Comebacks To Four Eyes

The right of the stronger



The outcome of regional elections requires an effort of understanding of what stirs beneath the surface of the phenomena, at least as represented by that broker that the mass media.
Mistakenly, many expected that the myriad of processes and scandals that have engulfed the center and its leaders, undermining the credibility of an ethical point of view, would lead to disastrous results for this party politics. So it was not. What are the reasons?
Who thought of a collapse of confidence reposed in a broadly center-right rule of law, which can be summarized with the maximum in every lapidary court, "the law is equal for all." This belief has ancient roots and nobles. In Greek culture the rule of law was so strong that Socrates chose to drink the hemlock and die rather than save and to invalidate the laws of the city.
The law is what the city normally allows for a civil society. Outside of the law, as Hobbes would say contractarian, there is the state of nature, the struggle of all against all. The Nomos, law, living in a constant dialectical relation to the law of nature, Physis. Sometimes this dialectic, however, has no chance of higher synthesis of passing: nell'Antigone emanates Creon's edict, law the city, which hindered the burial of Polynices, denying the right to "natural" Antigone to make the necessary funeral for his brother.
The law of the city and the law of nature. Sophists, Physis as Critias interpreted as the right of the stronger, claiming the power of the aristocracy. The right to "natural" does not know of the strongest laws, rules: which is the strongest and discards the rules in relation to their interests.
updated on the theme of "law and law of the jungle", by reading about it on the analysis of Franco Berardi Manifesto:

The criticism of the Berlusconi regime is not always able to grasp the nature Baroque Italian neo-liberalism. An economic system, social and cultural which has managed to translate the deregulation and the law of the strongest under the dominant.
In recent months, the protest against the Berlusconi regime has reached almost pathetic tones. There is talk of crisis as Berlusconi to exorcise the reality of a perfect correspondence between the corruption of the political class and business-spread cynicism in society. But where would the crisis? The escalation of arrogance is not a sign of a crisis, I would say, but its opposite: it is a sign of stabilization of a system that no longer needs the law just because the law of the jungle to adjust the relations of insecurity, exploitation and slavery in the field of work and everyday life.
The more obvious is the contempt of the class in power for the law and rules, especially since the protest is focused on defending the law. The problem is that the law and the rules do not apply when there is no force to make them active. And where is the strength, what strength in a system centered on the production of media consciousness? ...
Perhaps we should stop to consider the Italian case as an anomaly: on the contrary it is the extreme example of the effects of deregulation, global phenomenon that destroys everything before every rule in the relationship between labor and capital ...
This happened all over the world not only in Italy since in which neoliberal policies have occupied the scene. The principle of the neoliberal school, the deregulation that destroyed the legal limits and political expansion of capitalism can not be understood as a purely political change ...
The global labor market becomes the place of pure law of violence, of oppression. It is no longer easy to use, but of slavery, violence against the pure life naked, helpless against the body of workers throughout the world. Violence has become the dominant economic force in the era neoliberal
... The violence is the force semiocapitalism regulating the economy, so there is no conflict with the references to the legality and morality ...
legally enforceable rules that have lapsed in the culture and work. Need to free society from legal, because the company began to flout the rules of semiocapitalism to be autonomous in the post-law has established that the semiocapitalism. What is needed is the strength of the company for not respecting the unwritten rules that capitalism has imposed, and to affirm a different way of life, a new solidarity of labor. Then, in the field of semiocapitalism without rules, the company can assert its needs and especially its potential. Defending the law becomes a laughable work when the power every day in fact declare that the rules do not matter anymore. Only from the abandonment of any legalistic illusion you can create social autonomy, to live up (or if you prefer to baseness) of the challenge that the semiocapitalism launched.

The "law equal for everyone" is so powerless, no longer able to regulate the civil society: the law of the jungle applies. It almost seems that the metaphysics of Nietzsche's Will to Power is the real engine of this transformation of the market, which will see the political front prone to market interests, and finance.
In this framework, the constant attack of Berlusconi to the judiciary, administration of law, finds its raison d'etre. The fortunes of Berlusconi, the result of corruption, tax evasion and money laundering for the Mafia, is clear evidence of a right that arises for the breach of any rule of any law. The Italian anomaly, perhaps, is that this will to power of finance and economics has appeared on the political scene in first person, without intermediaries.
The neo-liberal ideology with the myth of infinite growth that accompanies it, will not tolerate any limits, does not tolerate the constraint of laws. Growth is an end in itself, an end to measure the few who starve the rest of the world. How
Galimberti said in its myths of our time about the myth of growth in the face

Today the technique and the globalized economy, politics ... it appears as a deposed monarch who is between the maps of the state and civil society have been rendered unfit, because most do not refer to the locus of sovereignty. Compared to the age of Plato, in fact, the quantitative increase of production techniques in the service of an economy that has seen only in infinite growth that has led to reversal in the economy, and the work that the power to decide spaces which allow the policy, and if grant.
It follows that the direction of history is no longer in the hands of politics, which in Plato's ideal city is the interpreter ethics and, in view of the common good, the purposes it determines to make the work of men, but whose economy is in the hands to do, governed by instrumental reason, which requires the minimum use of resources to achieve maximum results, has subject to the act itself, ie the choice of ends to which deputies are always the ethics and politics, which is responsible for deciding which direction to give the "doing", and what policy actions are "doing".
(U. Galimberti, 2009, pp.284-285)

Thus the decisions that matter are not taken by the policy and do not respond to an ethic. We are at the tip of the categorical imperative that Kant raises the question rational if the maxim that inspires their actions can become law or not universally valid. It is the interest of the stronger, the privilege of a few, to become law, appropriating the territories of ethics and politics.
But at this point one may wonder, why this right to just get the consent of many. Those who evade taxes, those who practice corruption and malfeasance has obvious interest in supporting this right, outside the law. But the common citizen? To try to answer it is useful to draw a parallel with the world market and consumption. How do you convince consumers to buy goods which do not perceive a real need? It also produces the need! The production system, that is, not only produces goods but also their need and does so by building micronarratives legendary advertising, with their promises of happiness.
As Marx explains in 'German Ideology there is always a relationship between the ruling class and ruling ideas:

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, ie, the class which is the dominant material power of society is at the same time its dominant spiritual power. The class that has the means of production with this material has, at the same time, the means of intellectual production, so complex are subject to it in the ideas of those who lack the means of intellectual production.

The interest of the few neo-liberal ideology that is the corollary in terms of ideas, demands perpetually unsatisfied needs, needs to produce and recreate all the time. It needs, therefore, consumer and advertising provides the essential tool of persuasion and seduction to win minds and arouse desires. But the political communication is so far away from that ad? Just as the parable of Berlusconi demonstrated the political success depends increasingly on the use of the tools of advertising and manipulation of information according to the logic of advertising. Advertising which bear comparison as they fear comparative advertising that compares different products. In this key you can read the complaint as talk shows and Ballarò Year Zero. What I fear most the power that claims the right of the fittest is the law on the one hand and the other the freedom of information.

How Long Does It Take Omeprazole To Take Effect

Myths of yesterday and today



The first myth is narrative, originally a narrative about the birth of the gods, the cosmos or human (Theogony, Cosmogony and antropogonia). It is a narrative that attempts to explain the reality, its deep roots in the form of revelation: the poet speaks in the name of the deity, stating incontestable truth, a truth that can not be discussed, that they should be accepted with confidence. Are true, then, that impose themselves by force of a law of nature, and just like the laws of nature, seem not to know history, because if he was ever the same.
In the history of Greek myth is that knowledge that is the background to the emergence of the Logos, the rational discourse of Greek philosophy. Physiologists (or more commonly pre-Socratic) look at the nature and seek explanations of reason, assuming a first principle (arche), no more external in nature (for Thales L'Arche is water, for Anaximander is a primordial substance indefinite - apeiron - for L'Arche is Anaximenes air). The triumph of rational discourse will be celebrated by Plato in the ancient myth that sees a kind of childish fairy tale for spirits. Myth
logos and try to explain reality, but the two seem to run along parallel paths. How Galimberti said in his Dictionary of Psychology:

For the myth that there is actually not in a subjective inner world, expanded and screened out, as there is no inner world, as psychic reality of the subject that is not projected and objectified in the form of divine powers. The mythical story live and then the subjectivism of external reality el'oggettivizzazione the inner world. As a result of this welding, the myth is not the world that does not result in the collective vision of the world, so in every myth you can read a specific stage of development of collective social consciousness. In this context takes on all its major expression of Heraclitus: "Do not listen to me, but the logos it is wise to agree that all is one" where the exclusion of subjectivity and manipulation interpreter marks the transition from myth to logos, a description of things as they are experienced by those who said, their description of how the damage.

Where myth subjectivized reality, projecting and reifying the inner world, the logos is, in fact, trying to see reality in its objectivity, regardless of the interpreter. We can see, so in the rational discourse of the Logos, the embryo of scientific thought which wants to emancipate themselves from the metaphysical claims, unprovable, to accede to reality in its objectivity.
We tend to think that the myth is something that concerns the primitive thought, his naïve consciousness, while our culture, rooted in the logos, is convinced to join the reality for what it is. But if this belief may have valid reasons for regarding the knowledge of nature, one can not say the same with regard to the knowledge of social reality. We are very confident that our knowledge of the social reality to be rationally based and acceding to this reality?
In this regard, we read a passage from Roland Barthes's Mythologies:

The whole of France is steeped in this anonymous ideology: the press, cinema, theater, literature, widely used, the ceremonies, Justice , diplomacy, the conversations, the weather, the crime is judged that the marriage to which we are moved, the kitchen of our dreams, the clothes you wear, all in our daily lives, is a tributary of ' image that the bourgeoisie is done and there is the relationship between man and the world.

The "myth" in Barthes, consists of all those meanings or connotations for placing second on the first level of signification, the denotative level. Thus, a picture of a black soldier saluting the French flag can be read: 1) a simple gesture of loyalty, 2) "France is a great Empire, that all his children, without distinction of color, serve faithfully under its flag. " And 'this second level, in many ways "implicit" to naturalize the forms and rituals of contemporary bourgeois society. The mythologist must therefore be able to read this second semiological system so as to highlight the historical and ideological nature. In the essay titled To
Marx explains Louis Althusser concept of ideology in these terms:

ideology has little to do with 'consciousness' (...). It is deeply unconscious (...). Ideology is indeed a system of representations, but these representations have in most cases nothing to do with 'consciousness': they are mostly pictures, sometimes even concepts, but their main structures, and as such require the vast majority of people without going through their 'conscience'. Cultural objects are perceived-accepted-suffered acting on men through a process that escapes them.

Through this process of naturalization can reproduce the ideology and give the impression of being something outside of history.
The crucial question at this point is to understand which specific ideologies prevail in a given moment in a given situation, and which groups and classes which represent their interests. The distribution of power, in fact, is not homogeneous. In
'German Ideology Marx expresses clearly the relationship between the dominant ideas and the dominant groups in society:

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, ie, the class which is the dominant material power of society is same time its dominant spiritual power. The class that has the means of production with this material has, at the same time, means of intellectual production, so complex are subject to it in the ideas of those who lack the means of intellectual production.


The validity of these statements is clear if we think, for example, opportunities for access to the media. E 'indisputable fact that certain social groups are in a position to produce and disseminate their own definitions of the world.
Returning to the question on the alleged rationality of our knowledge of social reality, we can now groped for an answer.
We live in a complex of ideas that shape our world view, ideas often take for granted, as if they were the "natural" representation of reality. It is this absolute naturalness and to make them legendary, indisputable. You need a process of demystification, the recovery of critical thinking that is able to put in brackets the ideas of our time.
Galimberti in his fine essay The myths of our time invites us to the care of their own ideas, ideas complicating the myth of our time. Wrong views of the world, in fact, create suffering.

Pier Head Liverpool Depature Times

Otherness:

are born in relation to an otherness that slowly begin to recognize it as such. Exit the symbiosis and the narcissism makes us distinguish between an inside and outside, between I and not me. There is a push that makes us grow in the knowledge that we must relate and compare themselves with each other, but there is also a regressive pull it takes to return to narcissism and symbiosis. This drive can invest in the regressive group, group with which we measure our self-esteem and c'identifichiamo: then we begin to establish clear boundaries between what is similar to us and what is different. If this boundary is to say "I am that!" is a useful boundary is the boundary of identity, which needs to develop, the comparison with the other. Sometimes, however, when the identity is weak and comes the fear of getting lost or being invaded in the other, this becomes a border fence, where the enemy is more threatening, another self with whom there can be no meeting. And 'the phenomenon of "narcissistic cohesion": the measure of one's being group and its strength lies in opposing other groups.
In a cultural climate poisoned by fear, remain open to the relationship and a comparison with something else becomes a difficult exercise c'interroga constantly on our stereotypes and our prejudices. Unlike wants to be a space in which to develop a reflection on this fundamental dimension of existence, the otherness, in the belief that learning to relate to than the other constitutes the only prospect for growth as human beings. This difference may decline in several other ways: the difference in gender, ethnic difference, the difference of the disabled. These are the subjects of which it intends to address this space, weaving together the knowledge of the humanities: philosophy, pedagogy, psychology, ethology, anthropology, sociologia.Benvenuti!

Free Eye Check Up In Dallas

foundational category of being the eighth day in a didactic





I happened to see the film "The Eighth Day" with a class of fourth grade students and together with the third year of high school. In both cases, the film has been appreciated and, besides having an immediate emotional outlet, has given way to open an important discussion on the syndrome Down (Georges is a terrific actor with Down syndrome), the sense of helping relationship, respect for differences and the need for normality of Georges. It can be so well used as a moment of reflection of a group class that is preparing to welcome a fellow disabled.
begin with a brief reconstruction of the plot.


Plot
Harry, estimated teacher training company of Future Bank, teaches the path of success for future managers, based on a philosophy that summarizes in a few rules: Always smile and above all to imitate the other person, tics, attitudes and language. Why do people hate the other. It will meet very soon ... It is instead a "her day" with her estranged husband to take her children, but so absorbed in his work will eventually forget it and get to the station when the girls have now decided to go back. While reflecting on what his busy day at the wheel of his car, at night, Harry is caught by a gust of sleep and causes an accident has invested a dog. Now comes forth his alleged master, Georges, a young boy Down lost and delirious, fled the Institute which was relegated after the death of his mother. Feeling guilty about the death of his dog, Harry will try to remedy dealing with Georges. This leads, therefore, the first police station, where, however, will collide with the chicanery of the agent on duty. He does not just have to take it in their accommodation of "singles" and offer the only available bed, her. Several fruitless attempts to get rid of Georges, including the right to take him where his sister lives, Harry began a path towards human Georges that will take him to see the world from a new perspective. Until, having to be away for a moment the car in which he left, no longer Georges: rose on the terrace of the building, it was stuffed with chocolate - to which has a dangerous allergy - he lost his balance and fell down .

The course, after watching the film, could provide some demand-stimulus such as
1. What do you think is the meaning of the title of the film?
2. Because it is hosted by the Institute runs Georges?
3. How do you evaluate the meeting between George and Harry?
4. What changes in Harry?
5. What are the most difficult times for Georges?
6. What would have allowed a happy ending for Georges?


After this first stage of starting the discussion, one might propose a study, by linking the findings from the questions-stimulation with some key concepts:

- normal '"sick": this is the normality of Harry, a man in career estimated corporate trainer, which sells its infallible method that facade of smiles and optimism, optimism and smiles for a break before the failure as a husband and father. The film is like if you put a game out of the scene / background where the facade of fake good mood following the merciless portrait of a hopeless human failure.
- NEED normal 'OTHER: Georges runs the Institute, when his companions depart Institute misfortune to spend a family vacation: he has no family, no one who did not expect it, although later in the film you will discover the existence of a sister who has "removed" Georges (the unexpected appearance of Georges front of his house has its own flavor of return of the repressed). Georges "run", but in fact he goes to that space of normality represented in the film vanished from the family home is now empty.
- THE MEETING WITH THE DIFFERENCE 'AND co-evolution: the seemingly random encounter with Harry Georges (the impression of two objects that is overwhelmed by the waves of fate - in the film represented symbolically by the storm - to go on a crash 'etc.) will change both their lives, particularly Harry. What looks like a helpful one-way relationship (Harry helps Georges) will be transformed, in a dialectical reversal unexpected, the possibility of redemption and redemption of Harry. He will indeed learn to look at the world from an unusual perspective on the world, to look through the eyes of Georges, a look still full of wonder for the world. This new look will take him to regain his lost humanity. Georges will turn a house in Harry, that piece of normalcy so desired.
- THE EIGHTH DAY: "the eighth day" in addition to being the film's title is the title of the cosmogonic myth and antropogonico told by George that revisits the biblical myth: << in principio non c’era niente
 si sentiva solo la musica.
Il primo giorno fece il sole
 che pizzica gli occhi.
Il secondo giorno fece l’acqua:
è bagnata, e bagna i piedi
 se ci cammini dentro.
Poi fece il vento 
che fa il solletico.
Il terzo giorno fece l’erba, 
quando la tagli piange:
le fa male, bisogna consolarla, 
parlarle con dolcezza.
Se tocchi un albero 
diventi albero.
Il quarto giorno fece le vacche
, quando ansimano è caldo.
Il quinto giorno fece gli aeroplani
, se non li prendi
 puoi guardarli passare.
Il sesto giorno fece le persone:
gli uomini, le donne, i bambini
, io preferisco le donne e i bambini
 perché non pungono quando li baci.
Il settimo giorno, per riposarsi, fece le nuvole; 
se le guardi a lungo 
ci vedi disegnate le storie.
Allora si domandò se mancava niente:
l’ottavo giorno fece Georges e vide che era buono.>>. This myth invites you to think of the difference as a natural event. In the film, this "difference" clashes with the law without love the community: one part to the inherent right to exist as each other and, secondly, the law of the city that wants to confine the difference in the precincts of the Institutes. Georges is a conflict that leads to failure, to leap into the void. As a matter of normal there is no place for him ...

Freevents Philips M 1700 Driver

The Two tiger cubs

This story is conceived, written and dramatized by wonderful children of a fourth grade during an expressive workshop that I conducted during the school year 2005/06.

The Two tiger cubs

View more presentations from guest2ea0d1 .