#Gaya #Pachamama the #Noah's Descendants

 THE #EXTINCTION: "Earth provides enough for every person’s need but not for every person’s greed."   Mohandas K. #Gandhi You woke up from a prof...

Very Grateful to Prof Sara Bizarro, and The University of New Orleans!

 Kurosawa (left) and Toshiro Mifune (Rashomon's Tajomaru).

https://reality-to-who.blogspot.com/2012/12/nihilism-and-reality-kurosawas-rashomon.html

A Poesia Emana da Natureza!

"Quando as aves falam

com as pedras

e as rãs com as águas -

é de poesia que estão falando?"

Manoel de Barros

!El Amor es Cuántico!

Un gran amor, incluso después de acabarse, nunca muere,porque desde siempre es una paradoja flagrante.
El corazón, que nunca obedece a reglas,
ignorando el significado de 'realidad' y de nociones relacionadas,
riendo a carcajadas, proclama:
"Dejad la razón con sus reglas a los físicos,
fieles amantes de la gélida matemática.
¡Ninguna lógica se aplica a los deseos!"
Incluso si un odio mutuo brota entre los amantes,
no toma el lugar del amor ya muerto,
que non puede convertirse jamás en rencor,
Ni en ningún otro afecto. ¡Imposible!
Cuando ya sin vida cómo una piedra,
muerto nos persigue el amor.
¿A lo mejor cómo un zombi?
Humanos, ilusiones pretenciosas nos brotan siempre,
porque non podemos más que pretender existir,
para no ser vistos como meras gotas de nada.
¿Será que cuando el amor sale de escena, liberado de este truco ilusionista, el espacio-tiempo,
siguen los amantes enlazados como se fueran cuánticos?
Harán vínculo tan siniestro cómo aquel de los fotones,
que, pareados una vez,
continuarán a interactuar cómo tal para siempre, incluso después de alejados,
¿ignorando las distancias, a negar el ser mismo del espacio?
Einstein tomó el entanglement de partículas,
por hipótesis absurda, aceptable sólo como provisional.
En un arranque de modestia, yo me atrevo a decir:
¡Little Albert no ha visto que las partículas son amantes!
Quien ama sabe muy bien
qué confuso y 'no local' es amar.
Amantes no tienen por qué llorar ni celebrar sus separaciones,
y hay muchas razones para ello:
Segundo Nietzsche todo lo vivido hay que se repetir,
infinitas veces en un 'eterno retorno'.
Nuestros momentos más felices,
al igual de los más infernales volverán,
¡imposible escapar de esas idas y venidas eternas, amigos!
Que Dios, negando estar muerto,
cómo el alemán bigotudo, entre lágrimas, vino a anunciar,
mantennos a salvo de esta extraña pesadilla,
quizás nada más que una broma sádica del filósofo.
Pero ¿por qué nos asustaría tanto esta repetición interminable?
¿Será porque odiamos a nuestros ex amantes,
que simétricamente nos odian?
¿O porque los amamos y los odiamos,
al mismo tiempo, y desde siempre?

'O Outro Céu' de Julio Cortázar

Ponte Sentido-da-Vida, Praia do Sonho, Itanhaém

A tensão entre Eros e Thanatos maximizada em Paris, onde a intensidade de viver do narrador chega ao clímax, onde a vida lhe dá os prazeres mais intensos. Josiane é o amor maior, paixão fugidia, Eros explosivo. Laurent, o assassino de prostitutas, traz a ameaça constante da morte, Thanatos.
No Sul-Americano, indivíduo esquivo e misterioso, Cortázar incorpora a imagem de Lautrémont, o escritor franco-uruguaio, que viveu seus últimos dias na Paris cercada pelos prussianos, em 1871. Em seu longo poema em prosa, Maldoror, todas as máscaras de bondade caem, e o ser humano se mostra capaz de wcabrosas maldades, dignas de demônios. Semelhantes às atribuídas a Calígula ou ao Marquês de Sade, além de gratuitas e quotidianas.

Já a vida do narrador do conto é bem diversa: corretor de bolsa de valores em Buenos Aires, seu quotidiano é tédio puro, rotina massacrante dominada pelas aspirações de sua família. Tem uma noiva, num relacionamento maçante. 

Pode o desejo deixar-se sufocar pelo tédio? 

Em Paris, Thanatos atiça Eros, dando vida à paixão por Josiane,.

Em Buenos Aires, o tédio e o nada, simbolizados pelos mosquitos da ilha dos pais de Irma, é tudo o que resta.

Messalina and The Truth

Baccanal by Franz von Stuck

For millennia, philosophers and scientists have sought truths of universal value. Yet, it is quite curious that there are countless definitions of what this highly coveted "lady" might be indeed. Do so many people seek her without truly knowing what truth is? Despite this, everyone seems to agree that truths do exist. And all indications suggest that—at least in this plural sense—no one would dare deny it. Is the idea of ​​truth merely an instrumental concept tool for dealing with the world and constructing theories that are likewise instrumental?

The issue becomes truly complex when two or more alleged truths clash. What grounds are the attribution of truth to a statement regarding any fact, hypothesis, or theory? And how, from a moral and ethical standpoint, do we distinguish truth from a lie? Kant arguably made his most egregious error in this regard by asserting that a human being should never choose to lie—that doing so is always reprehensible. Yet, it is easy to imagine a situation that exposes the nonsense of this view: a revolutionary is hiding in your home during a bloody dictatorship. The political police arrive and ask, "Is [so-and-so] hiding in this house?" Telling the truth would mean handing the fugitive over to his likely killers and colluding with the dictators' illegitimate power—acts that are ethically abhorrent.

This example also makes it clear that power, legitimacy, ethics, and truth are inextricably intertwined.

Nietzsche dismantled the notion that truth can be pure and independent of any human perspective. In other words, he ruled out the existence of any absolute truth, arguing that all truths are subordinate to interests that are never explicit—often concealed or even unconscious to those who utter them. The point, then, is not to deny the existence of truths, but to highlight that they stem from perspectives and entail specific relations of social and political power. In short, truths are always relative. In everyday life, we frequently encounter situations—whether familial, social, or politically --involving conflicts between competing "truths." Proponents of a given opinion argue their case by invoking logic, coherence, ethical or religious principles, or even scientific theories to substantiate their choice of what they proclaim to be *the* truth.

It is evident just how significant a part these debates play in our lives. It is also noteworthy how heavily passions interfere in them, usually prevailing over the supposedly rational elements of the argument.

The notion of the "arbiter of truth" is surely well known—that peculiar figure who never listens to what others say, especially when their own established "truth" (or that of their group) is called into question. No matter the evidence to the contrary, their opinion remains fixed—impregnable and immune to any possible refutation. Typically, they turn up their noses and turn their backs on dissenters. They recall the proverbial "blind man who refuses to see."

It is disheartening to observe how common this attitude is among politicians of all stripes.

Yet, it is not only in ideological, political, or religious matters that individuals who deem themselves the sole owners of truth emerge; such figures appear frequently among great scientists as well. Freud policed ​​disciples who dared question his dogmas; Einstein insisted that God should not play dice... All signs point to this being an inherent weakness of *Homo sapiens*. Is this a cause for sadness? Or should we embrace *amor fati* and build something greater, acknowledging this limitation of ours?

No, there is no need to lament human smallness! *Amor Fati*. It is simply what we have: we are human beings—all too human.

I do not know if truth possesses any sort of essence that remains invariant over time. A few days ago, an analogy occurred to me involving a certain human archetype—one embodied countless times by historical figures, yet one that can be found everywhere. The figure of Messalina is frequently discussed in the history of Rome. She married Emperor Claudius at the age of fourteen; he was her uncle and was already forty-eight at the time of their union. There is no neutral source revealing the impact this age gap had on the nature of their relationship. What is known is that the young woman never limited her sexual encounters to her husband alone. Nor did he reproach her for this; one might even imagine he enjoyed the overflow of erotic passion from his beautiful, young, and fiery wife—passion fueled by the freedom to take whomever she pleased, whenever she pleased.

Messalina hosted public orgies in Rome's squares; in one instance, she challenged another beautiful young woman to a contest to see who could have full sexual intercourse (culminating in orgasm) with the greatest number of men in a single afternoon. The empress won the contest with twenty-five solid fucks!

Such is the nature of truth: like Messalina—a woman of extreme wantonness—it can never be owned,

 

Narciso e il 'Narcisismo' Contemporaneo Sono Diversi!

      L'opera dell'autore di questo blog, *Genealogia del Reale*, che sarà presto nelle librerie, mira ad approfondire la comprensione del ruolo della libido narcisistica nella formazione della personalità umana, così come postulato da Freud.È frequente che gli studiosi di psicologia e psicopatologia trattino la figura di Narciso — il Sé primordiale della fase narcisistica dello sviluppo libidico — in modo superficiale, attribuendogli erroneamente soltanto il tratto della negazione dell'altro o degli altri.
Si dimentica che, prima di negare ciò che sta al di fuori di sé, Narciso necessariamente afferma se stesso!
Eppure, solo da questa radicale autoaffermazione del Sé primordiale può scaturire la dialettica che, nel contatto con l'altro, genera il complesso di Edipo.
Un approccio riduttivo al ruolo di questo "Narciso" primordiale impoverisce inevitabilmente la comprensione e l'analisi del complesso di Edipo e dello sviluppo della personalità nel suo complesso.
Solo un lettore assai disattento potrebbe immaginare che l'obiettivo sia quello di edulcorare l'immagine negativa — ampiamente diffusa ma giustificata — dei "narcisisti" nel mondo contemporaneo. Nulla di più lontano dal vero! Il cosiddetto "narcisismo" contemporaneo conserva ben poco, se non nulla, di quell'affermazione radicale propria della libido narcisistica infantile.
Si tratta indubbiamente di un fenomeno generato dal folle consumismo che tiene in scacco la società globale: la forza causante di tanta distruzione nella Natura che ci circonda! Spinte costantemente a consumare in modo compulsivo, le persone si ripiegano su un'immagine di sé — un'immagine reificata e trasformata in cosa, in merce — che cercano di vendere e di godere autoeroticamente!
Un compito urgente attende chi si dedica allo studio dello sviluppo della libido e della personalità: comprendere come questa libido narcisistica venga appropriata dalla struttura della produzione capitalistica.