reason the ancient forms of education, positive, are not dedicated to the Suppression of instincts, but for the “development” of the individual quality: In particular the development of sensible intuition.
The thinking man’s oldest, still adopted in non-Western civilizations, considers “positive” approach to education as a form of “natural” education of man (and then, since it leads the human being to a life in harmony with the world around him, the best form of education possible).
But even modern culture is beginning to reconsider this type of education, albeit still strongly affected modes from the rational approach to life of our culture.
An example of this new attention is represented by the following contribution of an expert called to speak before the Conference of Ministers in May 2006: “education can be defined as positive when has the following four characteristics: it is capable of raising the child, guarantees solidity, recognizes him as a person with needs and capabilities, makes you strengthen your skills and contributes to its control. (…) The positive education involves considerable implications at all levels of society. For parents, this means that they must be prepared to recognize that the child has rights and that their needs should come before them (the same thing can be said of the attitude of the community towards the child) “.
The Foundation of positive education is a maieutic education. This is a method that, unlike that produced by our rational enlightenment culture, is based on the idea that nature works better “artificial” solution produced by the human mind (hence the “spontaneity” of expression is more functional to the needs of the man not the compulsion of conscience in “mindsets” defined a priori).
Antimafia is therefore oriented to “cultivate” potential “natural” (means, or are midwife midwife: the term education Act indicates maieutic to help others to deliver something); in the negative, however, follows an opposite process, to inhibit the development of individual potential negative (while, as we have seen, the positive vision of human beings do not exist human impulses in itself negative, even when they are seemingly at odds with society’s rules).
Maieutics conception of education no a priori concepts to teach moral behaviors, like every “truth” regarding the existence of man, are developed by the individual when it is in appropriate in terms of self-awareness (these same conditions cannot be prescribed by others, but it is the individual who must “find”). The concept of maieutics is related to education, Socrates, which saw the world’s knowledge as self-knowledge: know yourself in order to know the world.
In other words, positive vision of education adopted by there is a Maieutic reversal of principles of rational education currently practised in our society. This makes this method difficult to understand and apply within our institutions: in that method there is no longer a teaching explicit action by an individual more “learned” to another that must be “format”. But there is a “support” the individual pupil in a location where it “finds”, in itself, the necessary knowledge: the individual first learns to learn (refines its perception of reality, and learn to decipher the meanings – arrives, according to the ancient idea, learn about the world through himself).
Note that this approach is functional even the teaching of complex craft: good master craftsman does not explicitly teaches the “how to do” one thing and “why” of that thing.
But the student life of field experiences in which the student learns the meaning of things (the teacher knows that the student must find his way every specific experience – and find the specific why). In this case then the Master’s attention is not paid to the teaching of traditional notions of our society, but to a student’s character formation, that is, in fact, empathic level (if the maieutic method provides explicit explanations, they are always on the level of subjectivity, of personal opinion of who expresses, so that they can be comforted, by the student, with other alternative opinions).
This does not happen in education, which follows a predetermined path that, among other things, prevents the development of “originality” of individuals: the Western education tends to “conform” consciences, and then the individual knowledge.
On this road ends up losing a fundamental wealth of every human community: the plurality of “talents” which constitute a social fabric. With this type of education prevents the development of a real evolution of human knowledge: the upshot of all this is that in our civilization’s knowledge is no longer real knowledge.
A clarification is needed: in the maieutic method of education the child is not left to itself, since it has an actual need “strong” reference.
Indeed, in this type of education there is a greater focus on the importance of the presence of an adult, of its quality. In this case, however, the education the emphasis is upon leaving the child freedom to find a road that can also be contrasted with that of Educator (for example in sexual orientation). With the understanding that only in this way, the child learns to recognize its natural needs, and to satisfy them in the best possible way (that is, automatically, even the best way for the people around him — for the social community).
While “positive education” is aimed at, maieutics “raise” the spontaneity of the individual,
the “negative” education (education),
aims to create
behavioural schema and judgment
in which forces the spontaneity of the people.
Modern education, enlightenment, that is not oriented to develop something, but to restrict something: to eliminate spontaneous impulses, “natural”, as individual non-functional for proper development of the company (the human urges are seen today, in fact, as negative elements for the existence of man and for the functioning of society).
These “negative attitudes” are, in the context of modern culture, neutralized with an inhibition of the instincts of the child (the process that produces an atrophy of his qualities), and later, in the adult, with a “repression” of spontaneous behaviors that do not comply with moral codes.
Because modern civilization has an education system (and by “Managing” the consciences of individuals), inhibitory repressive?
Our culture, for its peculiar choice (that we analyze, in summary, in the next paragraphs), opted for a simplification of knowledge. To which corresponds a “simplification” of the perceptual qualities of being human: what, exactly, makes the individual insecure in the face of nature and the essence of its existence.
“The more a man is convinced the regularity and order of things (the laws of science) plus becomes convinced that there is no room, in this order, for other causes. For him nor human laws nor the divine laws exist as independent causes of natural events.» [Albert Einstein, Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium]
Modern society has its basis on the principles of rational enlightenment thought. It is then structured in a rational way. And rational scope, as all modern science, Rationalist is a reductionist.
In other words the rational culture may consider only part of the reality because it excludes itself, with the reductionist process, knowledge of that part of reality that is not rational (in Western scientific thought you can’t take into account, for example, the unconscious; and inside the nature you can’t consider that “unknowable” which according to the leading scientists of the twentieth century as Einstein and Eisenberg, is the Foundation of reality).
To understand why the ‘ negative ‘ vision of human existence, we must therefore take account of the fact that any system of knowledge produced within Western civilization is a system of knowledge “reduced”, “simplified”.
self-definition of reductionism
It is modern science to define the scientific reductionism as a fundamental principle.
The Reductionist method comes as a result of the enlightenment idea, adopted by our culture, according to which the best form of human thought is logical-rational.
The fact is that by adopting the current rational mindset, human consciousness can no longer consider shades of reality too complex (that resident, essentially non-rational level): therefore, it is necessary to delete the models that describe the reality (scientific theories) these components that it is unable to study.
The problem lies in the fact that “small” Theories are in fact incomplete Theories: that applied to reality behave extremely badly.
If modern science admits its incompleteness, it cannot claim to translate into reality substantially incomplete theories that it produces (i.e. strong supposed to admit the inaccuracy in your application to the reality of these theories which take into consideration just one part of reality: in other words it would not feel justified in making current technologies such as medical or mechanical and electronic tools).
For this reason, modern science has had to create a priori justification of his decision to reduce the field of investigation: the axiomatic Principle of reductionism (scientific principle because it poses “a priori” than any scientific reasoning: that is axiomatic principle, ideological and therefore preconcettuale).
With the introduction of this axiomatic principle modern science implements the subterfuge of the “reduction” of the conception of reality: it is a bit the concept described in the fable of the Fox and the grapes, in which the mind makes an arbitrary reduction indolent: “if I try to grasp an object, but I can’t, because I don’t need”.
Similarly to our culture non-rational parts of reality have become “unimportant” details “real”, i.e. “useless”: parts of which not only is desirable not to deal with, but that you must delete the ineffectiveness of our science (this was, for example, the justification of our science to justify the failure to understand as much as 97% of human DNA).
The reductionist principle originates from the “mechanistic” vision of the reality of the ancient Greek philosophers Atomists (which brought in Western culture a new vision of reality that, revolutionizing the thinking developed until then, saw reality as composed of finite elements and incopenetrabili; again refuted 1900s vision from quantum Science).
The main limitation of scientific Reductionism and limit the possibility of viewing reality description materialist philosophers (and therefore the findings of modern science until the nineteenth century), and thus not be able to transpose the quantum field theories (which exceed the mechanistic concept of reality that is still the basis of our institutional Science, including bio-medical field).
The extent of reductionist Culture seems increasingly evident with the development of science in our civilization can take into account the subtle quality of reality “discoveries” from quantum Science: Bio quantum medicine, now relegated in the ranks of the disciplines “alternative”, is able to explain the dark sides of the DNA, and produce successful treatments on diseases defined by the institutional Medicine as incurable.
our current scientific system is founded on a “Theology”
Adopting a reductionist vision of reality modern science falls into a contradiction, because in doing so you get a scientific system based on laws that reside in the field of theology.
So let’s see what this means.
To better understand this issue, which has become evident even to a part of the environment in the same modern science, we need to step back, and go and see what are the principles on which is based at our science.
As mentioned several times our science is founded on enlightenment thought, which is the scientific positivism, that thought is “characterized generally by the refusal of” metaphysics “speculation”, having it intended to “discover” natural laws “(…) on the basis of examination of the empirical facts. “
In other words the purpose of science is to describe the “objective reality” (which means, as Galileo, that science must provide “some truths”).
The objectivity of the scientific arguments is necessary due to the fact that with his science must ultimately intervene on reality: so the “model” of reality described in scientific concepts should be snug to the actual reality, otherwise it is done incorrectly on reality (the problem being created by applying rational thinking is reductionist one which can have an engineer that wants to produce a complex machinery having in hand only a highly incomplete project : in this case it is impossible to obtain, with the certainty relied on from Galileo expected operating results from “theoretical model”-doing so will indeed get those are defined with an understatement, “side effects”: who, out of the illusion of modern science that considers these results as “side”, are in fact absolutely “primary effects”).
In other words, with the Reduction principle
modern science, like all ideologies,
to adapt to the reality of his theories
(in this case it does omit results that do not “want to see”). The introduction of this principle is justified by the idea that a man seen as purely materialistic existence, should be “practical”: the idea is that “If you get lost behind the theories”, you can’t get more practical results.
This position of modern science is obviously, from a scientific point of view, self-contradictory, untenable: how you can get really practical results (namely, that “in practice” are really useful) If you are not a member of the theory (and a complete description of reality)?
But today this axiomatic idea, preconcettuale, of the need to reduce the scope of observation is the basis of every branch of science.
How, for example, the institutional Medicine: hospital doctors, not based on in-depth analysis of the patient (wouldn’t be able to do this because they make their diagnosis they use exclusively of the technological tools, which provide a very low vision of the clinical picture of the patient), but on the application of the provisions on their Pocket (Act solely on the basis of numerical results of instrumental analysis – are based in fact, on a superficial level of reality).
The institutional Medicine today supports IE, so totally scientific, that the duty of the doctor is to act even if you don’t know the real problem camuse on which to act.
The doctor would then have a duty to do something, even if you do not know the characteristics of the context in which intervened (this means that it, not respecting the scientific principle of cause/effect, intervenes with tools that, as far as the cause of the disease, can not solve the problem; what gets instead is, at most, a superficial and temporary disappearance of the symptoms of the disease).
It should be noted that, outside his working scope “, the doctor leaves his car to a mechanic who takes action on it without knowing what are the causes of the problem (Maybe putting in a random change of parts): in this case it claims that apply the scientific principle of” you do something only if you know what you’re doing “.
May have a scientific way to intervene without knowing the causes which have led to the problem, as in the case of real emergencies (for example when the patient stopped the heartbeat, or is no longer able to breathe, rather than doing nothing it is desirable to try to inject a substance that it has at hand).
But the problem comes when you want to establish a long-term care over time with the same criterion: in this case not only is done so “stupid”, but you neglect to take into account the existence of a subject that organic intelligence may play a decisive role in healing.
In fact, moving in an opposite direction, “alternative medicines” were able to identify the causes of the diseases that medicine would be institutional “incurables”.
With the same policy of producing new technologies today ignores the quantum component of reality, as indicated by Einstein as the “most important” of all.
Today the operational branches of science followed by the idea that it is better to intervene “blindly”, but speak rather of “wasting time” to deepen the problem (note that science, however, in cases where it proves to be useful, the question: how when it comes to work on problems created by herself, as the ozone hole, and it claims that it could not intervene until the moment will not be clarified so absolutely unequivocal the causes).
Having embarked on this path modern science produces an incomplete due to which it gets so abstract theories, which no longer correspond to reality. Theories from which they are derived and then “practices” in inefficient (a theory is “valid” when actually represents, at the level of thought, a real phenomenon; and when it is so complete, that is, when it took into consideration all the aspects of reality – in this way our science ignores one of the fundamental principles: the “principle of incompleteness of formal systems” formulated by Godel – see text “the crisis of modern civilization”).
Due to his lack of modern science Fund is no longer a real science, but is a technology (no longer aimed to Know, but has become a form of thought aimed at producing technologies-i.e. man’s material achievements without real theoretical foundations).
In his new setting, modern science becomes the basis of ideologies: the theories of science “models of reality” become opinions.
In this way our science ends up contradicting its own principles: scientific culture provides for a strict separation of opinions from facts (opinion is a concept that man creates about the phenomena of reality “when, in the absence of an absolute criterion for judging their nature-or their causes, their qualities, etc.-has a personal interpretation that considers where and exact therefore gives its consent However, admitting the possibility of deception in such ‘ judge).
the philosophy of science has identified the lack of current scientific theories
One of the most important of the 20th century, Western philosophers Karl Popper, has highlighted how our science produces non-scientific theories.
The problem of our science, according to Popper, resides in the absence, in his theories of a “verifiability”, fundamental quality of a scientific theory. Of every description of reality, such as those that should be contained in a scientific theory, it must be possible to verify the falsehood (in other words, every theory must be “controllable” in scientific mode, so that the global community of scientists have the opportunity to see if “the theory doesn’t work”).
In the case of the theories produced by modern science in the twentieth century it can’t!
The fact is that the theories produced by Western science in the second half of the 20th century, relying on abstract statements, are detached from reality: and then no scientist can possibly “try” to show that they are false (i.e., no one is able to scientifically confirm the validity of this theory).
significant cases of Euclid and laws of gravity
The detachment from reality by our science is the fact that modern science, like all ideologies, is based on axioms, i.e. on truths that are “clearly evident” (for which, therefore, “there is no need for explanations”): it is, in fact, not at all scientific theories, but as ideological (social ideologies, they find justification within them , and not in reality: they are not “verifiable” in reality).
The history of our culture gives us two particularly significant examples of theories with no real scientific basis: that of Euclidean geometry (which indicates the laws, which are still taught in schools as scientific truths, that define the world as an entity that can be described with geometric figures), and the “force of gravity” (according to which there is a force that attracts objects toward the center of the Earth).
Although the validity of theories seemed “absolutely clear” they were disproved by science. More scientific truths have shown how these laws simply do not correspond to reality!
With regard to Euclidean geometry, not only it was disproved by a mathematician at the beginning of the 19th century; But even Einstein told us that reality is not made up, so it is not possible to measure something in a scientific manner based on a “geometric” conception of reality (for example can do, outside a scientific context, a surveyor at a construction site, for practical needs “, but using the same approach to another level, for example to plot aircraft routes , you would get data too imprecise to be considered). The model produced by Einstein, was developed later by nuclear physicists and astronomers: but already in ancient times sailors knew that using geometrical criteria to define a route on a map mean missing the target.
The theory of Euclidean geometry refers to an abstract world, and offers forms of geometric measurement, then mathematics, which cannot be applied to the real world (and this is still taught in schools as a scientific theory).
Even as far as the “force of gravity”, it has been demonstrated that it is a theory without scientific basis: although it is “clearly” evident that any object in Earth’s space vacated, “down”, the idea that there was a “magnetic force” to attract the object toward the center of the Earth was bodies, from a scientific point of view , a belief.
Today, according to Einstein’s revelations and new physics measurements, including institutional is that this theory has no scientific validity: according to new theories, for example, the planets are “about” in the Cosmos due to mutual attraction forces, but because “travel” into channels (similar to eaves) that form in the cosmos.
These two cases illustrate how some institutional science principles can actually be simple “beliefs”: considered to be fundamental Theories for science, turned out to be simply subjective insights adopted officially by science without there being a proper validation process (it is “believed”, beyond every scientific criterion, that they were so “obvious” to be “Objectively” true : the process of folk beliefs).
The mistake made in the case of the conception of “gravity” was that you started from a “obvious truths” (and scientifically valid, because as you repeat the experiment, it will always go to fruition): objects fall down. But then the need for the rational mind to explain “practice” (reductionist level) of natural phenomena, misled the minds of scientists, and the Western culture is attached to more “elegant” explanations: a magnetic force from the center of the Earth attracts objects.
Notice the aggravating circumstance of “credulity” Institutional Science in this case: our science was based on findings that Galileo had claimed, at the official level, have obtained (in the experiment of two dropped balls from the leaning tower of Pisa). Up when you discover a scientist’s statement in which he says they did not perform the experiment, and to have shown that the results “seemed obvious” would be achieved. Only then our science carried out the experiment, discovering that the results described by Galileo were false.
Today, as in previous cases, science has to produce “arguments”: but the attribute Godel, the scientist who has made fundamental discoveries to our science, with its fundamental principle of incompleteness (ineffectiveness) of formal Theories States that the word “elegant” is devoid of logic, and then ascientificità: the “formal” beauty theory unties from reality (according to Godel-scientific nature of these types of theories is due to the fact that the formal reasoning , i.e. scientific theories are currently produced “incomplete description of reality”).
These two cases suggest that what might seem a formal error, actually had, and still has very important implications in terms of the evolution of our science: acting on reality based on a misinterpretation of, science itself evolves in a direction which is erroneous, and is therefore able to produce really positive results (results are “incomplete” , which produce a high number of “unforeseeable” consequences). Our Science is currently unable to develop to Western civilization a real evolution; which are currently able to do science “alternative”, which are based, in accordance with the principle of incompleteness of formal systems of Godel, and then so on strictly scientific theoretical models belonging to reality (even ancient sciences for more than 10,000 years ago, following the same principles, they could reach higher levels than our science wing – see for example, the results to which came the ancient Egyptians or Mayans, that are incomprehensible to our science).
criticism of philosophy to modern science
Popper, and other philosophers of the as 900 B. Russel, seen in new science one possible cause of immense disasters (but the same thought the ancient philosophers, and Isaac Newton).
Russel, to illustrate the issue, uses the metaphor of “induttivista” (i.e. an individual who is based only on what he sees, without think about that), in which the Turkey behaves as modern scientists, drawing definitive conclusions simply for having identified a number of positive data in their experiments: “since the first day that Turkey observed that, on the farm where he had been brought , was given the food at 9 am. And good induttivista was not hasty in drawing conclusions from their observations, and edited others in a variety of circumstances: Wednesday and Thursday, on hot days, cold days and whether rain is that the Sun did shine. Thus enriched his daily list of a proposition in observing the most diverse conditions. Until his conscience was not satisfied induttivista and developed an inductive inference as this: “give me the food at 9 in the morning.” Unfortunately, this concept proved indisputably false on Christmas Eve, when, instead of being nurtured, was slain. ».
In this way the Russel Turkey produces, precisely, as modern scientists in the second half of the 20th century, theories from which lacks scientific support “explanation” (a full argument that explain, in depth, in a verifiable, as is a certain result). The scientist, produces modern metaphysical theories, or “beliefs” (ideas that rely only on data collection, and that have no logical reasoning that bind together the data collected – ideas that when confronted with the reality they create disasters).
This form of aberration of our science today is the basis of all scientific applications: from Pharmacology, genetics.
In this regard, it is a particularly significant event happened in the 19th century American, a condition in which the European man applied his rational culture to a world still completely “natural”: during the cattle boom, some farmers Texans were bearing with their herds in the North, “and had seen” (as Russel Turkey) that resisted even herds of winters that area (little snow fell , and animals could easily reach the grass beneath it).
In this case, in fact, an observation of facts undoubtedly “positives” wanted to create a model of rational reality: “the pastures of the North are beneficial to the animal husbandry” (the European market was immediately rushed to invest in that sector). No one has raised the issue that a statement was totally ascientifica: none was for example the question “can access that sometimes fall a greater quantity of snow” (a scientific approach would take account of the fact that there are climatic cycles that extend beyond the time of year).
So, after a few years, a winter with a snowfall particularly plentiful, nearly all the livestock was lost, the business has stopped forever, and has begun a serious economic crisis involving Europe.
In other words the scientific thought of the 20th century, according to the two great philosophers mentioned above (with the support of Einstein), is currently an ideological construct.
As it is for all ideologies, current scientific theories to justify a way of seeing things based on preconceptions (and thus justify its social attitude, or “political”-or the use of certain chemical or electronic technologies). Specifically modern social ideology, they are created to justify the current position of modern institutions which in fact distanced from their original, purpose of satisfaction of real needs of man, they need a way of thinking that justifies the actions. [see text “* * *”]
The new ideological approach assumes a vital importance for modern science in its current setting.
Firstly because, without an ideology which justifies upstream orientations, today it would be impossible to find an agreement among scientists (they are at odds with each other in their public statements): the prevalence of axiomatic theories (not verifiable according to objective criteria), causes different sectors scientists (i.e. examine what from different scientific points of view) would be to give different value to the results of the application of these theories (and then to contradict their colleagues).
There is, for example, in this ideological approach of science, the ability to define the actual harmfulness of “side effects” of technologies such as drugs, nuclear plants or combustion engines (such “details” in the current context, remain questionable “scientific”). Taking on an ideological level (of “abstract logic”) current science can therefore remain outside the scope of any scientific criticism about the criticality of the really negative effects of its new applications.
In this condition the institutional scientific community can then afford to ignore its own problems products. The ozone hole, or the strong depletion of the ecosystem richness as elimination of biological diversity. Two classic cases where there is evidence of the catastrophic results of current technologies produced objective, but where nothing is done because the debate is transferred from the scientific field to that of “political views”.
Secondly, in its new ideological dimension, the institutional Science can afford not to consider the real successes achieved by “alternative” forms of Science (which, although they are labeled in this way, are what remains of ancient science: alternative, in hindsight, would therefore be the current institutional Science). Remaining abstract topics (without ever touching the heart of the matter is that, for example, the verify actual results useful for a man “discovery”) science can portray of “quackery” bio-medical sciences as some new branches of homeopathy, that get results inaccessible to institutional medicine (see the case of the trial of homeopathy).
Modern science is transformed in theological dogma of a new religion, ideological adopting as a preconcettuale absolute superiority of rational mind (hence rational science).
The real problem is produced by current institutional Science is that it flips the canons of science originating in man: the original Purpose of improving human life, to end the current development in itself the same science. The current idea that science has a duty to produce “inventions” regardless of the expected utility (or harm) to humans (in this context the new technologies become itself the absolute good for humanity “civilized”-any discussion on possible issues produced by new “inventions” becomes a “misperception” to delete in the name of progress).
Becomes possible, i.e. in this new worldview, “believing” that in the end, despite “minor problems” produced by scientific progress in recent decades, will man the condition of Salvation: a drastic improvement in the quality of his life (is the same reasoning that lies at the heart of the major 20th century Ideologies: communism and Nazism – the idea is: “we are creating big problems to humans but in the end you will see that on this road we will have built a new world “).
Of course modern institutions intervene to cover this blatant contradiction of Science (which, created to serve man, becomes an end in itself), with positions that remain on paper: an example is the precautionary principle, reflecting the need to avoid producing new technologies until they proved the absence in them of negative side effects for humans.
Let’s see here, in more detail, what are the flaws of a rational Culture such as ours.
What is, essentially, the basic contradiction of our science?
What is the error that is made above all things, and that brings current science to contradict itself; and then his new theories outside the scientific field?
the basic contradiction of Rationalist Science:
the theories that are based on ideas “a priori” are a- scientific
Behind it all there is the problem of “abstraction” of rational thought (a “think” theory that moves away from the increasingly actual reality).
Because of this its not being closely adheres to reality, the modern thought ends up making choices (such as the use of new technologies) that are no longer able, as should be, lead to real needs (and increasingly those choices lead to a deterioration in the quality of life and mental state of man).
The basic problem, from the point of view of Science itself (in its original form) is that in this way the scientific thinking ends up betraying its principles: abandon i.e. the need to make choices that stem from strictly “experiential” conclusions, to switch to the current choices that arise from “a-priori considerations”. — Preconcettuali choices than the actual experience: indeed, “idealistic” choices, ideological (dictated by reasons of ideology or social):
Did we mention that our science has chosen to be reductionist: in order to make many new discoveries that can bring great practical benefits to our society, “she decides to stop IE going to the bottom of things: it essentially for” practical issues “are forced to operate on a limited view of reality only” superficial aspects “.
As we have seen, in the field of Hospital Medicine rule (defined by a legal Act) is that the physician should intervene on the patient just after detecting the first symptoms, without “wasting time” in trying to track down the causes of these symptoms.
Similarly science behaves in relation to “inventions” that could have a devastating effect: genetic manipulation of products placed on the market there is content to operate under only one hand having 4% of “map” of the DNA on which they operate (it is like trying to fit a plane knowing only the 4% of project!).
A very significant case adopting this methodology is the use of the drug AZT for the treatment of Aids. It was a fatal mistake, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, but that science appeared a correct choice.
Basically what happened in front of the “emergency” Aids medicine emphasizes the obligation to act immediately, although he had not understood what the problem was. It was thus decided to prescribe a medicine globally “dangerous”, but “hopefully” would have eradicated Aids: after many years and many deaths, the institutions have forced pharmaceutical companies to withdraw the drug from the market.
The fact is that in order to operate on the reductionist reality,
as decided to do Science today,
you must, of course, upstream of any experimental process, make a choice of what you should consider.
To understand this better: in traditional science this issue did not arise, since in this context the “inventions” were made as “products” are commonly used only after a thorough investigation. In the case of modern science, in which you decide instead to intervene with methods of development of products to be marketed without a thorough scientific examination, feels the need to make choices in advance (on whether or not to use these “inventions”).
This happens, for example, on the issue of nuclear Technology is scientifically proven that the use of these technologies involves enormous risks for populations, and a certain increase in the level of radioactivity of the Earth for the next few years.
However, institutional science argues that, in the name of human progress, “collateral damage” of nuclear power production would be lower than the benefits citing non-scientific arguments: in this case the Idea of “convenience” of hyper-tech sector.
Obviously placing the issue on this level everything is “provable” (and media information on catastrophic accidents like that of Fukushima can be passed to denigrate attempts of science).
The question of inefficiency (and, more immediately, the danger than the forms of “natural life”) of this way of conceiving the institutional Science is linked to the fact that these “a-priori choices” are nothing more than a “subjective” decisions (and then decide “objectionable”): are the choices “preconcettuali” that science should not exist.
This creates a basis of all scientific formulation.
The problem is that the task of science cannot be other than to go to discover the causes of a problem; and only then, when you get a comprehensive idea of the problem (you are able to build a working model of the phenomenon under consideration), try to find a tool to work on the problem.
Any formulation that does not follow this rule is not a scientific assertion.
The task of choosing “what’s right” cannot possibly be attributed to a discipline such as science,
Since poses first of “moral issues”, that science cannot, by definition, face.
Western culture is one thing, science and ethics is one thing.
In other words, modern science was created to analyze the physical phenomena, and then play them (and possibly edit them, improving, if this can help to improve human existence).
“What we now say ‘ science ‘ is developing all the techniques implemented by men (…) to survive “Emanuele Severino, philosopher of science.
Modern science is therefore not designed to deal with ethical issues, such as what are the quality of human life by developing (not “equipped” to develop a debate on what should be considered “good” for man; “i.e. on what is best to do” for man and society).
To develop this type of “reasoning” you must resort to forms of thought “more general”, also known as ethics or philosophy.
Privatasi of its essential scientific quality, our science thus leaves room for ideological choices (pre-conceptual thoughts, products from a mind that does not take note of the positive results of experiments done on reality, but who “believes” that acting in a certain way you can produce positive results for the man).
In this way the science ends to deal with what does not belong: produces forms of moralism. Or decide itself what is right to do in science based on reasons of “Ideological” (i.e. According to the interests of those who manage “scientific institutions”).
For this reason, we repeat, the current theoretical constructions of science are essentially institutional in-science.
The non-scientificity of “inventions” current scientific proved, among other things, the existence, within the same science, more positions than they disagree: see genetically modified organisms, use of hydrogen as an alternative to oil, nuclear power, etc.
With respect to these issues the positions diverge sharply, scientists up to contradict. It is important to understand that there can be no “scientific” disagreement on a law of Science: a scientific assertion must be formulated on the basis of “certainty”. No scientist ever dream to say that an object always falls down. Or that a plane can not fly.
When, on “scientific questions”, there are different positions, is because this is not a science, but an ideological framework.
There was deepening on the reductionist Science In a nutshell, the problem lies in the loss, by part of science, the Idea on which it was originally based: the “proper functioning” of a technique is always aimed at a real human well-being. And, for the good of mankind, cannot be finalized, as happens today, mostly to serve an Idea, a preconceived belief: “believing” that it is the “right” Idea, and with the “hope” then that sooner or later they find a solution to the problems that are created by applying that idea.
the specialization of knowledge
The “specialization” of knowledge is one of the consequences of reductionism. And, from the point of view of non-Western Cultures, one of the most important problems for humans.
The specialization of knowledge was created to try to compensate for the incompleteness of rational thought (which eliminates a part of reality from its analysis).
To understand why this form of organization, you must first remember that there are two different forms of human thinking.
The first born with man, and who is now adopted by non-Western Civilizations, which maintains the shape of knowledge of the world on a non-rational level (which is also used by scientists until the early twentieth century, and that Einstein, which was based on it, called Imagination). And that in this mode can have a perception (knowledge) of reality “as a whole” (and then derive from this form of knowledge of the meanings that are useful for conducting a peaceful existence).
The second form of thinking is precisely the rationale adopted by our civilization, which uses a “rationalization” of what is perceived as the result of this process is that they serve descriptions are too complex to have a “General description” of reality.
For this reason, modern scientists have ended up resorting to a “trick”: he introduced in Culture
the idea (another preconceived idea, which has no scientific basis) whereby minds “specialized”
(each a “special knowledge”)
can create, in the collection, a unique “mind”.
Note that rationalist science realizes that there can be no “separate knowledge”. In medicine, for example, the Orthopedic specialist cannot fail to have, in the case of complications of trauma, the skills of a cardiologist.
The problem which underlies the question of “specialist Knowledge” of our rational Science is at least twofold.
First there is the problem of rationalism (reductionism) itself: each of those “know-how” produced by “culture”, based on riduzionistici criteria anyway, excludes anyway by his knowledge the values “not meccaniciste” of knowledge (and therefore excludes, for example, even the knowledge of the quantum level, which should be the basis of all scientific reasoning).
For this reason, so even if you could actually create a ‘ virtual ‘ mind that is the product of minds (specialized minds), the vision of reality so obtained would be extremely biased.
Secondly, the problem is that, in fact, behind the idea that more specific knowledge may produce one to know, there is a general lack of “reasoning” detected already by the ancient culture of man: synthesized in a metaphor that describes a community of people who for the first time they see a huge and mysterious object (object that represents, in metaphor , the reality still unknown to science).
In this metaphor, the locals as this huge object and there is no nearby high ground from which to observe as a whole, do not understand what it is.
The community then decides to “specialize” function of “researchers”, dividing between them the field of investigation: everyone gets a part of the whole.
Finally everyone gather together to report what they saw (is what happens today: scientists and specialists are not even all together, “in person”: communicate mostly through publications).
When you gather to try to put together the parts of knowledge acquired in the individual searches, there are those who report having seen, outside the object, to its end as a large flower with petals, sharp, that at some point it started to spin. And who claims to have found inside a panel of buttons, and after having crushed one, I heard a deafening noise and a tremor shake the floor.
But no one can find, having only its circumscribed investigation, nor the function of the propeller or engine control panel. Or connect the action of pressing a specific button with the engine and propeller.
With such metaphors the ancients wanted to warn mankind against the misuse of the rational mind: the functioning of human intelligence (the ability to understand reality) cannot be split into multiple minds.
Knowledge is not only observation: knowledge is primarily mental processing of elements observed.
And this mental processing (our intelligence), as the same Science tells us, is developed through synaptic connections between brain cells. And these cannot be extended outside of the human body, to the minds of other people (at least, not with our current scientific knowledge).
the rational modern Science cannot produce real knowledge
The problem of rational knowledge taken exclusively from our science is so in summary, it can be acquired only with two methodologies that affect the validity: the reduction (simplification of reductionist knowledge necessary to make it manageable logical level-verbal); and, of course, specialization, a fragmentation of knowledge needed to develop a broader vision of reality, that’s too low, it can handle, rational mode, a single person through his rational mind.
The issue is that, as they had already included the philosophers already at least 10.000 years ago, how wide this “rational” vision, it will never be a “vision” for Ensemble (which provide sustainable results, which are free of conflict with various aspects of reality).
This, as has been said, both because that form of thinking lacks depth (being simplified in reductionist mode), and because it lacks “horizontal” integration (the inability of the human mind to integrate specialist skills).
Or knowledge, according to all forms of thought prior to the Western half of the twentieth century, is not “logical-rational” knowledge, but knowledge is often referred to as “Intuition”.
For Einstein it was vital that scientists understood that “you do not arrive at universal laws by logic, but by intuition”. He also said that “imagination is more important than knowledge” (i.e. data acquisition).
Imagination is the characteristic that differentiates man from the robot. All great great inventions are the products of the imagination of man (and not of rational thought). As well as all the best products of the human mind, imported diagnoses, war strategies, cases, solutions, etc. are the result of insights, produced by a mind that has non-rational level of imagination.
The reductionist approach (specialist)
cannot therefore produce real knowledge.
Reductionism could work, apparently, in the industrial society of the 800, where everything was reducible to mechanical problems (then a major concern of science was to try to figure out how to create industrial machines that make work more efficient – and nobody thought, for example, to use a “scientific” approach to treat “ordinary” illness, because the Doctor was based on ancient mental qualities of intuition; qualities that were used by doctors until a few decades ago before they were established by law, protocols of the Handbook).
The reductionism issue arose when in the twentieth century our science has begun to deal with those levels of reality that cannot be traced to mechanistic models. Namely in physics before electromagnetism and quantum then – in the Human Sciences Biology and psychology.
The reductionist approach to these areas of knowledge has lead to a rapid depletion of human knowledge (the Radio and nuclear energy could be developed because at that time high-level scientists were still free from the limits of reductionism). An impoverishment that has resulted in a regression of scientific knowledge compared to levels at which had arrived with the help of scientists like Einstein, Godel, Eisemberg, Tesla and Marconi.
Today, for example, technology development is not able to take into account the fundamental level of science, quantum one. And Bio-medicine is not able to see the workings of the human body as a system for the exchange of information that takes place in “electromagnetic” (or rather, as quantum included instead new forms of Medicine – this inability of our institutional Science has led, among other things, the failure of the Genome Project).
The problem of the “reduction” of culture arises especially when you apply the reductionism in biology and psychology.
In this case statements are produced as the Dutch physiologist Jacob Moleschott: “the brain secretes thoughts as well as the kidneys secrete urine”, and “the genius is a matter of phosphorus”; or other considerations such as “the love between two people is dependent on the production of particular substances in our brain. (…) Artificial intelligence will replace man’s thinking. (…) An embryo is a clump of cells “.
The reductionist approach also led to Psychology can no longer consider the function of the unconscious (our science has fallen into contradiction making it powerless: while recognizing the role of the unconscious in functions of our minds, it aims, from Freud onwards, to “neutralize” through the action of control by the rational mind; that instead , from a scientific point of view, “depends on” the unconscious!)
RATIONAL THINKING PRODUCES
THE “CULTURAL PESSIMISM”
(NEGATIVE VISION OF EXISTENCE)
AND THEN THE MODERN IDEOLOGIES
From a psychological point of view the Western culture, compared to non-Western cultures past and present, is therefore a “pessimistic” Culture (no longer able to perceive the positive aspects of reality).
Let’s see how, by adopting modern ways of thinking “, Western man has lost much of its serenity.
The pessimism comes as Western consciousness psychic characterization forced to operate in riduzionistici patterns.
Among the components of reality disappear in reductionist vision (and therefore the possibility of individual perception), subtleties are essential to human existence: the nuances related to the unconscious and the “spirit”.
For this reason, in its reductionist approach the human being loses its “natural” mental condition “existential.” peace
In other words, man in the current state of consciousness, loses its natural confidence with pleasant perceptions related to sensory “removed” in its rational training (this is, for example, the feelings of pleasure in front of “infinite universe”, the “miracle” of nature; the man loses the perceived feeling of “beauty”, as serenatrice of the soul sensation, in finding the natural harmony that empathy exists in nature between things – the rational culture produces , i.e., a loss of “poetic” side of life).
This loss of confidence with such perceptions “positive” has a negative side-effect on the psyche of man: the “feel” that the takedown “surgical” perceptions by the Rationalist culture system failed to eliminate them completely, emerge as sense of unease. As a result, the modern individual not only shuns such feelings, but demonizes; and the fights (such feelings are from our culture, described as “diseases”, and removed permanently with psychotropic drugs and psychotherapy).
As we have seen, “removing” by the rational mind does not eliminate perceptions, but relegates in the subconscious, where they continue, under the ashes, to work.
This means, in other words, that the individual “civilized” uprooted “positive” sensations, and obsessed with “negative” ones, focused no longer on achieving a Well as quality but about deleting a bad.
The adoption of a rational culture means, precisely,
the acquisition of a new way of seeing the existence of “negative”,
peculiar of our civilization.
“Pessimistic” vision of reality
causes people to adopt a creed
In this mental condition “negative”
the individual does not have a positive perception of good, feels “empty”.
In him was an absolute need to have a creed to which inspiration. An ideology.
In other words, this disturbing state of atrophy of his perceptions, the individual is to lose the sense of many aspects of its existence, and therefore in need of rational explanations regarding these aspects of his life that now appear distressing.
And because over the past 150 years the mechanistic explanations of early enlightenment have lost their effectiveness consolatory, to meet this need the individual Interior alienated, Western culture has produced the new rational answers Social ideologies. Responses that represent, in this case, a development of mechanistic explanations of the nineteenth century, since they are related to the psycho-biological level of sensations.
The harbingers of ideologies: pessimism idealist of the nineteenth century
Modern ideologies come from intellectual current of pessimism that is born in the nineteenth century, when it begins to spread the existential malaise produced by expansion of rational model/framework every mechanist of human existence (at that stage of History there are, among other things, the first disappointments of the new age of reason: the terrifying results of the French Revolution, Napoleon I from “liberator” divine tyrant extremely hard life of new inhabitants of the metropolis and workers in factories, etc.).
In Italy artists like Foscolo and Leopardi begin to flee, consciously (theorizing their position) in the illusion of the “Ideal” (the Foscolo lived, among other things, the drama of the first applications of egalitarianism introduced from the French Revolution: mass graves or Cemeteries away from churches, located outside the city, with all the same tombs, handled by Magistrates).
His character, Jacopo Ortis who lives in Italy dominated by the Austrians to say ‘ my name is in the blacklist, I know (…) My mom consoles: won by her tears I obeyed and I left Venice to avoid the first persecutions, and the most ferocious. Or I’ll have to leave me this my solitude, where old, without losing my eyed unfortunate country, I can still hope a few days of peace? (…) And we, alas, we Italians we wash our hands in the blood of Italians. For me that can follow. Because I desperately and of my country and me, quietly look the prison and death. My body at least won’t fall between foreign arms: my name is quietly mourned by a few good men, comrades of our miseries; and my bones lay on the land of my fathers.”and then kills herself, making a heroic gesture,” ideal “, the source of terrible suffering produced by the new ideological Regime. He added: “the sacrifice of our homeland is worn: all is lost; and life, even if it is granted, there will be that to cry our misfortunes and our infamy.».
Note that there is still no Political connotation (Foscolo is keen to point out to take in the Tombs, a secular vision, a non-Catholic, the problem of the graves, which, according to him, have a civil function: they keep alive the memory of the individuality of the person). In this case it is simply an existential problem: pain is now the fundamental quality of life («and soon! Everything is ready; the night is already too advanced-farewell-soon we’ll be uncoupled from nothing, or the incomprehensible eternity. Into thin air? “); and death becomes the only form of release by new modern tyrannies.
LeopardI will always so pessimistic, life as a slow death.
Marx does is take this ideal form negative from poetry, to bring it in the newspaper. The former Idealist thinking evolves: with Marx doesn’t think more to passively accept the pain, but to come out of it with a perfect positive form: adapting the real world to the ideal world.
In the last decades of the 20th century, the modern culture has produced more new answers for the distressed mind alienated citizen.
The problem stems from the fact that the rational culture of the twentieth century, which has already taken in new guise “psychological” (in search of answers to the “thin” questions), is still not able to provide explanations on questions concerning rewarding existential psychological or spiritual type of man.
This limit is due to the fact that the rational consciousness of civilized man works at a level far from the level of the psyche in which the sensations that are worried about the modern man (the modern man, as much as trying to “psicologizzare” its culture, it always remains bound by the limits of rational thought, which does not allow him to learn enough his psychological/spiritual level to find to find meaning in it that we can provide you with a significant ” meaning of life “).
The limits of rational thought is due to the fact that the positive feelings can be produced only to deeper levels of the psyche that cannot be achieved by the “rational mind” (that is, if such perceptions appear to mind formed to operate efficiently, it is feelings by shunning). This is the level of “feelings” peculiar man, which distinguish it from other species of animals: that emotional feelings.
Then the rational mind focuses on a feeling level closer to the “instincts” inferior “(those that humans share with animals): the plan of emotions, in which, in continuity, only negative feelings emerge. (in short: there may be, in this condition, emotions of joy, but they are based on “causes” that soon will cease to exist; and at that point, “sobered up”, you will have a relapse of morality).
Because of these mental conditions in which it is confined to the “civilized Man”, eso vive an existence characterized no longer by the perception of a “good” (which featured in ‘ 700, the American Constitution-but today the man it doesn’t “believe” anymore) but by the pursuit of pleasure shape that exists only as a cessation of pain [see document “trails”].
The rational culture ends and then to
produce the pessimism as existential condition.
And consciousness pessimistic need ideologies.
The ideology makes it possible to direct the new human being afflicted by mental condition “rationalised”, towards forms of psychological gratification.
In other words, the ideology has the individual now devoid of the ability to have positive perceptions, a State of contentment that although not giving a direct perception of pleasure in any case allows a drastic reduction of conscience from anguish produced by modernity.
It is a form of mental “escape”. An escape in the idealism of the 19th century is located in the artistic field, and has essentially “negative” solutions, as heroic forms of death.
And subsequently in social Ideologies (a kind of idealism become militant), becomes a prescription for social behavior: in this case the man is involved in a moralistic crusade, a fight with the evil (with the idea that the defeat of the “social evil” it can dispel the evil inside him his existential anguish).
Happens that Western man embracing a purely rational perceptual mode gave the perception of most of “affective” quality of life, it shelters on a floor in a condition of “illusion” (to a level of existence is no longer directly connected with reality – and in this condition his mind is geared towards tangible objectives for the rational mind as the accumulation of material wealth).
The size of the illusion
becomes in fact the objective of the Company-market System
on which our civilisation is based.
Later we analyzes the phenomenon of a modern society that produced at this stage of its evolution, means to keep people in a world of illusion: TV, games for children, psychotropic drugs, etc. (including one of psychotropic drugs such as aspirin products, which reduces the perception of the body, move away from the perception of people themselves) [see later Section “speech bubble”]).
in their variation of the twentieth century,
I’m just responding to distressed minds of civilized man:
they propose illusory gratification which raises the individual from its existential anguish.
Gratification that, as we shall see, is placed at the level of emotion, which is on the plan of the “moral issue”.
the development of the process of ideologization of the distressed rational mind
The action of these ideologies is to act in the first instance on “cultural level” to instill in people a pessimistic vision of life. You insist at this level, particularly on the fundamental principles of pessimism, already present in Foscolo and Leopardi: the pleasure exists only as cessation of suffering.
In this way, in fact, painting the world as a place of suffering, you can arrive to inculcate in people’s minds a “hope”.
In this context the existence becomes suffering that is a “fight for survival”: and the new moral and scientific approach of human existence itself as a solution: it will bring the end of suffering (this is precisely what our science institutions, on the basis of Darwinism).
This new approach, among other things, turns the world into a place of competition between individuals (only the strongest survives), and the existence of man in competition with nature (science has the mission to produce technologies that will allow humans to dominate nature).
Ultimately modern ideologies have moved man’s existence from a “natural environment” to a “rational” context, as are the modern urban life, employment, the “culture media”, etc. …
And in this new dimension of “captivity,” these Ideologies may have taken on the conscience of the people providing answers “Salvation” (always on the level of abstract ideas, of course; but now that plan has taken on a leading role with respect to reality).
The transformation of the consciousness of the individual, i.e. moving the operation of the mind from the original level to the rational/ideological we get, in an individual now deprived of its primary qualities of human being, shifting from questions psycho-spiritual sphere (feelings)-on that emotional rationale of ideological Moral: in this dimension cease to exist, and problems only more questions of moral commitment with which the modern Ego “compensates” the absence of perception Itself (it is a form of “selfish satisfaction” moralistic movements like the Salvation Army, summary, here in the form more from Carla Bruni, that being left means “feeling touched by problems that maybe one has; means to take into account the great injustices»).
the Existentialist pessimism as the Foundation
our current culture “humanist”
Between these answers to the questions of a rewarding human mind distressed due to lack of positive perceptions, the most significant regarding the appearance most closely related to the psyche of man are those provided by the new way of thinking that arises with Existentialism: the new “secular” Religion with which the post-Marxist thinking attempts to introduce new forms of metaphysical aspiration that replace the original spiritual ones (it is a conception of human existence that has become an integral part of culture institutional West).
The new vision of human existence separate from the basic concept of the Enlightenment, in which the human being is a “crooked branch” to straighten. The conception, i.e., where the human being should be limited, “physical” level, in its freedom of action since following his nature it would produce harm to himself and to others.
The new evolution of this concept (introduced by Sartre’s Existentialist Philosophy) the coercive mechanism of restriction of the freedom of the individual from the physical layer to the subtlest level of the emotional part of the psyche (in enlightenment Ideologies originating, developed among others by Hobbes, Campanella and Giordano Bruno such restriction was applied from the typical structures of State police).
The Existentialist concept is based on a transposition, in terms of psychology, and then Enlightenment vision of Darwinist a man at the mercy of fate, whose evolution is punctuated by totally accidental elements.
On the psychological basis of rationalism, Existentialism, man is nothing ailing: his conscience is bound to suffer in the perception of his powerlessness than the world around (the basic idea is summed up in the title of the most important work of this current of thought that has pervaded Psychology Today: “Nausea”, understood as an existential condition of man).
THE IDEOLOGIZATION OF MODERN CULTURE:
THE “REDUCTION” OF THE HUMAN BEING
AND THE DECLINE OF CIVILIZATION
Ultimately the Western civilization, trying to rationalize its culture (and therefore the human mindset), he ended up creating an individual incomplete, no longer able to perceive through his senses most of the nuances of the world (its existence). And in this condition of human life is life characterized by continuous existential angst.
The fundamental problem of Western civilization is that it, in order to alleviate this suffering of man, created social ideologies (which are presented as “means of salvation”, as previously most Ideologizzate religions). And that these social Ideologies eventually induce a significant decline in society, because they produce a cancellation of the original cultural heritage: without this essential cultural base, civilization is no longer able to develop its natural evolution (and, as we teach evolution and history, civilizations that will not succumb, svolvono).
Analysing the question from a purely logical point of view, this is because, as has been mentioned, firstly to the fact that the new forms of modern culture, which represent an extreme evolution of enlightenment thought, bring Western thought (our thinking) in a size of Absoluteness (in other words what should be attributable to a strictly scientific thinking , which is closely linked to reality, it is transferred to the field of metaphysics, that is, religious thought, that is “objective” reality).
Let’s see what this means.
the concept of absolute
Absolute meaning “free from any limitation (…): absolute power (…) that combines power, without limitation “
Absolute is “in Greek philosophy, which subtracted to the events (in the world), is itself made and perfect”.
Note that this is the quality ascribed to a God in religions which have a power that does not depend on any living thing and no thing is also the creative power (see Genesis).
In other words, who has the quality of absoluteness is not only “over” each other, but everything depends on him.
In modern times it “revolutionizes” the man thought, bringing the mind of man in an absolute size.
Here there is no longer a nature from which humankind depends: now, reaching an absolute size (the enlightened human mind Power outlined by the Enlightenment), the mind of man is capable of dominating nature.
Note that our science, in its fundamental principles, actually deny this possibility.
The uncertainty principle, for example, (produced when our culture was still “linked to reality”) States that as far as the technological tools of our science can be improved, the man will never be able to see the essence of reality (and therefore “control it”).
Also, as we know, science at the beginning of the 20th century (Einstein, Bohr, Fermi, Eisemberg, etc …) noted how reality is based on the most basic level “, Quantum is not material (contradicting itself, science currently operates on a material level, which is” abstract “than the actual reality).
This misjudgement brought science to commit serious errors in its attempt to control from level “abstract” “more fundamental level” (opera, in fact, as mentioned above, the “superficial” level of reductionism)
Among the many example of this problem we have accidents at nuclear power plants, and the failure of the Genome Project.
With modernity, with the new way of thinking the man becomes (“revolutionizes”) then the traditional view of the world, abandoning the concept of a nature made of mechanisms which the rational mind cannot understand rationally in their entirety (i.e. abandons the idea of a reality that man cannot dominate, subdue, because it is unable to define it a significant operating framework : the traditional concept in which any attempt to control the reality would mean neglecting the “details” significant, something that his efforts could, in the long run, to produce disastrous results).
In his new mindset man becomes convinced that his rational mind is capable of producing ideas that are higher than those of nature: to create new “artificial” systems that replace natural ones (see nuclear energy, Gmo, prosthetic elements for the human body functions: mechanical and chemical is no longer the nature of the human body that is in charge of its operation but chemical and mechanical technologies).
Among these artificial systems include medicines, whose abuses (now modern man is farmacologizzato: continuous use of pharmacological substances leads him to depend on the use of drugs; or painkillers and drugs like Viagra, energisers, etc.). But there are also, for example, to the “climate control” methods of dispersion of chemicals in heaven (official adopted by the Winter Olympics in Russia).
This overturning worldview entailed a substantial cultural change (psychological): this has meant, among other things, his loss of that “sensitivity” towards the intelligent Nature that ancient cultures regarded as deities (Einstein himself identified a God in nature). Feeling that for millennia has led the man in his individual life and community, but which today the “new science” of ideology, deny the existence (through, for example, the creation of “improper” Darwinist theories).
This is one of the great contradictions of our science: on the one hand it has demonstrated the existence of an “intelligent design” (described on Gaia theory); but it persists in thinking that this conception is the result of “religious” minds, i.e. incapable of thinking rationally.
In other words it has overturned the conception of the relationship between man and nature: the intelligence of nature is thus subordinate to that of men.
The role of absolute is now taken over by the mind of man:
the man has demolished, with the rational mind
the idea of a nature/God
to assume himself the role of God.
(Although one of the branches of his science, psychology, define a similar mindset as “megalomania”).
The modern thought is self-destructive
It is from this new position in the Mind of the man who was born the tendency that some of the greatest Philosophers of the twentieth century (Adorno, Horkheimer, Popper, Einstein) define how the Western social system self-destruct.
In particular, it happens that, abandoning the idea of having to meet a Nature from which it depends, to switch to the new idea of the superiority of the mind of man than that of nature,
It has gone from the sustainable use of natural resources
to an exploitation of them.
Conception, which as we are experiencing directly, is leading the current devastating results.
Some practical implications of the new conception of the world: the “accidents” to nuclear power, genetically modified organisms, global warming and other pollution lethal to nature, the devastating effects of the use of psychotropic drugs on a mass level to alleviate the effects of mental disorders.
This is not the place to try to define the boundaries of ethical question.
We can instead, using the principles of our science, examine what are the achievements of the new modern conception of reality by comparing the results obtained with the objectives it that man, with the use of this science, was: where you wanted to achieve freedom from slavery of work, better mental and physical health, social safety , you got exactly the opposite.
Science in recent decades has also introduced itself, in terms of “theories”, as we see elsewhere in this text [and in document ****], background error how to abandoning its founding principles (it is precisely for this reason that it creates mostly disasters instead of solving problems).
The Science, among other things, abandoned the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics (the only ones to describe “scientifically” the essence of reality), the principle of cause and effect (medicine, abandoning this principle, ceases to diagnose diseases to “cure”, relying on Guides, effects), the uncertainty principle (Heisemberg) and the incompleteness of formal systems (Godel).
In particular our science makes the mistake (against its own principles) to bring its scope from the traditional plan of scientific thought (in which, by definition, produce ideas limited to the observation of reality) to the absolute right of ideologies (in which everything is subordinated to abstract ideas: it is a dimension that defines science as schizoid).
The current conception of modern science, for this reason (and for abandoning the model description of quantum reality) has become so detached from reality science, which produces an abstract culture (ideological).
That is, modern man is confined in an imaginary world you are confined in a fictional world where it is unable to assess the compliance of his thoughts to the actual reality, gives an absolute value to his ideas (as we shall see this size is particularly useful to current forms of marketing and politics).
The real problem of this new modern system condition is that in this dimension which produce thoughts, abstract absolutes than actual reality, in it there is no more room for reflection: is a classic ideological condition in which there are just ideas a-priori (“Apart”, Toto would say), and there are no arguments about the consequences of their actions.
In this situation, being considered “right” ideas a-priori that one acts, do not consider it necessary to put them into question: what needs to be done is only to check whether the actions are actually “right ideas”. If the results are disastrous, he always complains because of human error in the application of ideas (in ideologies are, for example, “fellow who err”).
In this context, the “rules of society” (morality), from rules dictated by the experience (it is a wisdom produced by each individual mind – in this case the infantile education is, and makes maieutic so that your child can “learn” by itself the meanings of existence), become the “moralizing”: i.e. with actions such as the representatives of a new attempt to direct people’s thoughts and behaviors.
That is, from the point of view of morality in this mindset, among other things, it replaces the traditional well (designed as a follow the rules of nature) with a new Good produced by the mind of man.
This once again, properly, was called Utopia: there was still the awareness of this “abstract idea”; an Idea that is now has been transformed from social Ideologies, “reality” (such as when it is said that social democracy is greater than the original Democracy, refers to a model that, in reality he never achieved positive results: but we speak of it as an “actual reality”!)
We see then how it is possible for the human mind to operate “in the abstract”, without realizing that they have no contact with actual reality in the human mind: “everything is possible”.
The term schizophrenic is used synonymously with schizoid.
The schizoidia, or schizophrenia, is failure to recognize the reality of relating with it. And therefore an inability to participate in real life, manifesting psychic level, with inability to recognize their own emotions (and others): i.e. the schizoid individual is indifferent to reality, and the next (is anaffettività).
It is interesting to note how schizophrenia definitions that follow seem quite appropriate for ideological intellectual “who suffers from this disorder feels and considers himself an observer rather than a participant of what happens around him, his eyes appearing quite” flat, bland and unimportant “” (is the stereotype of the intellectual played by Nanni Moretti, when, as a character of his first film says “Come and put me so near the profile window candles, you make me:” come on there with us. “and I said,” go, go, will catch up with you … “. I come! See you there. No, I’m not, I’m not going, no.»). “This type of person tends to live in a world of his own” more than abstract interests, such as mathematics, computer science, philosophy, relationships. “
Social ideologies produce two levels of Ideologization of the individual, as Marx: the upper level, the intellectuals; and the base level, the people (which is a tool in the hands of intellectuals to achieve utopia). The belonging to the latter category has a completely different personality from that of the intellectual: there are two different forms of schizophrenia.
For the “normal” person (the people), unhappy with the world but insecure, dominated by category of leaders-intellectuals are the following: “the schizoid quality, deep in his mind, is not certain of his existence» «there exists a deep dissociation between the self-image and the reality. Between me and the Ego Ideal “upset by the encounter with the outside world, the struggle, not the schizoid does not seek to assert the dominance of the ego. Retires within, in an internal world, ideal, abstract imagery.». Are scored by individuals ‘ experience of waste ‘ (feel, basic, “rejected”, which by itself is not able to fit into society).
“It is in fact a retreat towards life, almost an attempt to overturn the original situation”.
These are the conditions for an individual feels the need to submit to other individuals more active character.
The intellectuals, who have a more active character, are driven by their compulsive need to describe (and controlling) the world rationally, to break away from reality “natural” (to do this, they need to come together in a tribe around at a party-father). This corresponds to the description of schizophrenia: “the solution is that of non-involvement, detachment from every emotion” (See Lenin, who said that music is not a dangerous distraction for the mind).
(rather than living it in a direct way, “spontaneous”-attitude considered to be “popular”, lower level)
“The schizoid behaves as if it were a reporter, whose job is to write an article about a social situation which was not invited, which does not have any personal interest and deeply bored (Guntrip, 1961, p. 18)» (see Sartre when it reaches awareness” and now I know: I exist-the world exists-and I know that the world exists. That’s all. But I don’t care ‘)
“Often is not even aware of its existence. Inside he knows only express love is dangerous “(see the complaint of” bourgeois “love in movies from” engaged intellectuals “) ‘ but why is love itself as being potentially destructive” (see Sartre say “I know that I shall meet not no more that inspire me. You know, get to loving someone is a business. […] There’s even a moment where you have to jump off a cliff: If you don’t reset it reflects. I know it’s not going to skip through ever more»).
But for the schizoid “love can turn into a less dangerous form. Sentimentality, or adherence to an ideal, political or religious ethics are a way out of perceived as safer. We could say that the schizoid is relatively easy to love humanity. What’s hard is to love a woman, or a man, between all humanity.»
Modern man is so confined in a mindset “abstract”, in which it thinks to be superior to the nature of things.
That is, the man went into a dimension in which it has abandoned the habit of constantly reflect on events, or to produce their own thoughts.
The consequence of this is that the human being, taking its current form mentis, has abandoned the use of IE his intelligence, to rely on the “intelligence” of others be deemed superior minds (ends up adopting thoughts produced by others).
Humanity has thus lost part of his peculiar Intelligence: intelligence of the individual in such condition is harnessed in an emotional cage in which it is removed (is the process of removing, which anestetizzano some parts of the brain). And in this condition the human intelligence slowly atrophies.
It was said that in the last two centuries, adopting the enlightenment thought evolved in his later incarnations of Scientific Ideology and social ideology, Western man is losing his peculiar intelligence: the complete intelligence, feelings based on forms of intuition and not on rational reasoning, which was the Foundation of human life until the nineteenth century.
A used intelligence before the last stage of enlightenment modernity, all major scientists: people like Newton, Descartes, Kant, Darwin, Einstein, Bohr, Heisemberg based their thinking on the form of the original human intelligence (“factory”). It is that intelligence can grasp, through forms of empathic perception, that part of reality that cannot be seen with the eyes, which may not be included with the “reasoning”, which, using the term of Einstein, is the “most critical” of reality (that part that these same scientists, in continuity with tradition, attach the label of divine).
Basically the Western man, adhering to the “new course” of modern culture is losing its inner qualities: his empathic faculty (defined in the tradition, also with the name of the faith).
Its original empathic ability is the faculty which enables him to perceive the universe of things in which it is inserted:
the Faculty has provided to mankind for millennia, and this is crucial to its existence, the “feel” of being an integral part of the whole. That is the power that enables him to assign a meaning to “all” and, consequently, to its existence.
This is, among other things, the feeling that according to Einstein guides the true scientist in his research (“the sower of true science is the Mystic”). That allowed the Philosophers to produce useful thoughts for the attainment of happiness in life. And that in ancient religions “revealed” to man the meaning of life.
From the social point of view it is important to understand how this perception (awareness) to be part of the world that surrounds him, which allowed the human being to be “functional” to his community (being an individual morality). And that led the human being to produce sustainable attitudes towards nature.
Losing its original empathic perception of the world, man today has become a living being incomplete (compared to the “factory”).
And in this condition the man started to produce ideas and attitudes schizophrenics, untied from reality. And ended up using his peculiar quality, free will, to put out by nature (from the “All” part): it is indeed convinced, the dawn of the Enlightenment, that the peculiar features intelligence they need to create a new world, better than nature (such as the Blues Brothers, twentieth-century man thinks this is his “mission” in the Earth).
The present condition of absence of integration with the reality brings modern man to produce paradoxical results:
wanting to create a peaceful life, it produces a life characterized by continuous existential angst; wanting to create a condition of wealth for all, it produces a congenital condition of poverty; Desiring to enhance the nature, it destroys it.
The underlying problem is that, in this new condition “unnatural”, the mind of man “doesn’t work anymore”: it is no longer able to perform its natural function, namely to understand what is good and what is bad compared to the operation of its biological life (his biological intelligence declined to be lower than that of his pets).
Ultimately the intelligence of man can no longer work for that which is its basic function: the evolution of human species peculiar: the evolution of human consciousness.
In this new situation the conscience of “civilized” man is in optimal precondition for being manipulated.
We saw earlier how morality is an essential element for the functioning of a social community (for life of a people), because it defines a set of rules that, inducing in individuals of “automatic” mode of behavior, allow the community to function (are rules that once acquired by the individual through education, they become part of their “nature”).
Morality provides that is a set of individuals lives on one “code” of unwritten rules that allows to find a harmony (or materialist, negative, “a compromise”) between the psychic and biological characteristics of individuals and the needs of the Community (i.e. compromise of specific community needs, for example, the nature of the attractions: dangers, scarcity of resources peculiarities of the neighbouring ethnic groups, etc.).
The moral, as the etymological dictionary Zanichelli, is therefore something that indicates “rule, measure and then custom.”(the term is derived from the root” measure “) as an adjective means” with regard to the uses and customs. “
How to code rules and moral behaviour is therefore closely linked to the context in which, century after century, was developed.
Any form of morality is then “relative”: that is, linked to a specific local and historical context (as mentioned above, if for us Italians is absolutely immoral attempt to seduce a married woman, to the Eskimos is a moral obligation).
This local characterization of morality is decisive for the evolution of civilizations: for millennia, man has developed its capacity to live in relationship with the environment (nature and others) through
the only possibility “physiologic” to develop his consciousness:
with direct experience with reality
the contingency of life provide
(in Eastern philosophies is said “in the here and now”).
In this way, man has developed specific values of its cultures, which, through education of individuals, have given the inclinations (“social instincts” peculiar) which meant that within the human race evolved many small ethnic realities (in Italy the cultural characteristics of a Valle d’Aosta are decidedly different from those of a Sicilian).
That is, the specific culture developed by human beings for millennia, from generation to generation, in function of specific environmental reality, has defined its unique way of being, mental and physical, that allows him to adopt attitudes “compatible” with the world in which it is inserted.
Specific human cultures, and its various forms, have led to the various communities of “working” (they provide not only a chance for man to live sustainably in the environment in which it is inserted, but also allow spontaneous coordination of consciences of individuals moving in directions consistent feelings, aspirations and behaviors).
Culture, namely the Human Civilization evolves through a dialectical process.
Not extremely reductionist Marxist, but in the original sense of the term: the dialectical process consists in a confrontation between two parties which support different ideas, if not “antithetical”; This comparison produces idea-“synthesis” of ideas originally opposed, which is a kind of compromise between the two positions, and initial specifications can therefore satisfy both parties.
The dialogue is a necessary condition for the existence of a complex society. The problem is that in the absence of a comparison between different instances within the company, the system can no longer evolve, and then begins his parable of decline.
This absence of a real process of comparing different ideas really is the basic problem of our civilisation (for example, the thought of Left and right, while diverging on important issues, embrace the same underlying vision of society and science).
What ensures implementation of this dialectical process,
i.e. physiological development of a company is
the continuous comparison of heterogeneous elements
within each specific cultural context (i.e. the so-called “diversity”, in this case cultural diversity).
In Western cultural System this comparison is based on the vision of enlightenment “fight for survival”, and is updated with the modern term of “competition”.
You don’t want to argue here the race concept of modern Ideology of market Liberalism
The current modern society is based on competition between individuals or groups of individuals. This is the vision that underlies much of the Company system-and the Market thought: Marxist antagonist Marxist vision offers the same form of competition culture “bourgeois”, only that in this case it is a form of “manipulated” competition, where the winner is already preordained, since it would be according to the dogma, elected by history as “individual right” (this is the principle of “anthropological” claiming superiority often, leaders of the left).
In fact the modern thought has also produced the idea that cooperation is better than the competition, but this concept has been awarded the Nobel (see the story summarized in “Beautiful mind”), has never been adopted for reasons of “opportunity”, from “institutional thinking”: in reality in a world run by some institutions in hegemonic way (“monopolist”) the collaborative position would be a weakening of those in power.
The competition, in the current world view, would allow humans to evolve because this way you select cultural characters “winning”, which will be integrated in the culture of the community.
In each case in the Western scientific conception the evolution of the human species is then determined by comparing different entities within the social system: diversity is therefore also here the scientific principle that underlies the functioning of human life.
the scientific issue of diversity
In Western science “diversity” is one of three basic qualities of a living organism (which are: diversity, unity, complexity).
Diversity is considered to be a fundamental quality of every man-made system, as the social system (“unity in diversity” is also a fundamental political principle: is the motto of the European Union; and today, at the institutional level, we recognize the importance of biodiversity).
Diversity as indispensable for life is obvious biologically: to maintain life on Earth there must be male/female diversity.
And in any event of nature is seen as in the absence of diversity will not occur: phenomena is the principle of opposites of ancient philosophies (in Chinese culture Yin and Yang), of whom a significant example is the hot/cold that dichotomy, in relating to each other, giving rise to winds, precipitation and evaporation cycle that allows water to irrigate the land , etc …
Already in Vedic Philosophy, some thousands of years ago it was stated “So those who are advanced in spiritual knowledge perceive unity in diversity.” (S.B. 6.8.32-33)
But modern ideologies conflict
with the fundamental quality of diversity:
the systems that are developed on a rational level are in fact incompatible with the quality of diversity.
Such systems are first, to find a condition “of order”: that is a condition of “consistency”, as the absence of diversity (the most significant example is the principle of equality as the Foundation place of European democracy).
As has been said the rationalization of existence practiced Western lifestyle system produces a “simplification” of the “nuances”: this reductionism eliminates the possibility of diversity, thereby developing and dialectic of ideas.
This simplification of reality has characterized so especially evident the totalitarianism of the 20th century, which resulted in a deletion of “diversity” within the company (with Nazism, race and social class level with communism).
The fact is, from the point of view of “cultural”, which in based on forms of rational thought, is necessary to maintain order through a kind of equality between individuals ‘ consciences. This process leads inevitably to eliminate forms of thought “different” from the standard model (and we have seen that this means also necessarily, sooner or later, implement a “delete” from the social life of who fails to adopt the mental model indicated by ideologies, and is so far from the way of thinking “right”).
The Elimination of diversity is also the end that seeks, consciously or not, modern genetics, with which man seeks to eliminate “defects” of living species to achieve world creation “progressed” (this process develops through the form of modern scientific “progress”, as in the case of the production of organisms artificially “Advanced”, GM plants and animals: the roots of this idea of progress in our society is such that some mothers have already “designed” conception children’s “winning” genetically modified).
The “manipulation” of individual and social character to align them to the ideal model represents the attempt of our Illuminist system to create an artificial evolution of man (the “reduction” of our intellectual quality prevents the Western man to grasp the inherent contradiction: in accordance with the principles of modern science itself, coming to a “perfect model” of life, you would eliminate the diversity, bringing this way inevitably, the races involved in this process, the extinction instead of progress).
the loss of “diversity” and the crisis of modern private Institutions
All human systems in which you lose the support of a dialectical process between different instances (citizens ‘ demands which are somehow in conflict with each other), in which they lose their diversity will match each other some underlying principles, enters a critical phase of decline.
It’s not that the company will have to disagree: the historical experience of human Society teaches us that in a society as complex as a nation or a city, there are the “thesis” different: who, in a free space, wants to build a road to faster core, those who want to build a park; those who would restrict the nightlife to peaceful sleep, and who is happy to find nightclubs open all night.
The convergence of “thesis” historically opposed policies is what is happening now in our parliamentary System, with the “political intrigues” (the “compromise”: first of all, the father of all the compromises, the “historic compromise” between the moderate parties and the radical left): with the current tendency for various parties to assume the same positions for maximum power consent by the masses , the comparison of substantially different ideas, which is the basis of a proper functioning of parliamentary democracy.
The political compromise (or “mess-ups”) is a significant case of simplification of reality reductionist implemented to make the modern welfare system (i.e. citizens) easier to manage: today both poles of Italian politics have adopted the same national-popular language.
The problem is that in this way, as we have said, have eroded the fundamental principles of dialectical system, parliamentary and then inevitably came about through a series failures that produce increasingly severe crisis, such an irreparable crisis (at least no longer correctable using the instruments provided by the system itself). I.e. it has gotten to the point that in Italian political culture have completely lost the original political core parties.
The decline was the fate of the great totalitarian regimes “strong”, and is currently the case for the new soft totalitarianism in the twentieth century, proposed by modern democracy.
Substantially, as has already been said, democracy has lost its Street main element: citizen consciousness.
An example of this is a statement of the President of the Republic Giorgio Napolitano, who, faced with the negative vote of some Nations in the referendum for the European Constitution said “we must go on the same, despite the difficulties”; in an ideological regime the opinion of citizens is, indeed, a problem, and not the basic principle (in hindsight, Napolitano also has deftly concealed the fact that Italy has not even thought to express the opinion of the people through referendums like those to which he was referring).
If there are things too, as it seems (but maybe removed in latest reinterpretation), move them later: until now the text is already sufficiently full bodied
Obviously here leaves a nutshell
The global market crisis is due to the abolition of “diversity” physiological social systems.
This is the result of a strategy of current market leading actors which resides in idea, even here, that simplifying a system, i.e. making it smoother and more manageable, things work better.
With this idea, as we see later, the market has transformed himself from a regulated market from the “competition” (in which several companies were producing different products-and at different prices-and consumers have the freedom to choose what is best for them) to a market “from above”.
In other words today:
1) there is a market of monopoly which eliminate competition bringing significant benefits to large companies (this is against the law, but this way the few businesses “monopoly” may, for example, agree to keep prices high, and low quality – this last mode has been defined, with a euphemism, “planned obsolescence”: products that are designed to be useless after a short period of time).
2) there is an “assisted” Market: the big companies have the financial support of States: If things go well, the money the company cashes them; If things go wrong, the money puts the State to cover the holes (see, for example, the redundancy and saving banks)
3) but the Market System has developed even more sophisticated levels of “state capitalism” (managed by the financial capitalism that has gradually taken possession of all large companies; and also, more or less directly, Nations Government – an example: the President of a major international institution of financial capitalism, the Trilateral Commission, Mario Monti, was also Premier in Italy). This transition to state capitalism has produced, in a first phase the “incentives” for the purchase of products such as cars. And at a later stage, the invention of “compulsory purchase”, which oblige citizens to purchase new products, even when there is need (see defining new “mandatory” standards, such as Digital TV or car as the Euro 3).
In fact, in this way, industrial capitalism became a form of state capitalism was originally defined by Vladimir Lenin for the Soviet Union.
This has led to the current crisis that the institutions (public and private), now unable to see solutions developed on a different plane from those above, are not able to solve: today, among other things, financial capitalism runs into the problem of the blanket too short, because it looks naively to eliminate deficits of Nations taking away pocket money by citizens; which, however, in the end, now in poverty, are no longer able to “consume” and then to “run” the market (which breaks down, and with it our whole social System, in which Companies and markets are integrated).
Which is, in essence, the problem?
The fact is that institutions, following the mindset of modern Ideologies, namely the need for a “rational control” on society, they want to have full control on the market.
The change made by the 50 ‘s has been profound: from antiquity to the latest stages of modernity the market has developed spontaneously, according to rules of the application (the application for satisfaction of people’s needs) and demand (the ability of entrepreneurs to meet this demand). This collection of spontaneous mechanisms, “natural” that allowed the market to grow were physiologically defined the early economists “invisible hand of the market” (Adam Smith, in the middle of ‘ 700) [see, about the invisible hand, the interesting summary on Wikipedia < http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mano_invisibile >].
Applying this rational control on a system,
the market, based on “human mechanism”, ended up distorting the functioning mechanisms of the market
(and then to distort the operation
in our society that depends on
-see, for example, the problem of unemployment and poverty).
This new form of control of the market is in fact developed essentially through thought control systems of individuals, their perception of things (to get a control of people’s actions).
This means that in this form of company ceases to follow the “laws of nature” followed for millennia (for the market, in fact, this is the “law” of demand, demand for satisfaction of real needs for people, and providing satisfaction of these needs by Craftsmen/Contractors). And that the entire existence of man is moved to an “imaginary” plan.
Which in this case is done upstream of the demand/supply process, passing from the real level of needs in that imagery produced by persuasion: in the new context is no longer necessary to engage to try to understand the real needs of people, and to design something working (this is true for the market as for politics).
Now just “invent” an easy product implementation (and rapid obsolescence), and then convince people that you need to buy it.
That’s the problem. As we shall see, this change has radically transformed the minds of Western citizens, creating a paradoxical situation, in which man has overturned his existential Principles and values:
(that is, the inability to recognize the reality,
of relating with it)
to cure disease has become the institutional method
to achieve well-being.
(a form of welfare, which no longer has anything to do with that pursued Happiness for millennia by humans).
There is already an earlier Schizophrenia excursus
The schizophrenia of the individual, as stated above, is precisely aimed at system operation/modern Market Society: people’s minds in this condition are easily “manageable” institutions, party leaders and from the market.
Today it became man’s existence in a “Daydream”, in which the individual has reached a point where he almost completely stopped to follow the “rules of nature” (no longer have a perception of his needs real existential) and begins to enter a mental condition in which reality is now totally “invented” (Western man now is immersed in a dimension of illusion than reality : is constantly running away from reality).
And this is a particularly critical point of progress path of Western civilization.
In this way, an overturning of all values and workings of human existence: the company becomes a “meritocracy the contrary”, because the traditional virtues, which were Dall ‘ antichità a reference to human existence, become the “faults” of individuals (a person “from the heart” will never find a job in a context in which we should sell at any cost; as well as a particularly clever person , boost to try to design things in such a way as to meet actual problems of the people, will never be used in current planning processes in which you must do minimal effort to create products that will be sold anyway, thanks to new forms of persuasion).
This new mindset of man, based on the idea of “rational” having to “check” (i.e. to dominate) the natural elements of existence on Earth, and leads inevitably to note size of “will to power”.
In this dimension “abstract” (schizoid) there is a conflict at the heart of any relationship between the mind and the “outside”. The mind of man, which is no longer able to adapt to reality (lacking the deeper perception of the latter), wants to change reality to fit his mental vision of things (is the psychological dimension of crazy).
This psychological habit leads to the birth of ideologies.
The current social ideologies in fact seize the opportunity. Acquire the latest knowledge of science, psychiatric and become able to offer human beings a new condition “abstract” from reality to his new mindset:
Today I finally able
to offer a life
that corresponds to live a daydream
(this is as much social ideologies, because of the new ideological Science market).
Slowly in Western society, in this way, people are completely hypnotized by ideologies.
Ideological leaders are able to conduct, as magic Pipers, people now completely mesmerized, wherever they want. And the market is able to buy any product people (even when they are now reduced to poverty).
With regard to the typical product of this market, the issue of lack of diversity translates into the creation of “undifferentiated” products.
New products of a system in which everything is brought to the floor of the imaginary (in which, I mean, everything is “fake”), are products that have lost substantial qualities. Whereby all products are basically the same: the only difference is that perceived by the consumer (which is an imagined difference thanks to advertising that puts in the minds of consumers a “spot” in which we see that the sheets washed in that product “magically” glisten in the Sun; or the commercial showing of green granules in the cartoon tv commercials become living beings by super-powers that eat dirt “dirt”).
the new values of the market
The new market (the new company) is based on completely new principles and values for the man.
The problem lies in the fact that,
in the new context, rise a society based on “conflict” (of interests).
The conflict here is between real human interests (the satisfaction of its actual needs) and the interest generated by the minds of new leaders “intellectuals” (in this case of political leaders with interests in the world market: the new form of society/market based on financial capitalism, the two contexts are increasingly integrated).
This is the basic problem of our Company system/market: an inherent problem, endemic to the system (a “defect in the handle”), which leads to attempt to remedy specific problems using tools in itself wrong (because they are the same tools that produced the problem).
Any “corrective” tool, whether political or economic type, is so plagued by this “conflict of interest”, from this flaw of origin: the institutions that seek to solve society’s problems and follow market (possibly also in good faith) of interests that do not correspond to the real world. And then the real world slowly degrades (develop issues of insecurity and social disorder, inefficiency of services, poverty, etc.-but also degrades the nature).
The essence of the conflict of interest that plagues our society/market system today instead of producing real well-being (various forms of man-made Societies are born with this subject), it produces the “well-being” of the institutions.
Basically, in this way, we have moved from the “traditional” model of the entrepreneur (figure processed in a millennial path of evolution of human activities that the first man villages, passing for the craftsman in rural communities of past centuries, arrives to the present day by defining precisely the figure of the entrepreneur) model of financial capital, in which the Market System is run in a “centralised” and “abstract” (therefore more functional mode to rational mindset).
The change is radical.
The entrepreneur who was originally the base of modern market system, turned his passion into the product, always with the canonical mission inherited from the craftsman: If the craftsman of the rural community the creation of a product and its sale had, somehow, a value of gift, the entrepreneur’s activities came a inner urge to meet the problems of the people.
Explained in terms of Economics: the market System worked because the farmer followed a hunch (typical of empathetic Culture already mentioned) with which it could turn a potential demand, in an offer (or to transform people’s problems in products that work by solving these problems).
Both “missions” (in business we speak of “Mission” of the company) of the craftsman of the middle ages and the modern Entrepreneur, had an important social value.
And the market kept much of its meaning of “Exchange” of goods; or disabled objects Well, (as satisfaction of real needs).
In his new capacity as financial capitalism, instead the market becomes an abstract system. And, as the system on which our civilization is based on a system essentially based on the market (Western civilization itself as society-market), the quality of the new financial capitalism has influenced so certain the real lives of people, leading to a more abstract level: by inducing in the minds of consumers (the Western man is first and foremost a “consumer”), in an extremely “persuasive” , needs “abstract”.
Our civilization, in this way, has undergone a fundamental change extremely deep, radical, and the consequences within our society were devastating: big companies (in the new “financial” as they can no longer be defined as “companies”) no longer produce real value for the consumer, but only more benefits “ideals” (people, imbued with this new culture, do not recognize their needs even more “organic” , real, but aimed at satisfaction of illusory needs).
A clarification: with this new form of Market (and) our society is impoverished, values substantially, the Market management was subtracted value creators (craftsmen/Contractors is traditional), and passed into the hands of the “traders” (the “sellers”, who were the last link in the chain of creation of an asset, and that today instead of dealing each phase of product implementation , including design – they end up creating, applying their product mindset, imaginary value forms only).
The “business”, with the new twist, then ends up losing its traditional social value, and to hire an “ego” value (the rational mind that takes over the world).
At its highest stage of development, the system of financial capital market identifies almost completely with the system. In fact this is the ideal terrain for financial capitalism, because in this case we exclude from the market system “useless” real product component: with the system of the Western market Bag can literally set up a Virtual market, extremely profitable, in which there is no longer even have to produce real products (the bag is a kind of global Casino in which not surprisingly, the software for managing investments in the stock market comes from the product at first in Las Vegas to support the game bettors).
Another new market mode that has eliminated diversity is the process of Multinationalization, designed to simplify its management (for example, “economies of scale”).
This is the so-called “globalization” and standardization of processes and products. Introducing such rules were eliminated of the fundamental ethnic diversity at the product level: are made to disappear from the world a myriad of “Products” (traditional local products – which meant a “cultural hegemony” Gramscian type: to make it more manageable, market were eliminated “specific culture”).
Another major problem the new product market: being the technologies produced by highly destructive Western Market (we use the euphemism “non-sustainable”), the expansion of the Western Market system at the global level also involves the destruction of “biological diversity” (see the machines for tilling the land sold in Africa in the years ‘ 60, which have depleted the soil; GMOs , which eliminate the local plant varieties; and all forms of industrial pollution), cultural (the new global media eliminate local cultures).
It should also take into account another consequence of schizophrenia which afflicts our society (the separation of institutions from the actual reality): the process of abstraction (the Nations economy) has produced what is defined as the change of Bretton Woods, with which the institutions have decided to untie the time value of money from that of gold owned by the State that issues the money. In this way it is untied completely from reality in the form of Value taken into account by government institutions.
(opinion on the issue of diversity)
Siam in cap liv5-the crisis of modern private Institutions of “diversity”
To return to the more general question of diversity, the fact is that failing the diversity, society in democratic basis is lacking that dialectical process (the comparison between parties, between free consciences) underlying the evolution of these types of company (then of their survival).
Diversity is one of the basic wealth for mankind and for the planet: the diversity of conscience — the diversity of ideas, visions of things and systems of knowledge, manufactures not chaos but evolution (this is true in a social system of ancient civilisations, and in a real democracy; while in the current form of Democracy, “rational”, the opposite is true diversity actually produces disorder).
In other words a human social System to work must ensure the existence of human subjects “originals” (recently it was discovered that up to 12% of DNA varies between individual humans). That is, it must preserve the fundamental characteristics of the individual-male: a “free” (free will).
Failing the requirement of freedom of conscience, and then of originality and spontaneity, the individual blends in “mass” as undifferentiated element. This is what happens in the cultic systems riduzionistici as Western society for reasons of “economies of management of the company”. And this undermines, the foundations, the health of these cultural and social systems.
«In human freedom, in the philosophical sense, I don’t think absolutely. Each of us acts not only driven by a compulsion but also by an interior need.»
[Albert Einstein, The World as I See It]
We see in this chapter for the human species as there are two forms of Morals: a social morality, tied to an ethno-cultural context, and a more general Moral.
We said that there are two basic conditions for the development of human civilization: the diversity and relativity (these are two cornerstones of modern science).
On the relativity concept is based on the social morality of man:
the social morality is in fact a human culture system for geographical locations and specific living conditions. Or rather related to ethnic characteristics.
The concept of relativity, it turns out, is also connected to the concept of universality.
To summarize what has been said in previous chapters, all forms of social morality is “personalized” with respect to social/environmental context in which it was developed (the various forms of human Morality are often at odds with each other). There are therefore Moral laws created by man that are “right” (there is a sort of universal social moral law).
This applies to the Moral shape created by the mind of man: the Moral component for the specific context (that provides locale-specific or ethnic characterisation-that we can define as social morality).
Next to this moral component however there is a “universal” component of the Moral nature of man.
In fact, despite their relativity all forms of human morality that have succeeded in millennia of human history, they are based on a substrate of meta-rules (this is true though, attention, only to those forms of moral “spontaneous” who were born within the communities in its original form, the villages – and not for Moral forms imposed from above by ideologies : in this case the problem is that purely mental “rules” of those contexts, eliminate the “universal” codes of conduct).
The fact is that even
If there is a social code of moral behavior
valid for all human beings
(the social morality is based on the costumes, or on local cultures),
However, there are some “rules of thumb” that man, in each specific context, it applies to itself.
It is “general rules” that represent a common denominator of all moral doctrines, and that can be considered a kind of meta-moral code.
the universal level of morality
In summary, then the essential role of human morality is to define a system of rules that can make the best possible men belonging to a specific community.
And live in the best possible way, as mentioned above, means for humans to satisfy their biological needs in an optimal way with the resources it has available in the situation; and by “political” limits imposed by local and historical critical. But living in the best possible way also means, to the specific characteristics of psychophysical system of man, be able to develop a good level of psychological well-being (e.g. knowing cure their human relations).
This well-being is, in fact,
a universal condition of man:
an aspiration shared by all human beings,
regardless of ethnic reality to which they belong.
It is primarily (but not exclusively) the level that characterizes men as animal beings: the level of basic physiological rules that humans share with other animals, which represent the basic level of codes of conduct (such as the mating instinct, which defines the Universal aspects of various forms of moral).
But because human beings are different from animals because it is equipped with its own peculiar form of consciousness (i.e., a “human psyche”), a level of “basic” rules of life is not only made of animal instincts: the latter, in male overlaps a level that is defined by our psycho-biological science.
the absolute and relative level of consciousness
In other words a human being there are two different levels of consciousness that regulate the behavior:
● one level, absolute rule, who resides in psycho-biological level;
● and a “relative”, made of more specific rules in relation to the context in which it lives (rules, in this aspect, which is defined by its culture).
Psycho-biological laws that define the basic moral, or meta-moral, which constitutes the Foundation of all the “spontaneous” human moral, then the General rules are “absolute”.
This absoluteness is not defined by the rational mind of man, as in morals of Western society; but is defined, within man, from that part of his consciousness that is now labeled as unconscious (the mind of man is not really able to understand, and then to work at this level).
This absolute Moral component is that for non-Western cultures that have succeeded so far in human history is the “wise decision” of the individual. But in 20th-century Culture has become part to control and repress with small rational part of your mind.
These universal Laws of morality of man does not belong at all to a “metaphysical” level, but are scientifically determinable: today Piscobiologia can, for example, to relate human behaviour with the presence in his body of specific qualities of hormones; or put “objectively” highlights the operation of particular parts of the brain areas during the mind’s reaction to specific environmental stimuli.
What are the laws of universal, or absolute basis, on which the human behavioural codes formula with which it regulates its existence?
This is “absolute necessity” for life recorded in any part of his body. Or biological needs, which in the human being with a conscience, are different from those of the animal.
See at a glance what they are.
Summing up when I mentioned earlier, there are two types of basic human needs:
■ animal physiological needs.
The man shares with animals some biological needs: the human being must also submit to the most absolute laws, “objective”, typical of animals, such as the need to eat or sleep.
■ emotional Needs (related to the hormonal system): these are similar to those of other animal species.
■ the peculiar Needs of human beings: they are biological needs of man I am, than previous, harder to find in “objective” way, because they reside at a level with tools that science has now available, cannot be strictly observed, “exact”, their specific cause-effect determinations; and cannot be placed into real scientific theories.
who needs the man shares with other animals
One of the necessities that man shares with other animals is, as mentioned above, the need for coupling between individuals of different sex (this is just an absolute element of human life, recorded in “objective” in the consciousness of various animal species: the individual does not need to be educated about it; the impulse arises precisely because it is recorded in his “biological” memory regardless of the education they received).
It is necessary to understand how these absolute needs, i.e. These moral laws, are “objectively” operating in the human body, even when the study of individual behavior in appearance, would seem to deny the existence of this feedback mechanism are now possible thanks to the “objective” observation of the chemical activity of the human organism (basically you are able to observe the production of hormonal substances, that the “brain influencing” extended to the whole body directing an individual’s attitudes towards crucial purpose).
The example of the sexual coupling represents a case where, although it apparently seems to be contradicted by some specific behaviors of individual, a natural instinct may be in some cases transformed by human consciousness in different moods.
In this way the human being can, “mixing” with hormones other hormones (whose secretion is essentially linked to forms of existential fear), produce attitudes deviating compared to “standard” organic (in this case sexual attitudes not strictly organic, that traditional cultures define as “perverse”).
This is a case where it becomes obvious the difference between “organic” drives (hormones secreted in all individuals) and create impulses in any way from some level of human consciousness on the basis of its particular subjective experiences (hormones secreted only in some individuals, which mingle with the first).
The opportunity offered to us today by science to observe scientifically this physiological process allows us to better understand how the human being can “transform” its primary biological impulses. This is done by humans, through the process which occurs within his conscience, removal of feelings (of “repression” of drives): a pathological process of human consciousness in which the removed drives continue to operate underground level, in other directions (the so-called passions).
“Perverse” instincts of man
in fact derive, paradoxically,
from a repression of the primary drives.
Note that the removal process (Suppression of instincts), as was mentioned [argument developed later, and in the document “trails”], is substantially different from that defined as “sublimation” which allows man to overcome his “passions”; and that, say, resides at a spiritual level (although such a superficial examination, “rational”, the two processes may seem coincidental).
We refer to the peculiarities of human consciousness that allows it to “sublimate” certain feelings such as sexual (see for example who, as the “saints”, adopting the chastity).
In this case it is not: removal here that humans have developed special qualities of their conscience are able to consciously use hormonal impulses to work their body in a particular way (as stated in the ancient philosophies, the “saints” are not immune from basic feelings of the human being, but are simply unable to turn so aware, human passions in terms of awareness of “higher” level in the scale of human evolution).
But it is a less-than-scientific argumentation, that cannot find a place in this discussion.
In any case, the “instincts” of the human being can be seen objectively, or mix of hormones, and/or by highlighting the use of some areas of the brain.
subltle needs (Universal) of the human being
Primary biological needs “absolutes” of man,
you add other needs that,
Although there are more “subtle”
In addition to those mentioned above,
are always “absolute”
(these needs are still
elements that are common to any human being).
This is, in most cases “evolved”, the faculty that we mentioned, typical of persons particularly “virtuous” (the so-called “wise men” or “Saints”).
In this case involved the “instincts” related to the peculiarities of human consciousness called “emotions” which, as we have seen, resides in a “higher” level than human beings share with other animal species (i.e. higher than defined “emotional”).
At this level of human consciousness is able to perform feats impossible for the animal, as the most instinctive urges transcend (such as those related to hatred) and can, for example, react instinctively with force to a threat of violence, but solving the issue “more human”.
This level is defined in some cultures as “Spiritual level”.
To understand the difference of the Western mindset despite all other philosophies of life “produced by man, it is crucial to understand how there are two levels of” feelings “in humans: emotional feelings and emotions (and how our culture has lost awareness of it)
The level of emotional Feelings, according to ancient cultures, not the “perversions” produced by human consciousness (which reside on an emotional level instead), because at this level the perceptions of individual, unlike those produced from hormonal, emotional level are “direct” perceptions of “absolute” (we would be in this case, thanks to a developed intuition, sensitive faculty a synergistic integration of individual consciousness with the surrounding environment).
The affective feelings level there would be a chance to have a perceived global entity, “cosmic”, which integrates the various individual components “(called so more scientific, this” global entity “is all that science, with the Gaia theory, has incorporated itself – the oldest cultures it is the” spirit “that governs things).
At this level of reality includes many scientists, including Einstein, the latter refers to this level as the only one who can operate the conscience of the scientist to discover new scientific truths (“I can’t conceive a true scientist without a profound faith (…) Science without religion is naïve (lame) “).
the man’s difficulties follow absolute laws
Then there are the “universal laws” of recorded behavior in humans.
The fact is however that the human being has a peculiar consciousness of FREEWILL, which allows them to free themselves from these universal laws; It meets so many difficulties in following these rules “.
“Perverse” attitudes of man
We see another case of “perverse” drive: the case of suicide.
In this case the individual (apparently) breaks a fundamental rule of life on Earth: the law of survival.
Because, although we expect all men are programmed to survive, some individuals men commit suicide?
Freud, who first in the science of the twentieth century had this problem at the beginning of his career he could not solve this puzzle.
The most immediate explanation, whether it’s a “mistake of nature”, is naïve, because it is not based on any scientific law (there may be errors in the scientific laws: If you find “errors” in the models defined by scientific laws, these decay – for example, if you were viewing an object “falling down”, the law of gravity falls).
The inability to give a scientific explanation of the phenomenon of suicide resulted from wrong position of science, according to which man is subject to the law of survival. To achieve a scientifically valid explanation has therefore had to reformulate the law of survival: it no longer refers to an individual’s survival, but the survival of the species to which the individual belongs.
In this perspective, suicide is no longer a “mistake” in nature, but can be seen within the process of evolution of the species, as a regulatory element of the evolution of the human species: i.e. as a “natural instinct”, scheduled in the body of the individual that is activated in the individual unable to interpret a “useful role” in society, to eliminate himself.
According to this the individual who cannot collaborate in the development of its social communities (or worse, that represents a potential harm to it) is pushed by an irrepressible drive,, get out of the way for good for the Community (what drives a person to commit suicide is always a series of sensations produced by the hormonal system: “run” , shame, anger, etc.).
About the “suicide drive”, you can frame this drive in a more general context can the human species: extending the concept above, the impulse to suicide may be a mechanism that acts inside the human being to protect the biosphere (the suicide of an individual capable of endangering the biosphere would in any case of a way to allow the survival of the human species , whose life is supported by the biosphere).
Note a possible implication of this remark: in this context, the human species (or civilisation) could be boost unconsciously to be eliminated if it becomes dangerous for life on Earth! (In this case, get out of the way of a community, or of a whole civilization which aspires to a good that is in conflict with that of the biosphere, would prevent destruction necessary for the life of other human communities).
Returning to the issue of “absolute” rules of living beings, we must point out that for humans, with the peculiar quality of free will, it is more difficult to follow the “universal laws of behavior” for the animal, which follows “automatically” its “social” rule (it is more difficult, for men, being a “social being”).
For this reason, although the human being is subject to absolute rules, to achieve a State of inner and outer well-being
real man must be able to “browse inside”
its rules of conduct.
This inner process is anything but easy for humans: it implies a continuous analysis, non-rational perception of themselves in their own life experiences (careful, and often suffering, observing the transform of quality of life according to our own way of judging things and Act). This is the process of knowledge which man has developed spiritual culture, philosophy and psychology.
The process of evolution of consciousness of the individual
Only when it is able to follow these rules the “universal” human beings can live in harmony with its social community, and then, for the fact of having social individual, in harmony with itself.
Ultimately the moral consists of a set of universal rules that the individual may identify only through a process of knowledge developed out of a non-rational plan (not “intellectual”, non-verbal).
And, as indicated by the philosophies and non-Western studies, this research is undertaken by the individual within itself (the “know yourself” of Socrates), because only in this way — by observing the perceptions that develop in your body as a reflection of external reality, the man can learn it.
As mentioned above, morality, or the “Guide to the behaviour of man”, is the result of this process of knowledge developed by man in thousands of generations. And it’s an unwritten “code” to read purely organic registered.
It is, as we said, a set of rules of conduct, improved in millennial experience on two levels: the relationship with himself (evolutionary process that led him to discover the “psychological” mechanisms of the human being, and therefore the judgment and modes of action followed in his mind); and in relation to the environment (with climatic conditions, with orographic characteristics, with neighbouring populations, etc.).
These rules of conduct are recorded in a complex system of memoirs that resides at the level of the unconscious, and therefore cannot be processed directly on the rational level (this is the paradox of ideologies: them, proposing a rationalisation of Morals actually induce a-individual morality – following the rational version of morality, the individual is not able to follow that inner guidance that allows him to pursue a quality of life that is also at the same time, quality for the life of other human beings and the environment).
ideologies as “moral relativism”
The Ego creates the relativism of absolute freedom
In other words, unlike the animal, thanks to the freedom that gives him his conscience,
the human being, with an act of “will” of his reason,
may decide to
get rid of “universal” rules
that drove it for millennia in
his relationship with the people and the natural environment.
Getting rid of his relationship with universal, absolute rules, the human world produces that mindset defined today as relativism (this is the “moral” of the modern ideologies). [see next chapter]
Modern ideologies are to liberate the human being from absolute necessity (they talk about “emancipation” of man): the appeal of ideologies resides in their promise to deliver to the Ego in modern form a condition of “absolute freedom”.
In institutional ideologies based on scientific positivism, which generated among other things our Company-market system, the end is enlightenment, promised the liberation of man from slavery towards nature (through the technologies produced by scientific thought). While the ideology they antagonist, Marxism, this is the promise, thinner, “emancipation”: i.e. liberation from subjugation of conscience against an authority (exercised in this case from a social class).
the closure of ideological thinking to the perception of reality
(“reduced” delete aspects of reality, and fears them)
Because the modern mind relies on a Moral relativist (i.e. released by universal, absolute constraints on behavior of living organisms)?
The question is, basically, that, as it was understood in the ancient psychologies, the human being who uses rational level of his mind (as it is for the modern man), has a “reduced” perception of reality, because in this case it drops from his life some aspects of reality and of himself.
And ends so for fear many aspects of reality of which it has lost the perception.
Materialistic ideologies (scientific positivism, socialism and Marxism), for example, cannot just accept the existence of a level of psycho-biological needs such as “affective”, because the mind of the individual in this case operates at a rational level where there is a perception of this matter of conscience (from their position “ideologizzate consciousness” are just not able to recognize the existence).
The fact is that in this dimension psychic “self-limited” devoid of human perception of some aspects of life, ends up demonizing and fight aspects that now are beyond rational control of the mind.
An example of this mindset we give so much institutional psychology in its newest facets, as Marxism, who claim that the ball higher affections (formerly defined as spiritual terms) is an invention of “conscience” (in the case of Marxism is the “bourgeois consciousness”). So much so that alternative medicines, therapies based on this level of consciousness, become, in the eyes of institutional thinking, of witchcraft.
Notice how this purely rational mindset “Bala” his system of thought making it “perfect”, unassailable (if you’re inside).
An ideological system cannot be questioned: the only chance people have ideologizzate to reflect on their preconceived ideas is to “stumble” in any real phenomenon that, leading through strong suffering their conscience in touch with reality, to produce a revival of perceptions atrophied.
Another form of “armor plating” of mind is linked to the ideological impossibility for that mind, which operates in a world of preconceived ideas, to observe in reality actual results of the application of human actions.
This is due to the characteristics of the human mind: it is able to filter the signals coming from reality (as the saying goes, “the mind sees what he wants to see”). In this case, ideological beliefs of the individual, registered in its unconscious, to filter, discarding it, everything that is not included in the ideological dogma.
In the case of modern ideologies, the human being is not, for example, can “see” the negative outcomes from social/cultural System it belongs (in response to the current climate disaster, for example, it reacts in a positive way by adopting the official thesis which argues that, in fact, that problem does not exist; or that, however, “not proven”, which is produced by our civilization – or facing the economic failure of Western System , the indivudo ends up believing to governmental institutions, according to which the method that has produced a series of chain problems, soon to resolve these problems – affirmation devoid of any scientific validity).
And, of course, the individual ideological nor is able to “see” the actual positive results obtained with systems outside his culture (e.g. cannot consider “objective” results of alternative medicines-see the case of homeopathy).
The fundamental problem, as they well illustrated ancient cultures, is that the “civilized” mind projecting the external environment a reality that overlaps the real world, completely hiding the latter to itself (this was detected in an objective way by modern science, that showed how this is done with a process developed by the frontal lobes of the brain).
In other words
the strength of modern Ideologies are in their
“armor” against ideas that do not conform to dogma.
Modern ideologies produce a self-referential cultural system in which everything finds a justification; and in which everything that could be seen as a positive result produced by other forms of culture ends up being discarded as hazardous for human life (the ideological arguments work for the fact that the “evidence” they have never brought such scientific level, but they are in a size preconcettuale, pure rhetorical language. The “evidence” of ideologies are expressed not argued: they operate on an emotional level).
The case of homeopathy is significant: Although now widely available statistics that demonstrate scientifically the effectiveness (results are most scientifically significant healing of individuals), this discipline is rejected only for a “moral” issue (i.e.: ideological homeopathy is not morally valid simply because it operates in a field unrelated to modern culture-specific).
The ideological mind turns in this case two arbitrary simplification: not being able to understand the non-rational mechanisms that underlie such therapies, it states that the positive results obtained from Homeopathy is simply a placebo effect.
But medical experts say “results”: If this discipline gets healings where institutional medicine cannot do it, then homeopathy should be considered a valid Medicine.
Relativism was created to eliminate universal, absolute references, from the life of man
Modern ideologies were created with the aim of eliminating the existence of man the absolute level, that the modern human being is no longer able to understand, since it is perceptible, as with Einstein, that part of his mind that the rational culture has removed.
This aspect of human thinking is then deleted from the institutional culture, and fought with his Ideological demonization (in the practical aspect of existence, all that belongs to that level of human consciousness, is suppressed and condemned in the courts physically – see the recent condemnation of homeopathy in a case in which Piero Angela starred).
The culture known as Relativism is part of culture in charge of ideology by the rational mind to combat forms of thought which take into consideration the more subtle aspects of reality, and then the absolute quality of existence (this is, as mentioned above, the forms of ancient thought, and hugging the more modern thinkers as Descartes, Newton, and Einstein).
Relativism is born that is promoting the creation
a cultural humus
allowing the development of “modern progress” (e.g. prosper in the present system-Company market).
With the Elimination of the absolute quality of human existence, Western culture, in order to facilitate the evolution of humanity (“progress”), but paradoxically has produced a crisis of humanity and biosphere which may lead, if not reverses the process, self-destruction of the human species.
Note the naivety of ideological thinking: it is based on a paradox (contradiction): it says that “there are no absolutes”, but this results in an “absolute” statement.
the “feel good” as a universal form of morality
This is a bit of a closed chapter that speaks of morals in its traditional form, before the chapter on the artificial Morality.
Human morality has therefore basically a practical purpose: at some point in their evolution, humans have started to feel the need to establish a code of conduct that would allow them to live well within their community (it was discovered that human consciousness with its quality of free will, could lead to a “degeneration of morals” and seriously sick).
Originally, Moral forms were not related to a rational conception of life, but the unconscious extraction (but not “oblivious”) to achieve a State of well-being: the “right” was not originally related to a rational Idea, but to a psychophysical perception of “feel good”.
The concept of “well-being” has a fundamental importance for modern science that deals with the human being: is the term used worldwide to indicate the optimal state of health from the perspective of bio-medical (the “psycho-physical wellness, in fact).
All other terms, such as happiness or joy, often used as synonyms for optimal well-being condition, actually express more complex meanings that cannot be fully described in scientific terms (they are contaminated with subjective consideration meanings; from forms of thought that, according to modern science, may not have scientific validity).
Then the other terms with here man seeks to label the condition of wellbeing does not have the same scientific validity of the term “well-being” (cannot be used in scientific arguments, or, for example, in a medical diagnosis).
While remaining within the framework of scientific language, you could probably use another term: absolute serenity.
This term, although contaminated today by new meanings, would indicate to the science simply a condition that, like the “mackerel sky of clouds, clear”, “in General, the opposite of upset” (Treccani); This is a very general term, indicating a basic condition of psychological health: the absence of upsets.
In modern scientific language the “absolute end” of the human being cannot be the “feel good”.
Essentially the condition of “feel good” is the condition of healthy life from a physical point of view (physical health) and psychological (serenity).
And well-being is the fundamental aspiration of the human being (note that this is an absolute rule: even the sado-masochistic character aspires to a feel good: his actions “perverse” allow him to find a moment of serenity in his life).
To feel well served by the Sciences of all time (shamanic culture to medicine and modern Psychology). And forms of traditional morality.
The universal condition of well-being in mind and body is summed up in the motto “mens sana in corpore sano”. A condition in which the body and the mind of man work optimally (also from the point of view of scientific culture “rational”); and a condition in which the individual is not conflict with his peers (absence of resentments, guilt complexes, etc …) and the environment (with whom he is in a “sustainable” relationship).
Note that in reality in the end of civilization man has become a form of “welfare” that has little to do with the feel good: for human well-being means today a “regime” whose definition is based on mainly economic factors; now is under the eyes of all as the “welfare State”, or Welfare, ensures a level of life, which is a “feel good”, much different from the ones that are intimate needs and aspirations of human psycho-physical.
So based on the above considerations we can define as the Moral code of conduct (recorded at a deep level of our consciousness) of which man has to “feel good”.
If comply with organic rules of the organism allows us to feel good physically, conform to moral rules mean, in the first instance, become mentally (but also, therefore, physically): contrary to the “psychological” rules adopted by their social community means developing a stress condition that impairs not only our psychological condition, but also our tissues and organs.
It is interesting that alternative medicines today we spotted in “sin”, in accordance with the forms of ancient thought, a cause of changes in the health of the individual: contravene moral rules in force (sinfulness) causes the body’s reactions which produce psychological diseases (it is stress, as the guilt in the case of anyone who violates the rules set out in the 10 commandments; more physical level can be as “sin throat “, etc.).
Note the effectiveness of specific effects produced by ideologies.
Local cultures, for example, the Eskimo who has a relationship with the wife of a friend will be gratified by the fact that his friend does (will live in a State of real peace, and will not develop mental and physical diseases). While Western man ending up in the same situation, they admit it or not, more complicated psychological life, producing stress that alter its balance physiologist; stress that sooner or later will be the cause of physical ailments.
These “correct” attitudes of individuals are maintained thanks to the concept of sin, which produces one stress in psycho-biological organism that contravenes moral norms.
Ideologies manage to liberate man from these fundamental sins, adhering to a form of moral alternative, the individual gets to its conduct of the “justifications” emotional “level” (and then at the physiological level) that lighten the conscience and decreases below the levels of stress guard “sinner” (the fact is that, as we saw earlier, it is a “shortcut” , i.e., a “drug” emotional, which hides the problem temporarily, but that produces devastating effects).
ALTERNATIVE MORALITY OF MAN:
“ARTIFICIAL” MORALITY OF MODERNITY
(THE NEW IDEOLOGICAL MORALITY INTELLECTUAL AND ABSOLUTE)
It is thus seen that in the history of man there are two different forms of moral:
● oldest morality (the closest to the “nature” of man, adopted by the people still living in a condition that precedes our urbanized and industrial condition, because it does not have direct influence on the part of Western culture) and
● a “rational” Modern moral that Western man has created ex novo in recent centuries, and that bringing the moral sphere within the logical-rational thinking, and then in the world of ideas, produces a cancellation of previous Cultures (a culture that replaces with ideologies, by definition World of ideas produced by the mind, the direct perception of the real world).
The first difference found between the two forms of traditional and modern morality, is that the old forms of moral had a practical purpose, were close to the nature of man and the world, and were developed “inside” of the individual (at the level of the unconscious), to become, at the level of the collective intelligence of the community, an implicit code of rules (i.e. that it was a “programming” that operates at subconscious level never drafted in terms verbal logic, but, at most, in poetic form, as is the Bible).
While the shape of modern Moral, ideological, is completely different in nature: it does not derive more from a person’s inner processing, but relies on “ideas” produced by the rational mind; does not derive more from a long direct experience of reality on the part of each individual, but produced convictions, logical thinking, rational mind of an elite of people.
The new human culture that underlies the modern forms of morality is, in fact, the typical aspirations of the rational mind (Ego), who wants to replace nature and tradition with “improved” versions of them produced by reason (the projects described in the utopias of the past centuries: Campanella, Hobbes, Marx, etc …).
The consequence of this is that morality is then transformed by the end of “practical” (produce a real “feel good” of the individual) in Order to create an ideal: “artificial” order in society.
A given unequivocal scientifically: the various forms of ideological Morality expressed by man are a matter that belongs to the level of “ideas”.
The problem arises when this system of ideas, mental concepts, “abstract”, you try to intervene on reality.
The problem lies in incorrect use that man makes of his ideas.
Ideas are a product of man’s mind: the ideas are “appearance, form, appearance”, i.e. “the notion that the mind is formed or receives something real or imagined” (Treccani). Human use ideas to try to understand “how life works”: it tries to get ideas of reality (which is why the human being has created the philosophy).
One idea is the notion of a “real or imaginary thing.”
The fact is that human beings cannot distinguish
What ideas are produced directly from his mind
and which derive from a “reflection” of what is the reality.
In other words, the human mind, not being able to distinguish between the real is the fictional, cannot “know” if her idea is the same, at least to some extent, to the actual reality of things (the mind is not capable of examining herself).
For this reason the man confined in a world of ideas
ends up by mistakes for the real world.
Modern man confinandosi in his rational world and “artificial”, and part of his intelligence in the cranium, it is created a world almost totally devoid of concrete references to reality. A world in which it lives a life that abstract “works” only in appearance: namely works until his life collides with the reality, and it produces devastating effects (both the environment, i.e. to the nature of the world; both for himself, that is, in its very nature of being human).
From the physiological point of view, as mentioned above, the problem is that the brain within the skull is only part of the human brain: it produces a lower intelligence intelligence “integral” that the human being is able to produce, and which is used by individuals of non-Western Cultures (in fact, for example, the brain that resides in the skull is insensitive to stimuli of reality While other parts of the brain, such as those present in the abdomen, possess high forms of perceptiveness).
In this imaginary world obviously modern man, unable to assess the compliance of his thoughts to the actual reality, gives an absolute value to his ideas.
ideologies which become his new absolute reference
instead of nature
(replacing in this way absolute values related to biological nature and the world around him, with other absolute values produced by his mind alienated from the world).
So, in this new context, the Idea becomes the medium finish.
It is appropriate to clarify at the outset that this modern State of mind is a mental condition that, at the level of the individual, is found from our store as a pathological condition, such as mental illness.
The fact is that this condition of the human mind, for a singular phenomenon detected by our psychology, has spread to become “normal”.
This came about because, as did note some psychologists in the early decades of the twentieth century (which, at that time, were able to observe in more blasé this phenomenon),
the idea of normality is tied
the level of diffusion of a psychological characteristic.
in a world in which the majority of people
altered perception of reality
this mindset is still considered “normal”
(Fenichel, one of the fathers of psychoanalysis pointed out, back in the 40 ‘s, as the proportion of people suffering from mental disorders had dramatically increased in a few decades-and later Fromm, another of psychologists who have made the history of modern psychology, has described the phenomenon in his book “the so-called healthy”).
In any case, from the point of view of our scientific culture, forms of thought as those typical of ideologies, in which everything depends on predetermined ideas (which, in fact, the ideas are “absolute”, i.e. independent of the real phenomena; and in which the ideas of dogma are both subordinate any reasoning, whether any action) are considered to be systems of thought in science because they are unable to produce really useful ideas (in other words the ideological thought systems are incapable of producing theories apply effectively to reality – this is made clear from the beginning of science on the “Incompleteness of systems “formal).
Ideologies, according to our science, systems of thought that belong to the field of theology.
Let’s see what are the considerations of various forms of human Thinking about the difference between abstract ideas and concepts “real”.
Ideologies are therefore dogmas posing Moral forms moved to the “ideal” plan, being confined in these ideas (everything in human existence, is subject to the Ideas of a dogma). That is, systems of thought are abstract.
You see, as a significant example, the thought of Karl Marx, the creator of moral Ideology more prevalent nowadays, which is one of the most significant examples of production of abstract thought: Marx, who was born in the aristocratic environment, was “kept” for life from his wife and from Engels, and sending their daughters to schools of dance and music that does not do the “people” not had any experience of reality “proletariat” which described and that he wanted to change.
Moral in modern conception is a moral “ideas”: intellectual, mental, abstract, compared to real-world issues (we could say a “fictional” moral).
In the new Moral man replaces a “code” of “natural rules” code written “artificial”, “right” is no longer what, developed through ancient experiences, produces a well-being of persons within the community.
In the “good” Ideologies becomes instead an “ideal” conceived by the rational mind of a few individuals.
Morals are “natural” forms of morality for our science, for two different reasons.
First to the question above: there are natural needs of man, both organic and more subtle, psychological, it follows that there are rules that natural man must follow to maintain a State of well-being: these rules transgressions involve unwell that leads to the extreme, the development of serious diseases.
Secondly the fact that, even if traditional rules of behaviour were “invented” by man (regardless of “natural rules” mentioned above), it should be against that in any case they, having sedimentane in the consciousness of man in millennia of history, are now “calling” in the human being. These “laws”, developed through a long process of trial and error, i.e. the product anyway they “adaptations” of the human species in many aspects of its existence (which would produce behavioral adaptations, as a result, adaptations of the biological system – such as the recruitment of new kinds of food by man devoted to agriculture, has produced a change in intestinal tract: so today the man is no longer able to digest certain foods as it did at one time).
To deny the “natural” qualities of traditional morality is an ideological attitude, because in this way they pretend to judge how bad a condition that allowed humans to survive for millennia.
Modern morality and away from natural morality “,
It is therefore a form of “artificial Morality”:
It is based, precisely, on the rational idea of Western thought (the Enlightenment) according to which man has the task of creating a better life than those granted to him by nature, i.e. an artificial existence (designed by the rational mind).
The new morality you flip the traditional process: whereas previously the moral rules were developed non-verbal level of intuition (to be later in some cases transcribed in local standards codes), now the moral rules are created directly on the theoretical level, from “rational reasoning” (ideas from mind hacks are rational, in the absence of a genuine “scientific” and experiential process).
The process related to the Moral consciousness must therefore now in the opposite direction:
It starts from ideas produced in a rational way and then, with the methods of modern Ideologies, produce strategies to induce these rules deeper States of consciousness of the individual
(strategies of manipulation of consciences).
Let’s see in more detail then what differentiated the two types of ideas: the “sensible” ideas, linked to “feelings” produced by contact with reality, which is based on the traditional morals; and purely mental ideas, not based on the experience of reality is based on ideological morality.
Sensitive ideas are “real” because it related to reality: the ‘ mental concepts that are derived from the perception of cause and effect links directly experienced in reality (in philosophical language, are concepts that “reflect” the reality). They are therefore useful ideas as they produce the expected results when you want to apply to reality.
The latter are rather abstract Ideas (abstract: “dismiss, divert (…) regardless of anything, not taking them into account “) which do not derive from a real perception of cause/effect relationships but are” beliefs “intellectuals of the individual (and therefore cannot work as you intended, when applied to reality – this is the fault of” rational “enshrined in the same modern science with the principle of incompleteness).
The problem for the modern man comes from the fact that, because of the characteristics of self-referentiality of his mind analysed above, it may not realize the actual difference between the two types of ideas (“rational” mind of man cannot understand if an Idea is a reflection of reality, or if it is a product of his faculty of imagination).
The rational modern man ends that is, at times, to apply to reality abstract ideas, creating so much trouble that surrounds him (and other persons);
and, in the long term, serious problems to himself.
Ideologies as an extension, societal, mental defective schema (the ideology as schizophrenia)
As mentioned above, in fact, because of the self-reference of consciousness, no human being is able to understand how an idea is “real”, without making a careful and thorough analysis of the effects that his actions produce in reality.
To understand this it is enough to observe the attitude of “crazy” which is totally convinced that he is Napoleon.
It is equipped with a brain is identical to that of mentally healthy people: in her mind though something has “stuck” because of emotional patterns that prevent it from operating properly its neural connections (it is completely confined in the mental “bubble” removed: disappeared from some forms of conscious perception, which end up then to work , uncontrolled, to deeper levels of the psyche and producing ideas, “unnatural”, “perverse”).
In fact, in any modern human being a part of the mind works like “crazy”: almost all of the individuals who are born and grow up in a “civilized” society, during the initial path of life (set to razional-materialistic principles) lives with parents or empathic situations with educators strongly “unnatural” that generate him removed. This is done at the time of birth in a “hospital” in the early removal of affected family members (for example when put in the nursery); in living a family “disintegrated” in which parents may not be supplemented by that of grandparents (which represented a “continuity” educational being necessary, in fact, parents initially inexperienced in child care); due to the “education” control exercised in public school, which represses the impulses in the name of a “normalization” of the individual, etc.
Removal (lack of certain forms of perception, or some essential needs of the individual) and compensation (replacement of removed needs with other satisfactions “unnatural” because mental “developed”) are therefore the basis of life of civilized man: like those emotional needs, direct contact with nature, are removed and replaced with compulsive needs as the one known as “nervous hunger” or as slavery towards television (it is “perverse desires” that are to replace essential biological and psychological desires: real “dependencies” such as toxic).
The difference between “normal” and “civilized” is mainly in the fact that in the latter completely lack the ability to maintain a “social behavior” (“normal”) that allows him to “disguise” (in scientific language “offset”) part of his mind (personality) that produces ideas “perverse”. While the individual “normal” has successfully acquired, through “public” education received at school, a mental superstructure that enables him to produce ideas and attitudes that the rest of the communities appear sensible anyway.
An example: a normal person “firmly convinced” that his workmates are against nasty (very widespread) you will still have a “chance” that allows him to get by in this context relatively “normal” (sometimes explode in “crazy”, but it will be rescued from fear of losing its status as normal in the community – fear that also manifests itself in the form of guilt complexes – which will take him to recover a system of “normality”).
The fact is that in self mind nobody is able, if not practice a careful observation of the results of the application of his ideas to reality, to understand the possible incorrectness of his way of thinking.
And ideologies are developed to prevent a form of self-reflection (ideologized minds there is no longer a watch but only a judge).
The process of observation by yourself is possible, but is complex and painful: it is the process of “awareness” which is the basis of any non-Western Culture (from ancient philosophy to “Psychology” shamanic).
It is a process of careful analysis of the actual operation of the “mechanisms” that we implement in our lives; for example, in the assessment of the effects of our ideas about reality (which also means the ability to take a sympathetic attitude, i.e. try to see “another” the effects of our attitudes-the “mirror” according to modern psychology).
The process is painful because it is an actual de-mind programming (like the one through which must pass the alcoholic or drug addict).
It is part of their awakening consciousness “in sleep” (which operates autonomously in the parts of the mind that cannot be reached by the conscious mind): it’s like waking up a sleeping arm under the weight of our body.
It is particularly difficult and painful because the rational mind does not want to relinquish that control of the situation that is the cause of the problem.
Essentially the modern Ideologies are therefore a “faulty” mode of working of the human mind. Or rather, ideologies are the means by which the minds that create these abstract dogmas can extend to a group of people a mental defect.
In a sense
ideologies are born when some people, particularly brilliant mind, which have ideas (and attitudes) not accepted by the community in which they live, they begin to operate on the consciences of other people to carry them on their side
(is the typical example of the literature and films for children, in which the student villain bother to convince his comrades to embrace its cause, to behave like him).
In this way “misfits” individuals are able to aggregate their “cause”, floor plan, a large number of people (we see, in other part of this text, like taking on the consciences of those “ideas” is done through a form of communication based on the emotional stress of the interlocutor).
In this way, i.e.,
the minds “maladjusted” compared to the traditional cultural system
have slowly taken over the institutional culture, overturning the original values.
This process, which is based on the manipulation of consciousness through a “transmission” of emotional content.
In the case of ideologies is thrown in a mental cage consciousness that leads the individual to think in one direction (creating emotional barriers that prevent the individual to see some aspects of reality, and, at the same time, induce a conditioned reflex that leads him to react so rigidly against default certain types of events).
The most significant example seems to be that of Communist ideology, which for this purpose created the mode of agitprop (agitation and propaganda): an operator puts the mass unrest and then instill in it ideas-typical emotions of ideology.
Let’s see then what is, essentially, the difference between ideas that actually reflect reality and purely produced by mind (abstract).
According to the ancient sciences of human ideas derived from sense experience (as seen every “idea” for man, is basically a “feeling”).
When it comes to Ideas we normally relates to sensitive Ideas: concepts, i.e., that report within our consciousness of the quality of the external world (they are a “reflection” of real phenomena).
In modern language from ordinary to assume that an Idea is closely linked to reality (the idea is defined as ‘ image that the intellect is formed by what is object of knowledge “). Say “I had an idea” means that say I understood as acting on reality (idea: «design to translate into reality “). An idea is an “invention” to “theoretical” level, which is a concept that must be able to produce concrete results.
An idea can work or not work, and so not a daydream (if it does not work when applied to reality-it says “you have no idea” when someone acts without being aware of the context in which acts).
An idea is not an opinion. It’s a much more complex set of feelings is directly connected to reality (“cognition, perception)
In short, an Idea derived from a perception of the outside world, and is closely related to it, in purely scientific relationship of cause and effect.
And then, as we have said, serious problems arise when, as happens at present, even those Ideas are considered purely insights produced by the human mind (the ones that are the basis of Ideo-Logies).
An example of idea produced by a purely Interior perception: when in our subconscious, and unconscious “level”, awakens a feeling that drives us to produce the idea that “the others are just bad (as psychology, it is a” projection “of our ideas about reality so that we produce a reality that does not exist; a fictional reality to which I then I adjust my attitudes).
In this case the person is not able to understand the error that is incurring in producing a completely subjective Idea; Indeed, being totally absorbed by his “absolute conviction” (split from ties to reality) to follow a perception that reflects a real condition outside, want others to perceive things as he perceives (i.e. want to “solidarity”): this is the key drive behind ideologies, leading ideological regimes to impose certain peoples mindsets.
Ultimately, we can say that, in its more general meaning, the idea is a mental representation that results from a process of conceptualization of a feeling.
Both types have their own Idea of value in human life.
The idea that stems from a perception of a real phenomenon can be used in science (for example, to produce technologies), or social.
The Idea that comes from pure imagination, is an Idea that can represent an important value for the human being in the field of art (isn’t that the idea in this case itself is false: it’s just that it cannot be used to intervene on reality; it can be useful in actions carried out on a psychological level, for example to stimulate feelings in others as an art work or a religious text).
Let’s see the difference between a subjective concept and a “scientific”.
A scientific idea is to “heat” or “light” generated by the perception in the mind of fire: in this case it has a satisfying idea for an actual phenomenon (with this idea, detailed in his actual determinations of cause/effect, you can indeed produce the design of a steam engine).
But if the idea of light, for example, is produced by the presence of a loved one, or the perception of the existence of a spiritual level of existence, so it is no longer a scientific idea. The sense of this kind of idea is completely different from that of a scientific idea: it is structured in “ideal” mode in which they inserted some quality, regarding the implications of “cause/effect” concrete, purely imaginary (this idea is expressed in metaphorical, symbolic level).
The Moral validity depends on the quality of the ideas on which it is based.
Basically the “Moral work” (produce positive results on reality) when it is based on a Good Idea that derives from the observation of processes that produce actual wellbeing of people (a “feel good” objectively verifiable).
If the idea comes from a good insight not yet really (“scientifically”) proven in reality (never built by man in its history, nor in its parts), then it is a metaphysical concept, and actions that will follow from it will clash with the reality at the time of its application to the real world.
The latter is the case social ideologies that, in their modern formulation derived from Marxian setting an absolute good imagined by man and yet never realized in practice.
This form of Well created whenever dramas has been applied to the real world: but it is, in fact, an abstract Idea, no one will ever convince anyone who espouses Marxist ideology that it may be an Idea in itself wrong (although he failed in the 100% of its applications).
Please note that in earlier times to Marx these kinds of ideas were properly defined: Utopias of descriptions of imaginary company, produced with the understanding that it was a dream in itself impossible, but they could serve as a model of “perfect society” useful mostly as intellectual exercise to highlight the critical factors of this society. And useful exercise at imagine, symbolically, metaphorically, what directions should take in reforming the company.
But the ideal society in Utopias remained a dream consciously. While Marx onwards you are brought the utopias in the world of science.
The “contradiction” of Marx’s thought lies in their “scientific value” (and thus concretely workable Idea) to a type of human thought that until then had been relegated in the imaginary dimension (in fact, Marx did not bother ever minimally to give directions to a concrete realization of your idea-these claims were added, , by Vladimir Lenin, which led to define communism as Marxism-Leninism).
Ultimately, then, the problem that afflicts our civilization lies in an underlying defect of Western thought in its current form:
Western thought is based on the use of purely mental ideas
(the only rational thought-materialistic
as if they were scientific concepts,
for the development of technological tools and of social systems.
In this way our system produces serious problems to himself.
∙On ideological system of abstract ideas is armored against forms of self-criticism
As we have said many times before, the ideology creates a barrier in people’s minds against the influences of external ideas. Or ideologies are so that the mind of man is unable to ascertain whether the ideas proposed by them or not work when applied to reality.
The fact is that ideas produced by ideologies that they concern the nature or society, are not related to reality (do not correspond with it in a scientific report of cause/effect)
As we have seen the ideas that underlie Ideologies are not adequate to the reality in two respects:
– the ideas of ideologies are not adequate to the reality, because originally come from personal opinions not processed within “experimental” routes to work on reality. And
– I’m not even able to adapt to the reality at the time of their application, to the fact that the thinking person’s ideology is “locked” (“Bulletproof”) on preconcettuali locations that prevent them from developing an adaptation strategy of his ideas to reality to which you want to apply.
In other words, the modern ideologies are not only defined by a speculative process abstraction, but locking down the system of ideas towards any second thoughts.
This happens due to one of the key features of ideologies: being a form of thought-emotion,
ideologies are able to place the individual in a emotional bubble
in which it is not able to see any “alternative” quality to the ideology,
(i.e. the individual ideological ends to see its natural qualities of human being and those of nature, as dangerous elements from which to defend at any cost).
For this reason man has harnessed in an ideological mechanism that makes it always keep away from those forms of consciousness and those qualities that might reveal the existential forgery of his position, and thus enable consciousness to correct the flaws of his system of thought.
social ideologies as religions (“secular religion”)
The modern thought, with the new ideological Morality, therefore the human consciousness in the field of abstract imagination of rational mind: namely, the ideological mindset, ideas become reality. [see chapter “speech bubble”]
This is the point where the modern thought applied in the most evolved his ideas of rational mind as generating the “progress”.
And, I mean, this is the maximum evolution of the metaphysical assumption that underlies our culture (inherited from the enlightenment thought, which our culture’s daughter):
the Idea that man’s reason “should” intervene,
through its positive science,
on the nature of the Earth and man
to produce the absolute good of “scientific progress”.
(the problem inherent in this concept, it is in fact itself that it resides in a metaphysical, theological level, since in this case it would be a religion like other ideological; the problem lies in the fact that in the modern Ideologies come together two levels of thought mutually incompatible: the scientific-rational and theological, metaphysical ideas that scientifically are abstract in this way, they become “scientific reality”-this is the underlying defect that mina today, at their foundations, our social sciences and therefore democracy; and scientific progress).
With the more recent “reform” of modern thought (late 20th century), modern ideologies have created a “theological” complete: the world, and thereby the existence of man, as in religion, is now ruled by an “absolute idea” (an idea outside of human consciousness, which until then had dictated the rules of the “live”; and independent civil and even greater intelligences shapes found in nature).
In historical materialism of Marxism, which influenced substantially all current social Ideologies, this abstract Idea is that History institution, described by Marx as a body with its “absolute” intelligence, pursuing her End, produces human history — determines their fate.
Notice how communism comply in all respects to the model of religions: Marx in this case acts as a Prophet (a term that he attaches), claiming to have sensed an ineluctable truth: the story, according to him, has already “decided” that the middle class will be deleted by the company to create his ultimate goal, namely a system of lasting peace; and argues that the task of morally correct people is therefore simply to promote, adhering to its doctrine, the path of history in the “elimination” of the social class that is already condemned by God-history (the resistance of the bourgeoisie to its extinction does is slow down the process of the realization of final peace of humanity).
After the doctrine were attributed more to absolute quality: the left parties would be composed of people higher anthropological terms (in this case using strictly scientific terms to describe an absolutely scientific concept). This also lead to a way of thinking about a totally abstract, land on which anything can be proved wrong.
The “revolution” of Western thought in the last 50 years produced by the influence of social Ideologies, and in particular by Marxism, is radical.
In particular, it has “revolutionized” the concept of history, which is now no longer the scientific conception of the product of the existence of individual human beings, but becomes a Mind-Body (on the same level of religions) that with his intelligence not only directs the reason of man (human consciousness does not exist more as individual consciousness, but only as class consciousness , or in the “psicologista”, as social conscience – in universities is replaced by Psychology social psychology).
But compared to religions goes a step further: the understanding of history (produced by Dogma Prophet-Marx) makes it useless, indeed, even harmful to society, the freedom of man. Here comes the ideological Totalitarianism of modernity: eliminate human freedom becomes a moral duty.
The latter conception of human existence is the basis of people’s lives: ideologizzate l, Socialism in its softer version of democratic socialism, is based on a concession by citizens of their freedom, or State Power. That is, the consciousness ideologizzate end up giving up, at least in part, to their freedom, to have the advantages Exchange (“ideal”) to be managed in their lives from people from superior intellectual capacity (which they have the ability to interpret the ideological Dogma, as the priests in religion).
This is, in fact, the conception of the Welfare Society: a secular religion produced by mind modern ideology.
The “justification” of this man’s ideological stance is great: since the fate of man is marked by absolute rules, beyond his “subjective” intervention on the history becomes extremely detrimental, to society, to think and act on their own: every form of individual thought (“creative”) represents a useless, harmful positive path path deviation from history.
The man is not that follow the new doctrine (originally “revealed” the higher man rational intelligence, and then transmitted to people from a caste of priests, intellectuals who can tell the individual how to finally get to the condition of “heaven on Earth” that is the goal of the institution-history).
The problems of modernity (lack of social security, unemployment, deterioration of climate, etc. …) for the fact that modern ideologies (or “opposition”, or institutional) entering the field of Theology: claim to intervene on reality in scientific mode with metaphysical ideas.
For this internal contradiction social ideologies, in the long term, in their historical applications invariably end up falling apart (and, eventually, the entire Western System collapses that on them, in the last half-century, was based).
INDUCED TRANSFORMATIONS IN SOCIETY FROM THE IDEOLOGICAL VISION OF MORALITY:
FROM THE PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS TO DUTY “MORALIST”
As we will see later inside the modern civilization, with the new form of ideological thinking which has now finally replaced the culture of man, the original conception of reality (and therefore the shape of social reality), it was radically transformed in the direction of ideological concept that underpins the social Ideologies.
Basically the ideas of social Ideologies have become part of our mindset to the point that today, people no longer know the reality of nature (and the new generations have grown up on Facebook, a “virtual environment” in which the people live a life completely abstract from reality, they will have lost a few decades even the poor perception of reality).
It happened that the new conception of the modern scientific world has impoverished the knowledge of man.
In the new “reduced” cultural context of the rational culture, following the Enlightenment principle according to which it is necessary to “simplify” the knowledge (to be able to condense into a written code) in order to build a better world, he produced the belief that man’s problems are essentially material level (the new way of thinking is “simplified”, and is no longer able to detect the existence of a fact “slim” residing “under” material reality – this despite Einstein revealed in strictly scientific, motorcycles as the “most fundamental” level of reality exists on a non-material plane).
The change for humanity is radical: a conception of the world of this kind become radically human purposes.
In a reduced vision of things becomes the key issue to solving the material problems of people (in our civilization is a form of wealth and health qualitatively different, if not opposed, compared to the traditional ones: in ancient culture, for example, the wealth was conceived as the presence of inner qualities, and not as the pursuit of “quantity” appearance typical of our era).
The fact is that, in its modern features consciential reductionist reality perception extremely limited and self-referential, Western thought is not able to consider the deeper causes of physical and psychological illnesses; that is health and happiness (i.e. not able to understand that the causes of its material conditions reside at a more subtle level of apparent reality, material).
The result of this mental condition is also the transformation of the concept of wealth is now catalogued almost solely as a category of “political economy” (see Enciclopedia Treccani), and is defined as “a set of economic assets owned by a person.” While only a few dictionaries shows the complete definition: “what you have, material or spiritual, and appears as well as a resource of great importance: your a. youth; my books are an irreplaceable r.» (Hoepli).
As you saw earlier in the chapter on Reductionism, the radical nature of the changes implemented by the scientific materialist Culture is primarily that the rational management of a social system (with tools that man has today available in the new cultural framework) requires to be able to work on a simple reality: since the scientific reduction deprived the man Know those nuances that cannot be expressed in logic mode , verbal.
One of the most important consequences of the “simplification” reductionist social reality is the introduction of equality: this was necessary to establish a commonality between the elements that make up the company (the idea of equality is paradoxically, as we shall see, the mother of all social injustices). A elimination of diversity aimed at making better manageable a human system, as seen by the way of the market.
From the French revolution on this quest for Equality has led to a distortion of the human quality and social community: is the process of Social Engineering in the Soviet Union produced some tens of millions of deaths.
The problem stems from the fact that to “maintain order” in a social system operated according to rational criteria, it is necessary to adopt a new form of “justice” moral, no longer based on “human” categories, but on rational principles (the principles in rational field are: it is axiomatic that is “unrelated” to the reality of the facts — from the human reality of the people who make up the company).
In other words in the new cultural structure in moral questions there is more place for reflections on the human aspect of social life, but is instead the application “regardless” of a default code (Note: axiomatic, absolute, preconcettuale):
the current Western Morals there is the application of a generic sense of “fairness” preconcettuale indicated by the dominant ideology, which no longer has a direct link with the actual needs of man.
The most significant fact is that in the new moral Code is lost completely on the universal level of morals practiced by ancient societies; that is, you lose that level located in the deep inner life of man, who acts at the Empath (psycho-biological) to guide their behaviour in harmony with the environment (one level with strong ethnic characterizations, or “local”).
And in the new “rational” size, it doesn’t then make “global” moral issues (this is an arbitrary extension of universal moral convictions “locals” who creates new ideological Moral codes). This leads to a “war” ideological conquest of the various cultures of the Earth (which is now campaign conducted on the floor of the market – but that, when you don’t get to this level, the expected results, is pursued militarily, “complementary” to it).
In this way, globally it gets a “homogenization” (equality) of the specific Cultures. That is to say a loss is produced by those forms of fundamental Value for Human Civilization: the forms of ethnic culture. And more specifically implementing a deletion of the value represented by micro-community family moral, the unitary element in which, basically, is “registered” traditional social morality of the human being.
These are consequences of the modern conception of morality as an entity external to man: a moral view that is no longer as code of conduct registered in the consciousness of man, but a something abstract that resides in an “ideal” body external to the individual.
the process of homogenization of society in the name of a supposed right of equality, eliminating the diversity of moral that forms within a social community provide a physiological process, undermines the moral health of society.
the “negative” moral: the “sense of duty” replaces the pursuit of Happyness
In this new conception of human life you are losing those infinite shades that were the basis of welfare for the oldest civilization: the deepest qualities of human beings.
You are losing human qualities related to feelings, which are replaced by “will” rationale typical of modernity.
In other words the Ideologization of Western thought radically transforms the Moral conception: among other things, the new moral Code replacing the end of pursuit of happiness with the duty (the stick to a Dogma).
One of the consequences of the adoption of the modern mindset is abandoning the traditional evolutionary process of man (whose peculiarity is to reside at the level of its peculiar consciousness: the evolution of man is first of all an evolution of his conscience, reflected in a civilization evolution). You leave that evolutionary process which was originally made of ongoing research by the human being, a condition of social relations; process based on the use of the individual, of his “sensitivity”; to replace it with an attitude of submission to a Dogma (there is no longer an inner reflection on the quality of an action, but a concern that it corresponds to indications of a dogma).
The rational mind has a “negative” view of the world (and happiness)
The new condition of consciousness of man derives from the adoption of the “negative” thinking, only possible form of thought for the rational mind.
As mentioned above, with the limited part of licensing rational reasoning mind cannot perceive, produce mental level, positive concepts.
For this reason the Western thought produces a conception of reality “in reverse” (which also becomes a “negative perception” of existence).
The fact is that in the conditions of limited sensitivity typical of the mindset of modernity, the individual is no longer able to perceive directly through the “feelings” that have been “removed”.
The “positive” feelings (happiness) in fact derive, among other things, the ability to perceive the integral quality of nature. For example the ability to perceive the existence of a “cosmic order” of things (perception leading to produce sensations like: “in any case, tomorrow the Sun will rise”, which provide human beings a sense of security that no “explanation” rational can provide).
More generally, happiness (psychological well-being of the individual) are derived from the perception of things, empathetic human community in which it is inserted (this is not, in this case, “mental imagination”, as it is for ideologizzate, but a real perception of reality by the “brain” of the individual): This gives the man a sense of protection and affection which produces in him the sense of happiness.
In this context we should note how the ancient philosophies that took care of the pursuit of happiness were in fact empirical investigation activities.
They were pursuing, for example, forms “meditative” (in which consciousness is in a non-rational report, non-verbal with itself and the world) to achieve conditions of empathy as one in which a human being looks so empathetic a sunset, or a meadow in bloom. Condition in which, in fact, there is a caution “uncut”, “extended” towards reality, and thus in which the human being is perceived as an integral part of the universe that surrounds him (I’m aware that conditions, for example, science seeks to awaken in people to achieve optimum functioning of the immune system in cases of serious diseases).
Notice how the “soul searching” is the only true form of “scientific research (the last, and most important successes of modern science are those obtained by scientists like Einstein, Quantisti, which could produce nuclear energy only through those which they called” thought experiments “-is this the final application of the first modern scientific thought, that the Socratic” know thyself “, i.e. works within yourself to study world).
Western science, before the current phase of “progress”, was called “natural philosophy”. In fact the goal of science is human well-being: that is no longer practiced today, but Science technology.
Meaning: today science is no longer working for the welfare of mankind, but arises “,” abstract “ideals”, in which the aim is the same science-technology (adverse effects of applications of new technologies are sidelined, since the primary objective is to continue the development of these technologies in the idea that, sooner or later, they’ll make a quantum leap to human life).
In other words, if the pre-modern humans lived in empathetic relationship with the world, and was able to have a perception of “everything” around him (this is still true today for individuals not involved in the “modern progress”), modern man, with an incomplete “intelligence”, for which it is impossible to perceive the most “profound” of reality, you feel “isolated” from the world : modern man is so dominated by a feeling of emptiness.
This feeling, as has been said, is the factor on which the ideologies can operate to “manage” the conscience of the individual.
Also, as mentioned above, modern man is characterized by other produced by purely rational culture which cannot take into account the nuances of reality: it can describe reality only using “negative” concepts.
From the Moral point of view, this means that modern man is no longer able to discover within themselves (and in the nature that surrounds it) good (cannot make more “complete” reflections on reality based on perceptions that are from “belly” and “heart”).
But, on the other hand, modern man has, as mentioned above, a clear perception of the negative qualities of existence: the toughest aspects of life, most unhappy aspects of our existence, the potential for danger, etc. .. (for this reason the ideologies of the left, the highest expression of modern rational mind, enhance the “critical thinking”, i.e. the ability to identify potential problems in reality, as the highest form of intelligence).
This new conception of existence even happiness to man the meaning “negative” described by Leopardi: happiness is no longer a substantial quality (existing in itself).
Happiness becomes solely a condition of cessation of unhappiness (with a result fundamental to human existence: the happiness of this type cannot be a long-term existential condition, but turns into an emotional condition that must constantly be fed by “challenging” situations).
This conception of existence promotes the success of ideologies, which propose a series of “problems” in which they pose as “way to salvation”.
As regards the social aspect of existence, the rational consciousness of modern man, no longer of positive perceptions, is forced to apply a “dogmatic Moral” which implies, for conscience, a constant process of “verification” of the correspondence of their attitudes compared to ideological dogma (such a rational set of rules).
The fact is that human existence becomes a radical way: it happens that with the adoption of rational mindset
man replaces the search for an optimal living arrangements
as the search for positive feelings,
with an attitude of “control” rational
(a so-called control will: a Faculty of human consciousness that is detached from the faculties of “feelings”).
And this mindset is the Foundation of totalitarianism.
In other words, as we shall see, any form of rational thought can only evolve towards ever greater forms of “control” (individual and social level): totalitarianism is not so that the point “more evolved” of rational thought (both in its “classical” forms, which are represented by two significant examples of the Soviet and Nazi regimes; both in softer forms, represented, in fact from current ideological democratic regimes).
The lack of a spontaneous social systems Morality rationals
This is because social systems based on rational criteria, as has already been said, there is no spontaneity of individuals joining the community in a common moral code: it for the fact that in these areas there are more individuals with a “Guide”, which is also a “universal guidance” that makes people’s behaviors are compatible and mutually reinforcing. In this context, the social community is then to lose those “automatisms” that ensured a physiological functioning (substantial harmony individuals ‘ attitudes).
One of the many considerations produced by our literature on this topic: Schiller in “grace and Freedom” asserts: “it says beautiful soul, when the moral sentiment failed to make all the internal movements of man, to the point that we can leave without fear to affection will guide and never run the danger of being in conflict with the decisions of it” (grace and dignity , 1793).
Beautiful soul in Schiller manages to blend naturally, within the community, with other souls through the quality of the man who is the “grace”
In a similar context thus becomes necessary to intervene to remedy this deficiency with tools that can provide some form of social order (note that a rational approach as the Western one is extremely complex to manage; and in the absence of a good rational order of things it collapses quickly, as seen in the case of nationwide strikes). But these tools, now completely lacking the ability for people to perceive the moral necessity of social community, have to be taxing “Tools” (“strong enough” to trick people, “insensitive”, to abide by the rules).
We remember what we saw earlier: Freud, whose ideas shaped the current form of Western thought, it was expected that the company began to implement strong forms of repression against the spontaneity of individuals (“each civilization must build on coercion and on the renunciation of drives”-“you can get scared in front of the massive use of coercion that will be inevitable until the achievement of these goals. The grandeur of this plan, its importance for the future of human civilization cannot be disputed “).
Hence the modern society due to the new dimension of human consciousness of its citizens, is forced to apply strong control of people’s moral behavior (the present democracy is “the rule” that creates and applies the new morality-in dictatorial regimes, this role is taken by the party). For this reason, the moral Code of society, by implication, “spontaneous” and becomes an abstract dogma: spontaneity is replaced by taxation.
the “alienated” moral: from spontaneity to duty
This replacing an interior help with dogmatic precepts that have to be imposed from outside of consciousness involves a radical transformation of Morality:
the traditional morality “spontaneous” (an inner impulse)
becomes a “duty” (imposed from outside)
(ie: the moral is transformed from a search for common people’s pleasure in a “moralism”: repression of individual forms of spontaneous pleasure).
A reflection on the concept of Duty
It is important to understand how the duty, in the present meaning of the term, is a psychological condition “opposed” to the pursuit of happiness that underpin the existence in non-Western Cultures (that is, for example, as a precondition in the Constitution of the United States).
The duty presupposes a throttling condition (a set of rules defined by Dogma). While the “pursuit of happiness” is a “creative” condition (it is a condition of freedom): it relies on man push to find new dimensions of serenity.
While the second is a condition of continued “research” (and thus development of human qualities of the individual, i.e. evolution), the first is a throttling condition, repression of individual quality (and consequently, freezing of the evolution of a community)
Is that not in the search condition of happiness there is a “control” of human impulses: but in this case there is a limitation of those “spontaneous” urges that the individual perceives to be “non-functional” to the community. I.e. in this case is the individual, based on his direct experience (and not the precepts contained in a dogma) that auto-limits (here the individual knows, for “personal experiences”, which a well that is inconsistent with the common soon will bring problems, and therefore is not a right).
In the case of ideological Moral instead, the individual does not know at all what is good for him, because man can “know” something, there must be an adjustment in consciousness that can only happen on the basis of a direct experience. Things cannot be learned, as is expected in Western civilization, through a “verbal” education imparted by others.
So in the State “mental” consciential (logico-verbal) typical of our culture, “not man” never knows what is good for him, will always be guided, in his life, from a “fear of God” (today a “moral fear”, as it is in the dimension of consciousness “politically correct”). Will always live a life based on restrictions (one of the most important criticisms of non-institutional Psychology is just relating to insist, in the education of children, limiting their actions, rather than encourage them to develop their act spontaneous).
So even in the “original” culture of man include limiting forms of attitudes, but in this case the accent is not on restriction, but about the possibilities of developing new ways of life more rewarding.
Unfortunately to understand how that can happen you must have lived in communities where the dogmatic control is minimized as country communities; community in which there is a spontaneous development of community life. Or have lived in the reality of traditional extended families that emphasising quality development of young people in prevention of their instincts “undesirables” to the Community (in such contexts, for example, your father or grandfather let the boy go to encounter a problem and then support it in the solution, rather than “explain” that that way you would be in trouble , from Act, “his own”).
the modern conception of Duty
The concept of duty is linked to the rational conception of existence: it is not in fact present in pre-modern philosophy (non-rational).
In non-Western conception of the human community (still present in many social realities not yet incorporated from Western culture, from villages in the Andes to rural communities that still live in very close to that mode of traditions) life was then, as has been said, not dictated by dogma, but by “rules” that the consciences of individuals, generation after generation had auto-built through direct experience (as far as the institutional religions in their ideologizzate components, have resulted in this context the latter way of life based on the repression of individual quality).
In such contexts, in fact, already from the individual child receives an education based on “learning by itself” (the “original” model, described by Socrates ‘ Maieutics), and not on a rigid guide from the top, “bigoted”.
An example of this mode of “spontaneous” Morality of traditional communities is the case of the appeal not to “institutional” Justice (courts) in solving local issues: in many cases the problems within the community are addressed by “direct interventions” of members (for example more people agree to go to “convince” a community member who is producing damage to other individuals).
However the Italians this seems paradoxical, iniquitous, this mode is actually observed institutionally in the Anglo-Saxon countries, where the community decides, gathering in “Assembly” under the guidance of a real judge, regardless of largely national laws, whether it is right to condemn a person or absolution.
In the current cultural context (“Western”) become so completely the conception of Morality and justice, on the basis of “modern” idea that man, being incurably incapable of managing himself, should be guided by others more capable than him.
In this way the individual loses his freedom, and undergoes a moral duty that restricts it in its spontaneous quality (on this idea are not only based on current laws, but also “the cure” for “wild minds”, as we have seen, from Freud on the basis of “repression”).
In modern civilization we pass by a spontaneous search for individual happiness, “physiological conditions” of the human community is the happiness of the community, to switch to the modern condition of duty.
We see then as in the West today is conceived duty.
The duty requires “obey”. Obey is “act in such a way as is or is controlled or placed”; “be obedient, as normal behavior and attitude: yours, at least, is a guy who obeys, not like my rebel; a horse, a dog who obeys. “
In current Western society being “obedient” becomes the “normality”.
The dimension of human obedience must give up part of its sensitivity (reprimendola) to work “as a social being.
This condition leads to a paradoxical result: in modern society man loses much of its “morality”.
As mentioned, this is because of the fact that the waiver to its original quality of sensitivity in humans, involves a loss of perception of the “order of things” in their natural size (in modern man there is, for example, a loss of contact with nature that is not just physical-man lives in a “nature” of concrete and asphalt-but that is a loss of empathic perception of nature).
Modern man is to lose the perception that allowed him to give “a sense of things”: the perception of himself as an integrated element in a more general context (made by “nature” that other individuals).
In other words, with the introduction of the concept of Duty in modern culture (and in the consciousness of man) you create a separation (a dichotomy, and then a conflict) between freedom and obligations (“constraints imposed by law, authority”).
That conflict is resolved, in modernity, favouring the second aspect: in social Ideologies that underlie the current form of Democracy (Social-Democracy) is clearly indicated by the citizen needs to cede part of their freedom to an institution in order to have a safer social (what today, paradoxically, fails: security of a job of the limb in turn to the city, etc.).
The result, as has been said, is that morality becomes a paradox: with the modern Moral man’s existence is transformed from the traditional search for positive feelings in one “strive” to achieve a condition indicated by others as “the right one” (you could say that, paradoxically, the man goes to a pursuit of pleasure for a search of suffering since the imposition of repressive patterns indicated as necessary for the good of society of the nineteenth century ideologues , and then by Freud).
This radical transformation of the essence of the Moral man is made possible by the fact that, being able to operate on the conscience of man so extremely sophisticated today
ideologies, are able to replace the basic human sentiment, confidence in the existence of a natural order that transcends rational control, with a “belief” of superiority of the human mind towards nature
(including human nature, namely the “irrational” part of the mind, and the physiological system of the human being).
In the new context, the man goes to fill the post traditionally occupied by a God/nature (the “Ego” that takes over: the company of man by this point is governed by the Ego).
the return of tyranny
In this way the modern civilization enters a new phase, in which there is a form of totalitarian rule that represents an evolution of the classic soft tyranny (we speak of the Western democracy of the last half of the last century). I.e.
modern civilization defines a new form of regime that
reports of human civilization at the time of the ancient tyrannies.
The new regime of Western democracy incorporates the model of ancient tyrannies, applied here so much thinner (“ideological” mode), thanks to new knowledge in the field of Western manipulation of consciences (as seen in Western civilization has acquired over the years ‘ 50, the skills of totalitarian Communist regimes: used first as “defense” in the cold war , and then in persuasion strategies of the market and politics).
In particular the tyranny is revived in the European model of democracy (now materialized, a supranational State time, Empire called the European Union), radically different from the original, ancient Greece, and from the American one (which refers to the original). European democracy is in fact not “by the people”, but at the hands of intellectuals (the Jacobins, who rose to power with the mode of “terror”), which reflect the pattern of the Sun King: “I am the State” [see the texts on modern democracy, www.lucabottazzi.com ].
The key ingredient of this new mode of governance is peoples fear (underground, of which he is unaware) that, as we will see in the next chapters, allowing “rulers” will replace the “inefficient” physical coercion applied in traditional Tyrannies.
We see the transformation of traditional morals in an “artificial” Guide to man’s existence (and the problems that this caused) under another aspect: the question of human evolution.
evolution as need
The ideas of man are “mental representations” of real elements. Elements that derive from a “feeling” derived from direct experience with reality, and that, within the mind, can be processed to produce new ideas (always assuming, of course, that it is always checked on them correspond to reality).
The ideas are an indispensable tool to man: man needs to develop its civilization (the ideas are what, from the point of view of modern science, differentiate man from animal): the development of the ideas of man corresponds essentially to the evolution of humanity.
The problem is that the development process is an evolutionary process. But ideologies inhibit any process of evolution of ideas. For this reason the ideologies can never work in their attempts to apply to real life (ideologies trigger a path of involution of human progress).
Let’s see then what are the fundamentals of the law of “human evolution”. And why ideologies are doomed to fail due to the fact that do not follow this basic law for humans.
As has been said from the scientific point of view “every living organism to survive you must evolve”.
In nature, everything is evolving:
What does not evolve,
ends invariably to decay and die.ù
This law applies to any living organism, but also for the social systems.
Let’s see in more detail why things work this way? the issue of needs
the issue of needs
To better understand this peculiarity of human life, we must take a step back: is the life of the individual, the community of individuals, are based on the fundamental mechanism that regulates the life on Earth: the mechanism of needs.
In the absence of a process of needs satisfaction there may be life (this applies to any living organism), and then even evolution.
In other words everything that has “organic” needs requires satisfaction of these needs (and, as far as the human species also come into play, the psychological or cultural needs).
The fact is that when a community is not able to meet the real needs of the individual, the latter shall enter into a State of frustration which leads to a condition that, in the medium to long run, determines the beginning of a process of biological and psychological degeneration.
The problem is that this need for satisfaction of needs, covers the needs of “real” type (both biological and psychological).
the man, in the development of its existence,
periodically loses sight of its real needs,
and so ends up chasing the abstract needs satisfaction, “perverse” compared to its real needs
(even the ancient Vedas, some thousands of years ago, understood as the man tent to shelter in a mental condition in which ends up no longer recognize its real needs, and in this condition begin to “compensate” for such basic necessities with the search for satisfaction “ideal”).
One of the consequences of this state of mind is that historical phases in which no longer to pursue satisfaction of real needs, adopts an “ideal”, abstract. And this causes jamming mechanism of human evolution and social community and society in this condition, is no longer able to evolve-to the principle according to which scientific bodies and social systems or evolve, or take the step that leads them to extinction-begins its decline.
The fact is that our civilization is at a time when the consciences of individuals are in that condition of satisfaction research abstract, “ideal” of their needs: the situation of consciousness induced by ideologies. And in this situation, in fact, modern man leads his Civilization in a State of increasing decline.
evolution as experiential process
Because in its current state of mind the man his inhibiting evolutionary process?
As you saw earlier, that organisms can keep there must be a continuous evolution of the same (a continuous transformation).
Life on Earth is a dynamic process: when quality is less (is to cease the evolution), life begins to degenerate, to decay up to a possible end.
This applies to living organisms, but also for the human social systems.
Evolution of man as the evolution of consciousness
Human living in natural mode “evolves” continuously from the point of view of psychological, mental: so much so that people are wiser in old age than in youth. And psychological growth of the individual (by some called “spiritual”) is also a growth of society (as a whole, the process of evolution of man).
Taking into account the fact that the human being is endowed with free will, and therefore it cannot automatically follow the principles of life (but animals do), the role of the intelligence of man seems to be mainly to be able to locate a method (hence the principles) for the development of human consciousness (this was the End of ancient cultures Today, this has been replaced by the end of the implementation of forms of “material progress” — has been replaced by the pursuit of a “psycho-spiritual wealth” with a “wealth of material”).
In the non-modern Cultures, the process of human evolution is a process of awareness development.
In other words one of the basic needs of man is to achieve self awareness, knowledge of “operation” of his being (of the “emotional” mechanisms). In fact, as you can’t use a technological tool without being aware of its operation, you cannot use the “human system” to operate in the real world if you do not know the principles of its operation (i.e., for example, the modes of perception and reaction to the events mode).
But it also means awareness of its mechanisms of social interaction (say, social awareness).
susp//only those who have a real awareness of himself can see, informed the “outside” world. This is the approach taken in the pre-Western cultures, summarized by Socrates, who lived at the dawn of our civilization, in concept: understand the world around you through observation of yourself.
susp//-is the process of mbaimo-the process of evolution of human awareness is the basis of the various human cultures. And it is a summary, for example, in the parable of Adam and Eve, which outlines the existence of man on Earth as a recovery path of consciousness of themselves through experience (even negative), things of the material world.
But antagonistic cultures are based on this idea (though attributing different quality to it): everything in Marxism is aimed at an “awareness” on the part of individual (in this case it’s an alleged form of awareness material, “social”, that is inner awareness of the individual).
In other words, because of the condition in which it is confined to the human mind, in these centuries of rational modernity, the evolution of the human species encountered a moment of arrest, de-Volution (as stated above, the history of man is made of vicious or virtuous circles: the moments of stasis of the evolution of a civilization are not the moments leading to a crisis , and his decline).
How can a human being be confined in an abstract world of illusions, in which loses touch with reality?
The issue is that the process of evolution of the human being, in his “cultural” aspect, which takes place at the level of ideas, can only be, in the broadest sense, an “experiential” process.
The evolution of a conscience that is based on a process that derives from an elaboration of concepts products from an experience of things that actually exist, otherwise it becomes “the DAYDREAM” not based on any concrete evidence.
Of course, due to the limitations of the mind, which cannot see herself while working,
the human being cannot know with certainty
If your ideas are the result of creative processes
how we perceive reality:
for this reason modern culture defines as essential a “verification” of scientific ideas, which implies a confrontation of ideas with the actual facts.
This is the scientific method of knowledge (defined as a combination of experience and “reasoning”) also known as
Method of “trial and error correction”:
with whom you engage
to test and develop their ideas
through the analysis of the results of their practical applications
(this is, in fact, to all forms of thought developed by man, the only possible form of knowledge).
the thought as a form of non-evolutionary thought
The problem introduced in the society of man modern ideologies, is that they are not able, by their very nature, to draw experience from their mistakes: the ideology is, as the term indicates, the “enslavement” of man’s reason for an idea (it was said that the correct definition of ideology is “every non-scientific doctrine processing with the sole intellectual and documentation without undue punctual needs feedback materials»).
Adopting an ideology as a guide for their own existence, man has in fact so a priori his “trust” in the goodness of an idea, which remains a staple (as the end of its existence) apart from specific concrete results arising from the application of these ideas:
According to the philosophy, those expressed by ideologies are not Ideas of reality, but pre-concepts (a priori Ideas, which are “before” a true knowledge of reality – according to Tan ‘ set of beliefs “). It is manufactured under highly imaginative ideas, perhaps interesting, but never verified in reality (the compliance of those ideas to a reality is an illusion, as in the case of Don Quixote).
This also applies to social ideologies such as Marxism: in these cases, you swap a subjective interpretation of the world for a description of reality (in fact Marxist politicians often use to reinforce the validity of their ideas, the term “objective”).
In other words the ideologies are a thought without experience, and then, according to modern scientific culture, a thought for anything scientific.
The ideological thinking strays in Metaphysics (Greek: what is “over sensitive or physical things”), which is the antithesis of modern science (entering, i.e., with ideologies, in the fields of theology, of “absolute Ideas” on which you cannot reflect).
This in itself metaphysical plan membership may not be a problem (as it is not a problem in the religions that do not deal with the “Government of earthly things”).
The problem is that with modern ideologies Western man falls into the trap of wanting to apply, considering scientific, Metaphysical categories to “management” of social reality (social modern ideologies are a kind of “atheistic Theology”).
A good example of these metaphysical ideas applied to reality provides Marxism, in which, for example, the idea that the proletariat, through class struggle, could lead to human society into a better condition. According to Marx, in fact this would be a real “revelation”, just like the Religions of the Bible and the Koran (Marx argues that the idea was revealed by an abstract Entity he calls history; as God would reveal similar mode, Moses and Muhammad the Truth who founded the great modern religions).
So from the point of view of current science, as in the case of modern religions, ideologies have a “belief”: Marx, and who subsequently adopted her thinking, exchanges a imagined idea (from a scientific point of view it is merely a hypothesis that should be proven with experiments on reality) for an objective law of history.
The adoption of an ideology leads people to abandon the experiential method, which provides a continuous check with the reality of their beliefs (in fact, because there are checks to the fact that ideas are put into practice in daily life, what you leave with the adoption of ideological beliefs, is the period of reflection on the results of their actions : in this sense the human being puts you in position to not learn more from direct experience with reality).
To make unassailable his theories, Marx clearly shows, proclaiming the “end of philosophy” (i.e. the end of the reflections of the man), to abandon any form of reflection, to go directly to “practice” (the practice).
The idea expressed by Marx is: thanks to my intelligence because you have now available the best possible theory is not only useless but also harmful, to reflect on their goodness (if the Idea is to “right”, then any reflection is likely to bother, or likely to bring the man out of the way-in fact anyone who adheres to Marxist thought no one ever thought about this aspect!)
ideologies are therefore a form of private thought the experience of reality: that however continues to work on reality.
The ideological thinking, and actions induced by it, are the product of an imagined existential dimension, and not really lived: without a way of verifying its effectiveness, in this way of thinking the dream is always mistaken for reality.
Resuming the discourse on morality, let’s see how we develop the conditioning strategies of consciences. And in particular we see what are the preconditions that have to be created in order to act on conscience, by manipulating it.
We said that culture is not just a collection of basics, but it is a way of being of the people. It is said the culture induces a sort of “mental” imprinting that makes sure that people see the reality (and then judge things) in a certain way (it is also said that in this “training” of consciousness, the emotional component of the message is crucial to “fix” the mind influences).
We so basically “we are rational and emotional level, what we were taught to be”.
As for culture, in order to implement strategies for consent, the mind must be in a condition characterized by two different conditions:
■ must be free from cultural conditioning (laws, moral rules, traditions, etc.). For this it is necessary, in order to manipulate consciences and make a clean sweep of the traditional culture of a people, create the “clean sheet” starting point for the process of “training” of consciousness (concept theorized by Mao, and became the essence of his cultural revolution). And, of course, the individual
■ .must live in a context where there are no “influences” of other cultures that may embarrass the dominant culture.
The traditional culture of a people determines its way of being conditional upon intimately in terms of values and principles. And in the presence of traditional culture is nearly impossible to influence a person’s consciousness, because it acts as a “moral” foundations in which the individual finds its basic existential security.
In order to maintain the consensus of the people, it was said, you must first instill in them a sense of insecurity which then leverage to “drive” their consciences: to do this you must then first delete “cultural” elements that represent the moral force of the people.
It is essentially a psychological annihilation of people (or, if you will, spiritual): internal dissidents to the totalitarian regimes have described the condition experienced by their fellow citizens as a condition of “death of the soul”.
One of the primary conditions to apply strategies for manipulation of the masses is to make a clean sweep of the heritage of knowledge, collective memories and traditional habits.
It is necessary to implement a “cleaning IE” that transforms into a consciences “clean sheet”, Virgin terrain on which to reschedule the men on the basis of a new culture (this is to implement a “break with tradition” of the application of Western enlightenment thought, and then revolutionary ideologies which derive from it).
One example, in Europe, this “reset” process of minds is that which tries to make the transition to a new phase of modern European Civilization with the Elimination of the cultural roots of European man: an attempt to delete from the cultural background of the individual Christian culture, with endless variations, featured in the last 16 centuries his life (the fact is that , as evidenced by the psychology, even more radical antagonists of various European regimes, although not if they realize it, a product of Christian culture: which, in good times and bad, so in any case the “mother” of their culture; their problem is so that they do not recognize the coded matrix of your mindset, you are not able to “emanciparsene”).
Another cultural “process that has recently produced an” alienation “of the individual from its traditional cultural baggage is the replacement of the old national currencies with the Euro. Process that has produced a cultural zero which allowed the market (in addition to the obvious advantage to exploit the moment of currency to raise prices, often 100%) to further weaken the control the individual has on reality when he spends money (this choice reinforces persuasion strategies that had worked , 50 years old, a good level of weakening the resistance of the individual to spend their own money: who now has less than 30 years is still forced to think in pounds when it should make a careful evaluation of a charge-and large supermarkets still publish their price lists with the alternative of price in pounds).
Many others are the processes of this “cultural revolution” aimed at the Elimination of the traditional culture, which occurred in specific areas of our society: one of them is from the license plates of the designation of the city (with the idea, in this case, that people end up with abandon their traditional “provincial identity” to switch to a New Global-European Identity). Another process that creates the same type of disorientation in the individual in the particular field in which it was implemented, is to change the units of measurement that indicates the power of the engines, from horses to kilowatt-hours (so much so that, in fact, many journals seek still to report data in the traditional measure, since the vast majority of people are unable to envisage the powers expressed in the new measure Yet when the State publishes tables of boli, does the new measure!). For this reason England refuses to adjust its measurement system to the metric system.
Today the process of rupture with tradition is one of the strategies adopted by the major opposition movements “of the Western world (both belonging to the Parliament, both” antagonists “, in the most radical).
Such ideological movements (which are, in fact, represented by most of the current array Marxist parties) produce a continuous work on the flanks of traditional culture, which concerns the delegitimization of public institutions (State, market Business and traditional conception Church) and private ones (the traditional family); and moral principles and values always popular (more specifically today is applied one of the most effective forms of delegitimization: criminalization of traditional institutions).
Social actions that could be considered in any way as a natural need of the citizens, as in the case of euthanasia request to Terry Schiavo, as instrumental actions are carried out by de-legitimacy of current culture (in this case it was instrumental statements of radical movements who, wanting to take a “more scientific” than that of the counterparty , took positions actually totally-scientific).
the moral issue of “reformism”
In history there are moments in which then the movements “of opposition” trying to operate a social culture through tradition known as reform or cultural revolutions. These subversions of traditional culture give rise to new forms of culture, which are the basis for a new form of society.
One of the most important of these subversions “reformists”, for our company, was one by which over the past millennium the Protestant religions, “reforming” the Catholic culture (weakening the moral standards), they put the basics because you could get the new Enlightenment society: capitalism (even in this case the “reform” of the Western system has assumed the characteristics of a “popular revolution”; see in particular the story of the Waldenses in Piedmont).
These reforms of the institutional form of Western culture are always basically moral reforms. They are, namely, an attempt to reform the human being in terms of his conscience: as we said, the human being is influenced by a cultural imprinting, which precisely defines much of his values, his morals.
The value is, according to Cicero, “what is worthy of choice”; that is what defines, in the individual, its principles in judging and operate. The values handed down from generation to generation through moral education of the individual, that is, determine its subjective choices “between also possible actions” (Treccani).
We must bear in mind that the values are recorded in the “conscience” so not strictly human mental; namely in the form of “feelings” (or emotions). Are these feelings/emotions that determine the individual choosing to resist a spontaneous impulse, Interior or act impulsively in favor of an idea or in response to a specific environmental condition. It is therefore in a sense of a moral force that drives the man as a social being, judging and acting (it is basically, as we shall see, conditioned reflexes caused by an emotional imprint: as mentioned above, are about detectors the most recent studies on dopamine, which tell us how this hormonal substance produces “feelings” that help you to remember the concepts-it should also be noted that the re-education camps created by totalitarian regimes seek to give a new moral Habitus to people through a reeducation of the individual that takes place on the emotional level).
These moral Reforms (or cultural revolutions) implemented in history allow us to obtain an optimal management of the mass through a standardization of the consciences of the people to a new way of thinking (you get a new cultural hegemony within the system): all persons “” cultural reform normalized will be so “spontaneously” judging, choose and act in accordance with the new System type (the purpose of St. Paul , to create the Jewish reform through Catholicism, was to create a new religion more suitable to the times, which obtained a greater spread between people – the same can be said of the next reform of the Bible carried out by Muhammad).
For this reason the cultural reforms (or, in most cases, radical cultural revolutions) are always based on a “moral issue”, which becomes the justification and motivation to clean up previous forms of moral (and culture).
The traditional culture’s moral Reform currently underway is that of political correctness (it is a new form of “radicalism”, which left from the Socialist and Marxist theories incorporates and refines the “moral issue”). This transformation is through a deletion of “conditioning” traditional cultural pursued ongoing work of discrediting forms of traditional morality.
In fact, as we will see below, the new ideology is not proposing a real morality, but merely be ideology “against” tradition. It is a form of “moral relativism”, in which disappear absolute references present in traditional forms of morals of a people (actually from the new moral precepts are absolute themselves-in the sense that they are never challenged-but, unlike those in the more traditional forms of moral, are not defined in detail, and can therefore be applied with greater freedom of interpretation : the world of the left has always opposed the hard cut from Amazon, but since Lula came to power, a man of the left, which announced that the increase in slaughter plants planned by him produced an increase in GDP, and then a success of his Government no longer has said a word about it; and in Italy the “moral issue” for parliamentarians was abandoned by the left when it has put to the Government some characters previously featured in “Tangentopoli investigations”).
This is the contradiction of “secular” thinking: it states that there are no absolute truths. But this same claim itself as absolute statement.
Even the specific thought of “contradiction”: in this form of moral impropriety is used as a means to obtain a correct source (as in communism violence is the means to achieve social peace condition, the “cattivismo” now, spread both in journalism of the radical left that in advertising, derives from the mindset of political correctness).
This form of annulment or reversal, of traditional cultural cornerstones of a civilization is applied at every level of culture: the fundamentals of thought, the laws of the State. Laws, i.e. the rules of the community, are the strong “resistance” to “reform” of the system.
In Italy, with the establishment in 2006 of a new “reformist” Government there is the significant case of “overturning” traditional legal policy: on the one hand are rehabilitated elements traditionally considered outside the law (the pardon is granted to most of the people held in jail that, events will be mobsters, pedophiles, etc. .. ; are legalized illegal aliens-illegal attitudes also as that of a citizen who hurts the head Prime Minister with a tripod was immediately pardoned by the judiciary, and the author of one of the most serious crimes in a democratic regime is fingered by the press as a hero-one of the examples for our democracy, according to the current President of the Chamber, is the dictatorship of Fidel Castro). And, at the same time pass on the side of “bad” people who previously were considered to be in the collective imagination, virtuous: the entrepreneur who brings wealth to the community; disclosing historians, as it should do, true information.
The condition of cultural hegemony is conditional on the presence of a system of cultural totalitarianism.
The problem with these forms of scheme is that the forms of knowledge they have adopted are almost exclusively instrumental: the culture assumes that is the role of power tool. That is, being the ideological culture adopted by those systems mainly oriented to maintain positions of power, it is then mostly empty of real content.
The culture of totalitarianism is, in other words, detached from reality: cannot withstand the test of facts (in comparison with reality produces disastrous results), and is not capable of dealing with a real in-depth debate (is unable to justify his positions if faced with questions). The culture of regimes that hold a monopoly, substantially, is extremely vulnerable towards other cultures closer to reality.
For this reason the cultural hegemony cannot be maintained if the regime adopts opera for not cleaning up their own forms of knowledge from each culture non-conforming element; and does not cause a condition of no discussion at any level.
To obtain this absolute monopoly condition you must operate on two levels:
■ with the Elimination of other cultures: to defend the new culture risk arising from a lack of concrete foundations and consequent embarrassing contradictions.
■ with the rewrite of the institutional culture (in order to justify the principles and lines of action of the ideology of the regime).
the banning of not-compliant cultures
The removal of non-institutional Culture you mentioned earlier. Recall that the idea of having a condition of cultural hegemony by eliminating the previous forms of culture has pushed in the past Muslims to reset the global culture by setting fire to the library of Alexandria. Or the Church of Rome, a few centuries later, pushing his missionaries to wisdom ancient texts found in South America.
In fact today, because of the weakness of existing Institutional cultures of Western modernity (opposition and Regime), this attitude of Defense of culture through the notice of other forms of non-conforming Culture is especially prevalent [the topic is deepened in the paper “reflections on Western civilization: Introduction”]. One prominent example is one of the few texts that in recent years have revealed a simple but crucial truth kept hidden for half a century, Pansa’s book which describes the plans and actions of the PCI during the Second World War, is not available in the libraries of Torino (which are frequented by a large number of students who want to deepen their studies). Nor are available most of the dissident Soviet authors (Koestler, Solgenizyn, etc.).
You think that Popper, perhaps, for better or for worse, the only true philosopher of the second world war, through the intervention of the PCI, was not widespread in Italy if not in the 90 ‘s (then suffered decades of censorship). And that the book written by a veteran Italian from the Soviet gulag has been released only recently, after the author has allowed one of the current leaders of the post-Marxist left to write a foreword in which the author stated that he recognized the problems described in the book, only a marginal aspect of communism (claim denial on television by the author).
In some cases, has even resorted to medieval methods (or Soldiers), forcing (a Christian Democrat Government) the burning of copies of the Bertolucci film “last tango in Paris”.
Man is what he has been taught to maintain a condition of cultural hegemony, it is therefore necessary to rewrite knowledge.
And man, at the social level, it identifies in its history: in order to change the human being is then have to rewrite its history.
Rewriting its history you can ensure that the individual will identify with new values. You can do so that man may believe to be a certain way. He lives in the certainty of who are the good guys and who are the bad guys (you can also provide the sense of relief that he had finally found the people who are the cause of his suffering).
The man also identifies himself in accordance with the instructions he received through science education. Rewriting the science people will be certain that the remedies proposed to them (medical, economic and social) are the right thing (today science has returned to the time of Descartes, excluding its culture the quantum, which is able to explain the Foundation of reality [argument developed in the paper “reflections on Western civilization: Introduction”]). Educated according to the knowledge defined by new science the individual will be led to think, for example, that the forms of unofficial Medicine are “wrong”; While advanced technologies are “right”.
Orwell described in his novel the servant role that dealt with rewrite news; in the Soviet Union “instead they removed foreigners from textbooks” (where it was written “Edison discovered …”, for example, you wrote, “modern science has discovered …”).
Even today in the history books for Italian schools says that the foibe were a creation of the Nazis, or that Stalin had reason to exterminate the peasants because they hindered the implementation of the noble idea of communism-the press in 2006 was published an article “historical” in which he painted one of the bloodiest dictatorships (the Contras) in South America as a courageous example of democracy.
Significant that on the La7 television channel a report from Viet Nam, a country with a Government that has implemented a genocide of the population wanted to “convert” to the new ideology (a part of the population died of drowning people who tried to flee abroad, in the phenomenon known as the flight of Boat People). In that transmission the Viet Nam became an enlightened nation which has produced important social reforms; particularly significant is the fact that the protagonist of that transmission is still decimated Communist institutions appeared to live in a “beautiful” (the village of peasants who still live as thousands of years ago, lost in the mountains, it looked like a tourist resort in South Tyrol; and people were all “” folk clothes washed and ironed); and specifying that if the population sometimes had “problems” with the Government, this was due to the fact that it was so stupid to take the side of evil (ask for help, in the 60 ‘s, the West “colonialist”): a pure propaganda document, passed in the West as truth (besides Rai tre has scheduled “slugs” of Soviet “fiction” that show how the people’s happy life under Stalin).
One of the most important culture rewriting of the history of the West is that made by islam after the fire by the Muslims of the library of Alexandria: the consequence of this is that today some Greek philosophers are known to us through the “revised” date by Muslim writers (as in the case of texts by Aristotle).
Another example is particularly significant, although somewhat more complex and delicate for us Westerners, is that of “rewriting” of Jesus ‘ words from Sao Paulo (among other things, although Jesus died for being stubborn to declare the invalidity of the argument supported by the old testament in the Bible of Catholicism that text is placed next to the Gospel of Jesus).
The culture that our company has at its disposal, is a culture almost entirely rewritten in recent decades (for instance, we talk a lot of medicine or physics, because of the history). Our current culture has forgotten (or rather, Renegade, as shown in document reflections on Western civilization “) not only traditional religious culture (this could also be the natural evolution toward an” improvement “of our scientific knowledge), but it also has” forgotten “because they said the fathers of our culture: Kant and Hegel, Descartes, Einstein.
With regard to our science, even the most scientific journals today argue that mostly with real science has nothing to do (in particular, this trend is involved in the Sciences Magazine, passed to a more ideological publishers). The most significant is that of spreading the idea that man comes from monkeys, when scientists darvinisti (first Gould), have clarified how that concept is not at all scientific.
Our culture today has also pushed to ignore, and that is perhaps the most detrimental to our science, Einstein’s discoveries: in spite of the founder of the science of ‘ 900 had well specified some quantum level was the Foundation of the reality in which we live, that level today not only is not taken into account in defining the actions produced by science-technology , but is confined in the field of “beliefs” (keep in mind that the quantum level of reality is, in fact, that level of reality upon which are based the non-Western Sciences, and today, for example, alternative medicines). [topic in-depth in documents “reflections on Western civilization” and “The dead end of modern science”]
Today you get to declare war on anyone who tries to put things right: the editor of the magazine Le Scienze, Enrico Bellone, in the September issue of his magazine 2006, writes an editorial that refers to concepts that were widely refuted by the institutional Science (like the “evolutionist” the great tree of living things, or derive from the ape man). And, in his plea to declare even comes rhetoric war on Church with Catholic newspaper Avvenire ganging who dared to criticize the fake neo-Darwinism to be an ideology, not a science: after debuting with words that seem borrowed from the language of the church a decade ago “Clouds are thickening on everything that refers to the word ‘ vita ‘” and proclaiming “demagogically then worth to reopen a civil discussion spaces, (…) “concludes with an explicit” threat “dialectic” (…) well, this is certainly not the way to dialogue. So you go to war, and in this kind of war there are no winners ever. ” A clear example of intellectual terrorism, based on “ignorant” dissemination of scientific information; and with the classic final threat for those who are not yet willing to convert, adhering to know.
This is the attempt (successful mass level) to create a new knowledge: a form of cultural revisionism normalizer (which goes in the opposite direction at critical revisionism) which is definitely more effective than bonfire of books, because in this case there is an “active” process, in which the System strives with all its cultural channels to replace the removed traditional culture with the techniques described earlier with a revised version of knowledge (through a daily work by “culturally authoritative sources” within the system are responsible for educating and informing the masses).
How this works informative and educational level?
The system produces namely these automatically effective forms of self-defense. As modern society is structured (and thanks to mindset produced by the company of rational thought), as we shall see in the next chapter, emerges spontaneously, within the system, a class of “intellectuals” who are serious about defending the “right” culture trying to eliminate the “alternative” culture. And, of course, to rewrite a culture compatible with the ideology of the system.
This is done all the “intellectual” level. A level in which facts and arguments ‘ logical ‘ no longer have value: regime intellectuals can discredit, keeping the level of rhetoric, the forms of thinking which fail to conform; and, remaining on that floor, can also remain unassailable (although their culture is based on axioms never occurred, it cannot be exposed laying its know inside that “rhetoric speech bubble” created by the cultural hegemony of the system).
These intellectuals become then the “censors” (or the great inquisitors) of which one of the most famous examples is Piero Angela, who, among other things, on the level of rhetoric got even a court issued a ruling that Italian defines homeopathy a belief (note the fact that not only that judgment is totally at odds with our science but also contradicts our laws: homeopathy is recognised as a form of official medicine).
Among other things, on Angela on Marco Polo, did not miss the opportunity to say that the Chinese medicine that had fascinated the famous traveler, is based on “knowledge of Physiology”, and then not to trust it (those are based and some forms of care taken today from our store!).
An important part of this “normalization of consciences” is obtained through the management of State television programmes: an example is the request of the Minister of culture Giuliano Amato, who, in the summer of 2006, asks the Rai to produce fiction with positive black characters in leading roles (the title of his interview was “I want to see a black Doctor”). This creates culture by Decree.
One prominent example is the primetime drama “Grandfather”, in which the protagonist Lino Banfi, convinced Communist with the unit in your Pocket (while bad, pedophile, kept in the pocket of Berlusconi’s newspaper), had already distinguished himself repeatedly in pointing out that their family is better than both remained poor, otherwise would have to become, as are all the rich , a family of criminals. But in the fall of 2006, with the new leftist government, goes to visit Spain, Zapatero’s Socialists of the new course of “secular democracy”, happily married homosexual daughter with another woman (the title is, of course, the funny “il padre delle spose”). It’s the new way of proposing new values, by passing the idea that it is obvious that two women have adopted the daughter of one of the two, as if it were “natural”, and if there was the possibility that a father, remarried in the “traditional” way, can keep his daughter (to witness the political value of the affair, the presence of a preview of Deputies represented the Arcigay , and the controversy aroused in this regard from the Margherita, the Government party, which argues the Parliament with the other coalition parties asserting that the line taken by the fiction “is not part of government strategies”!)
at the institutional level
Remember that the need to apply a system of cultural Totalitarianism (and that is the only regime that guarantees the cultural hegemony) is not only their own cultures of “opposition”: Western culture that is founded on a rational conception of things, adopts, and justify on the basis of the idea of the enlightenment that we cannot obtain a rational order of society if there is inside a certain cultural uniformity (which must be developed Obviously, in terms of rationality-has already said that the idea of the enlightenment which set our social system is that if man were left free to act, and therefore, necessarily free to think, you would create a mess in our society).
Without this rational order our current democracy, indeed, piomberebbe in disorder. The idea that a hegemonic culture is more useful to the system, however, is obviously based on an axiomatic position; It is in fact a preconcettuale choice on which it never wanted to reflect: “good” culture has been chosen by some of those flawed humans who according to it are not aware of their existence (in the place of God this time there is an Elite of men who are awarded the right that was once attributed to God).
There is another underlying defect of this type of approach of the cultural life of Democracy: in this way of seeing things you lose sight of the fundamental principle of the evolution of rational society: the dialectic. That is the natural process in which the ideas of a party opposing the opposing ideas; and, through dialogue, we come to the production of new ideas, “more compatible” with the mindset of the people who make up the company (and therefore more functional to the social system: the human being, until proven otherwise, is the cornerstone of human society).
The process implemented to achieve a condition of cultural hegemony is thus a process of “normalization” of the culture that corresponds to a normalization of the mind of the individual.
See here what is the psychological mechanism used in this process.
Underlying the effectiveness of control strategies of consciences of individuals there is characteristic of the human mind: the need to avoid stress due to the feeling of being excluded from the “group.” This trend “physiologic” of human beings, it is updated: in the minds of modern man (namely in the mindset of “intellectual” man) it develops on the mental plane of culture. Today, the individual, to maintain sufficient existential serenity, aspires to be “compliant” dominant opinions (although it often is not aware).
In other words, not being in tune with the thinking of the mass produced in modern man with a strong sense of loneliness, abandonment, lack of solidarity (for a football fan is enough to live in a community where all are cheering for the opposing team, to feel “excluded” from a large amount of positive feelings which, man, has a profound social need). The situation of exclusion from the group becomes so unbearable soon. And it is extremely difficult to renounce the relief you feel whenever you feel to be in harmony with others, you feel the solidarity of others. And that is to know who is “right side”, among the good: in this condition the human being begins to finally feel someone.
For these reasons, the human being is brought to renounce the knowledge and principles that put him in the awkward, tiring and sad role of “dissident”, contrarian (not only at work, “in society”, but also in the family, with friends).
The problem is that every position of non-conformity to prevailing ideas is regarded by others, at least, as an inappropriate attitude, bad taste: this way of being is because other forces to an unexpected commitment, such a “superfluous” needs to deal with unfortunate topics.
And, for example, after a devastating rainstorm typical of new climate, letting go of thoughts about the dangers that today the man is running due to some aberrations of our system becomes, understandably, an inappropriate interference in the “normal” and thoughtless flow of life: has the same effect as the get to talk about starving people to a wedding. For the same reason, in the “sporty”, becomes inappropriate to talk about the scourge of doping; in the political sphere of the misdeeds of his party that stands as the company’s moralizing and so on … IE becomes, in the end, for people who take a position of non-aligned, “inappropriate” at any time of the day, addressing any topic that proposes a reflection on what is happening.
The condition of “dissidents”, becomes unbearable. And man is driven by the need to satisfy its basic needs of social animal to end up agreeing to participate in a cultural context.
This applies in particular to the context of civilized modern society, in which the individual “uprooted” remains deprived of the “natural” support of that group solidarity that develops on the emotional plane, which was guaranteed by the extended family and the village community.
Which means that the child learns the rules that apply to adult: I have to be as they want others to get attention I must be like I want others (for this, and many other reasons, the individual is automatically brought to adopt ways of reasoning and behaviour that may have the approval of others).
In other words the individual today is brought to accede to culture embraced by the majority.
(digression) the attitude of the intellectual
From this type of civilized human being’s relationship with the “majority culture” is the regime’s intellectual: the modern intellectual who aspires to join the herd.
A particularly significant example of this phenomenon is represented by the more leftist intellectuals who, under Mussolini’s regime, were deployed, even then so decided and “militant”, on the side of fascism, the previous majority culture (to name just a few: Bobbio went so far to declare the most fascist Duce of his colleagues, in order to have a Chair vacated by a Jewish professor brought in a concentration camp; Pasolini denounced his young friend who had criticized fascism; Mouth wrote strongly anti-Semitic articles on official newspapers of the beam; Dario Fo a volunteer enlisted in the nazi-fascist paratroopers to serve the Republic di Salò).
We must take account of the importance of the role of the intellectual in modern society.
In antiquity there were basically two “social” useful roles in the operation of the human community:
■ who commanded: that monarchs maintained power over the people through a mix of charisma and strength.
■ those who had the task of reflecting on Human Affairs (human needs, and issues of power): philosophers, which, as a rule basically their role, not “took part” to “political” mechanism of the system (power play).
The French Revolution (and Marx) onwards, these two roles, that of the power holder and to the one who reflects on Human Affairs, they are increasingly being merged into a single figure: the intellectual.
Why did a change like that?
First, we must take account of the fact that our society, becoming, with the enlightenment and Descartes, “society of mind” is now an “intellectual society”.
Institutional Education in Western society is an “intellectual education”. From Kindergartens to universities today gives the individual a notional culture aimed to develop its intellectual faculties, where once you gave an education aimed at developing, in the individual, his faculties of human beings in General.
Significant that in autumn 2006 a luminary of medicine, with shoulders some authoritative publications and two degrees, one with honours from the Faculty of Medicine of Torino, occurred at the same Faculty and admission not only has not been accepted, but has taken a very low rating: reflecting on the questions that were asked in the test that doctor, you ask, interviewed on the press, how is it possible that the Italian school select future physicians on the basis of purely intellectual and not their desire and ability to heal the next.
An intellectual society of this type can only be driven by a caste of intellectuals (i.e. not “thinkers”, as analysed in detail in other documents, but from “theoretical” politicized: the new class defined by Marx, that militant intellectuals).
The main consequence of this “revolution” is that today power is not held through the form of weapons or money (which, in many areas, however, can still be decisive), but through the characteristic of intellectual: communication.
One prominent example is the so-called global war today, despite being still fought with armies, in fact is determined by the actions of the parties operated on media plan: decisive contribution to modern international conflicts is given by intellectuals who fight a parallel war that fought by armies. And the action taken by intellectuals ends up being more decisive than that waged by armies (now a negative print campaign can reverse the outcome of a battle field life).
Therefore today the intellectual replaces what used to be the figure of the philosopher: If the task of the latter was the reflection, now the intellectual, unlike the philosopher, actively participates in the management of power.
Note that Marx was, with his doctrine, to sanction this step: for this reason the intellectuals are a spontaneous placement in ideological Marxist base area, which puts them at a higher place (it is, among other things, the only ideology that recognizes, and pay for, the profession’s intellectual).
The role of the intellectual is so basically, a “militant” role. It feels invested with the “moral duty” to lead the people in a society that is based on reason, they are the only ones to hold the knowledge of reason. And then only you can tell the citizen what has to be done.
The intellectual is, in fact, the typical figure of Western ideology of ‘ 900: born with Marxism was adopted, already with Roosevelt and then extensively after ‘ 68, even as the figure responsible for the Institutional management of power through the institutional forms of communication: advertising and the psycho-politics.
Today the intellectual task is no longer to help people reflect, but, on the other hand, to work to eliminate the doubts in people’s minds. The intellectual is one who provides recipes ready (its task is to make recipes that are functional to the power of the dominant ideology). It’s the person who encourages others to Act (the “Leader” of the “movements”), it is no longer the one who reflects on the man’s actions, defining new ways of thinking, new ways of thinking.
How you analyze in “Modern” Ideologies, intellectuals now live in a pseudo-religious condition: have a purpose to be achieved (defined by ideological Guru referenced), and then an action of evangelizing and proselytizing to be pursued. The end that must realize the intellectuals is an absolute end (is an idea in itself “superior”), and for this reason they do not pause to reflect on the details (all forms of reflection would create doubts and would hamper the progress of the movement: hence the need to create a cultural hegemony; and to adopt the principle according to which everything is permitted : “the ends justify the means”).
The intellectual of the second half of ‘ 900 (and particularly after the ‘ 68) is a ‘ simplified ‘ thinker, which spreads a simple thought, popular. It:
■ is able to reason like mass,
■ You can find arguments to convince the bulk of the goodness of the ideology he supported (it is, in fact, the new “secular priest” that leads to the “truth revealed” the specific intellectual guru: Marx, Sartre, Marcuse, …).
the psyche of the intellectual
But why the intellectual is led spontaneously to join ideologies?
Psychologically speaking, as has been said, in our social system the man is taken to join the majority culture (to stand on the side of the strongest, that in our society are the keepers of institutional culture-note that in Italy, the birth of the Republic majority in the “culture” did not correspond to the country’s political majority). This applies a fortiori to those people who make a profession intellectualism.
Of course we must not forget that intellectual also needs to eat (and preferably brioche). But the payment form perhaps most gratifying is that the “intellectual” is paid (as well as with money), with the typical satisfaction egoiche “modern” (the aspirations and the moods of modern man are those typical of the Ego): the desire of power, pleasure in obtaining consent, intellectual pride, seeking comfort at the expense of health, abuse that is reflected in the sense of competitiveness at all costs that pervades our social system , etc …).
A significant case of modern intellectual is the Mughini career which, from 1968, militancy today is to lead the people (even here chose to side with the majority: supporters, the Juventus fans-and Juve, as evidenced by the two subsequent gifts of new Federation Commissioner Prodi government, it remains the benchmark Team of one of the fundamental institutions of the Italian nation hyaline Football Championship). Mughini, in this new role he resume tools and directory of his previous role as a political activist; its task is to “address” on the road “just cause”: will say to the few Juventini critical of Moggi, and then “dissidents”, “balls, criticized Moggi that allowed us to win the Championship!” (again, the end justifies the means, typical of the principle).
Another case is that of Lamb, from the same source of which Director Mughini of TG misaligned (Italy), and then from an “uncomfortable”, he decided to retrain to become part of the Court, already attended by Mughini, of intellectuals.
Orwell, ex-regime’s intellectual, and then a deep knowledge of the phenomenon. She described the intellectuals: “you gotta be a real intellectual to believe: no other person can be so silly”.
In the hegemony regime everything is checked. Including the individual’s conscience: there is a condition of sleep of reason.
Marlon Brando in the movie “the formula”, where she played the role of one of the powerful of the Earth (an oil Tycoon) tells the policeman who is doing the moral: “The man wants to be checked. It’s meant to be driven. Wait just that some fool who commands him, tell him what to do. “
The man that is, want to be handled, wants someone to take care of him, give him the sense of security that uprooted life caused him to lose. Aspires to be able to put his responsibilities, and then his freedom, in the hands of another. Want to have certainty, so you want to be told what is right and what is wrong.
Similarly M argues that if there are frauds, it is because there are people who want to be conned.
In the movie “Truman show”, the “Director” of the program (like “big brother”), in which the protagonist of the film was from birth, unknowingly part, tells the latter when it discovers the terrible deception (wakes, symbolically by what is civilized citizens, the sleep of mind): “nothing is faked. It’s just all controlled “(In this way the Director asks the protagonist of the don’t run away program because, he says,” out, in real life, you’ll be worse, here everything is rationally controlled for your sake “).
The mind of man “checked” is in a State of sleep. This applies to all conditions of totalitarianism, or cultural hegemony.
The sleep of reason is in fact the only psychological condition that can afford to maintain a system of cultural hegemony (in fact, a condition of sleep of intelligence, of which alzheimer’s is a boundary condition). In this historical phase, the civilized peoples are in a condition of “sleeper” in which individuals are kept in a kind of “limbo” in which their mind is actually blocked (not totally, but against a number of topics pertaining to social, moral), so that people cannot take into consideration information that might create conflicts with official knowledge (induce doubts , be cause for reflections). That information, i.e., create awareness of the individual a certain self-awareness, which would cause serious problems in the process of maintaining consensus.
This is hypnotic sleep which allows institutions to “remote control” consciences. A sleep of the mind that, as is the protagonist of Truman Show, prevent people from understanding the condition in which they are kept consciences.
Modern Marketing society since the second world war is a leading trader of dreams: the problem for our civilisation is simply that people today no longer has the money to pay for your dreams.
The psychological mechanisms triggered by management strategies of popular consent lead, among other things, for a cancellation of the individual memory (which, as stated above, corresponds to the annihilation of the person who the dissidents of totalitarian regimes are often called “death of the soul”) [see topic developed in “modern ideologies: Marxism”]
Here are some considerations of Kundera, one of the most famous authors “dissidents” against totalitarianism of the ‘ 900.
In Milan Kundera’s novel, the book of laughter and forgetting, the protagonist says “the struggle of man against power is the struggle of man against forgetting” (more or less the same words he uttered Pansa on the occasion of the attempt to shut him up by the same ideologies which Kundera refers).
A significant step in which Kundera speaks of erasing the memory in the individual:
“In February 1948 the Communist leader Klement Gottwald appeared at the balcony of a baroque palace in Prague to talk to hundreds of people who filled the old square. It was a historic moment for Bohemia. A fateful moment, as there are one or two in a Millennium.
Gottwald was surrounded by his teammates and right next to him was Clementis. The snow fell, it was cold and Gottwlad was uncovered. Clementis, thoughtful, removed his fur hat and placed it on the head of Gottwald.
The propaganda section spread to hundreds of thousands of copies of the photograph of the balcony where Gottwald, with the fur cap on his head and his teammates at his side, spoke to the people. On that balcony began the history of Communist Czechoslovakia. On posters, in textbooks and museums, each child knew that photo.
Four years after Celmentis was accused of treason and hanged. The propaganda section immediately erased from history and, of course, from all photographs. Since then Gottwald on that balcony is only. Where there was Celemntis there is now blank wall of the building. Celmentis’s remained only the hat on Gottwald’s head. “
Kundera describes as particularly effective, through induction of terror, we can bring a human being to deny himself “it is true that the Constitution [under communism] guarantees freedom of speech, but laws punish everything that can be called a subversive act against the State. And you never know when you will scream that this or that Word would subvert. “
Kundera says of the protagonist of his novel that is severely threatened by the State, “knows what it is. They know that still has five minutes to proclaim loudly that repudiates what she said and did. Knows this type of business. They are ready to sell to a man in Exchange for a future past. Force him to speak with one voice on television, to explain to people that he was mistaken when he spoke against the Russians and the nightingales [enchanted garden means that the Russians promised]. Force him to give a kick to his life and to become a shadow, a man without a past, an actor without hand, transform into a shadow his life thrown away even that part deserted by love. So, turning it into a shadow, let him live. “
And again: “they wanted to erase from the memory of hundreds of thousands of lives because it remains the only time a immaculate immaculate Idyll.”