#de docta ignorantia

[bocadosdefilosofia]

«Por lo tanto, las oposiciones convienen tan sólo a aquello que admite excedente y exceso, y le convienen diferentemente. De ninguna manera le convienen al absolutamente máximo porque está por sobre toda oposición. Porque, en consecuencia, lo absolutamente máximo es absolutamente en acto todo lo que puede ser sin oposición alguna, de tal manera que en lo máximo coincida lo mínimo; entonces está sobre toda afirmación y de la misma manera también sobre toda negación. Y todo aquello que se concibe que es, no es más es que no-es. Y todo aquello que se concibe que no es, no es más no-es que es. Pero de tal manera es esto que es todo; y de tal manera todo que es ninguno; y de tal manera máximamente esto que es mínimamente lo mismo. No es, pues, decir otra cosa: “Dios, que es la misma maximidad absoluta, es luz”, que “Dios de tal manera es máximamente luz que es mínimamente luz”. Pues, de otro modo, la maximidad absoluta no sería todos los posibles en acto, si no fuera infinita y el término de todo y por nada determinable, como en lo subsiguiente habremos de explicitar por la misericordia de Dios.»

Nicolás de Cusa: Acerca de la docta ignorancia, libro I: Lo máximo absoluto. Editorial Biblos, págs. 47-49. Buenos Aires, 2003.

TGO

@bocadosdefilosofia

@dias-de-la-ira-1

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Life, as it exists in this corner of the universe, in the form of men, animals and plants, is to be found, let us suppose in a high form in the solar and stellar regions. Rather than think that so many stars and parts of the heavens are uninhabited and that this home celestial body of ours alone is peopled – and that with beings perhaps of an inferior type – we will suppose that in every region there are inhabitants, differing in nature by rank and all owing their origin to God, who is the center and circumference of all stellar regions… Therefore, the inhabitants of other stars — of whatever sort these inhabitants might be – bear no comparative relationship to the inhabitants of the Earth (istius mundi). That is true even if, with respect to the goal of the universe, that entire region bears to this entire region a certain comparative relationship which is hidden to us — so that in this way the inhabitants of this Earth or region bear, through the medium of the whole region, a certain mutual relationship to those other inhabitants. (By comparison, the particular parts of the fingers of a hand bear, through the medium of the hand, a comparative relationship to a food; and the particular parts of the foot bear, through the medium of the foot, a comparative relationship to a hand — so that all members are comparatively related to the whole animal.) Hence, since the entire region is unknown to us, those inhabitants remain altogether unknown. Quare patet per hominem non esse scibile, an regio terræ sit in gradu perfectiori et ignobiliori respectu regionum stellarum aliarum, solis, lunæ et reliquarum, quoad ista. Neque etiam quoad locum; puta quod hic locus mundi sit habitatio hominum et animalium atque vegetabilium, quæ in gradu sunt ignobiliora in regione solis et aliarum stellarum habitantium. Nam etsi Deus sit centrum et circumferentia omnium regionum stellarum et ab ipso diversæ nobilitatis naturæ procedant in qualibet regione habitantes, ne tot loca cælorum et stellarum sint vacua et solum ista terra fortassis de minoribus inhabitata, tamen intellectuali natura, quæ hic in hac terra habitat et in sua regione, non videtur nobilior atque perfectior dari posse secundum hanc naturam, etiamsi alterius generis inhabitatores sint in aliis stellis. Non enim appetit homo aliam naturam, sed solum in sua perfectus esse. Improportionabiles igitur sunt illi aliarum stellarum habitatores, qualescumque illi fuerint, ad istius mundi incolas, etiamsi tota regio illa ad totam regionem istam ad finem universi quandam occultam nobis proportionem gerat, ut sic inhabitatores istius terræ seu regionis ad illos inhabitatores per medium universalis regionis hinc inde quandam ad se invicem habitudinem gestent, sicut particulares articuli digitorum manus per medium manus proportionem habent ad pedem et particulares articuli pedis per medium pedis ad manum, ut omnia ad animal integrum proportionata sint. Unde, cum tota nobis regio illa ignota sit, remanent inhabitatores illi ignoti penitus, sicut in hac terra accidit, quod animalia unius speciei quasi unam regionem specificam facientia se uniunt et mutuo propter communem regionem specificam participant ea, que eorum regionis sunt, de aliis nihil aut se impedientes aut veraciter apprehendente. —Nicolaus Cardinal Kues, De docta ignorantia, lib ii, cap xii (1439), in: Philosophisch-theologische Werke in lateinischer und deutscher Sprache, vol 1, pp. 100–103. 

[Scott Horton]

[musicmakesyousmart]

Paregorik / Taklamakan - Death by Human Stupidity / De Docta Ignorantia

Circumanalis Records

2009

[homeoftheraindeer]

Antropomorfnost Boga? (ulomci Ksenofana, Ozrena Žuneca i Ćirila Čoha)

Nego, da volovi i konji i lavovi imaju ruke

i da rukama svojim slikati mogu i djelati kao i ljudi

likove bogova na svoju bi slikali sliku,

konji konjima slične, a volovi volu podobne,

i tijelu bi davali oblik na svoju prispodobu

Etiopljani kažu da su bogovi tuponosi i crni,

a Tračani da su očiju plavih i crvene kose.

Ksenofan, fragmenti B15 i B16 u prijevodu Jure Kaštelana; Diels, Hermann Predsokratovci. Fragmenti I., Zagreb 1983., str. 133.

Spinoza ovaj motiv gotovo doslovce ponavlja, rabeći doduše prispodobe prilagođene vremenu uspona znanosti:

Kad bi trokut mogao govoriti onda bi govorio upravo to da je Bog eminentno trokutan, a kružnica [bi govorila] da je Božja narav u eminentnom smislu kružna i na taj način svak bi svoje atribute pripisivao Bogu i Boga sebi činio sličnim, a sve ostalo bi mu se pokazivalo kao ružno. (Ep. 56)

Međutim, budući da svaka filozofijska kritika onakve biti Boga kakva se pojavljuje u prihvaćenim predodžbama govori ponajprije o konkretnoj epohalnoj krizi same religije, u Spinozinu ponavljanju Ksenofanova motiva krije se mnogo više od standardnog racionalističkog prigovora prosječnom tumačenju objave. Antropomorfizam religije sam po sebi znači bliskost bogova ili Boga i ljudi, njihovu načelnu usporedivost, a daje i široke mogućnosti za izgradnju i legitimaciju morala i vrednota ljudske zajednice budući da se osnovne odredbe ljudskog života mogu uvijek shvatiti kao utemeljene u božanskom poretku ili Božjoj volji.

ulomak iz Ozren Žunec, Benedikt de Spinoza, u Damir Barbarić, Filozofija racionalizma, Zagreb: Školska knjiga 1997., str. 206.-207.

Finiti ad infinitum nulla est proportio. (Nikola Kuzanski, De visione Dei, 23.)

Između konačnog i beskonačnog, nema nikakvog odnosa. Čovjek kao istraživač mjeri istinu svojom vlastitom mjerom i tako biva mjera svih stvari. Približava se istini ali o njoj ne može imati znanje. Prava mjera istine je Bog, Beskonačno. Ljudskom mjerom je ono božansko neizmjerljivo. Poimanje toga moguće je kroz poimanje kruga. Tako je Kuzančeva čuvena rasprava De docta ignorantia, (O učenom neznanju) gdje se predmet tog (ne)znanja, istina, izlaže kao coincidentia oppositorum, promišljanje kruga. U prvom poglavlju stoji:

Svako se istraživanje sastoji u postavljanju odnosa i poredbi, bilo to jednom lakše drugi put teže. Ono beskonačno kao beskonačno nespoznatljivo je zato što izmiče svakoj usporedivosti.

Da je problem spoznaje općenito usporediv sa spoznajom kruga izričito se kaže u trećem poglavlju:

Konačni um ne može precizno dosegnuti istinu o stvarima. Istina nije nešto više ili nešto manje već je nedjeljiva. Ono što nije istina ne može precizno mjeriti istinu. Za usporedbu, ono što nije krug ne može mjeriti kružno koje je nedjeljivo.

Ova se usporedba u nastavku još jače produbljuje:

Intelekt je spram istine kao (upisani) mnogokut prema (opisanom) krugu. Što upisani mnogokut ima više kutova to je sličniji krugu. Pa ipak, čak ako se broj kutova poveća u beskonačnost, mnogokut nikada ne postaje jednak krugu. Savršena preciznost bila bi identitet 

Ovo svojstvo kruga kojim se on pokazuje kao paradigma odnosa ljudske i božanske mjere, odnosno spoznaje, najopširnije je prikazana u jednom od kasnijih djela Kuzanskog, u De quadratura circuli. Dokazujući kako je kvadratura kruga nemoguća Kuzanski navodi razlog da kvadrat ili bilo koji mnogokut i krug nisu entiteti iste vrste, premda se može utvrditi da određeni mnogokut može doći bliže zadanom krugu od drugog. Mnogokut može biti veći ili manji ali ne može dosegnuti apsolutni maksimum ni u stvarnosti ni u mogućnosti. U usporedbi sa mnogokutima koji dopuštaju veće i manje, područje kruga je područje apsolutnog maksimuma. Ono što se broji ne može dosegnuti snagu shvaćanja jedinstva, a mnogostrukost ne može dosegnuti snagu jednostavnosti. Svi teolozi žele dosegnuti vječnost sličnu krugu, jedinstvenu i najjednostavniju. Ali konačna moć je nesumjerljiva sa bilo kojom ne-beskonačnom, kao što područje kruga ostaje nesumjerljivo sa bilo kojim područjem ne-kruga. Krug je savršen lik i sadrži sva moguća savršenstva likova; njegova površina uključuje sve površine i nema ništa zajedničko s bilo kojom od njih; u sebi je jedinstvena i jednostavna; on je apsolutna vječnost forme svih formi i opet nema ništa zajedničko ni sa jednom formom.

Kada bi lav pogledao na lice Boga, vidio bi ga kao lava, jelen u obliku jelena, a orao kao orla... Na taj način u svim pogledima to lice svih lica je zaklonjeno, i kao u zagonetki ne može biti otkriveno. (Nikola Kuzanski, De visione Dei, VI.)

U De Pace Fidei Kuzanski u istom duhu govori o nemogućnosti svođenja svih religija na jednu. Tu pripovijeda kako su pred prijestolje Božje došli predstavnici svih naroda i svih religija žaleći se na to da ih raznorodnost vodi u sukobe i mržnje. Molili su ga da im pokaže svoje pravo lice i da im tako omoguće svima zajedničku religiju. No Bog ih nije uslišao, istina o Bogu prisutna je u svim religijama ali na taj način što te religije upućuju na njenu odsutnost. Ta bi se istina izgubila kad bi sve religije bile svedene na jednu. To je kao u krugu: pravilni mnogokut se približava krugu, i što ima više kutova tim je veća ta bliskost, ali ipak on nikada neće postati krug. Pokušaj poistovjećivanja kruga na jedan od pravilnih mnogokuta pa ma koliko stranica imao ukinulo bi istinu kruga.

Svako biće teži da odredi Boga unutar svoje ograničene egzistencije: tako trokut želi triangulaturu, a kvadrat kvadraturu kruga i tako dalje sa svim drugim mnogokutima. Krug, kao i Bog, apsolutno nadmašuje svaku mjeru mnoštva jer je on veći od bilo koje istražive mjere. On nadilazi i svaku finu mjeru najmanje frakcije jer je on finiji od svih frakcija. On ne može biti precizno dohvaćen niti uzlaženjem niti silaženjem.

Ćiril Čoh, Krug - mjera istraživanja i bivanja, 2006.

[osobypostacieludzie]

Mircea Eliade - rumuński historyk religii, religioznawca, indolog, filozof kultury, a także eseista, pisarz i dyplomata. Urodził się jako syn kapitana Gheorghe Eliadego i Ioany Stoenescu. W latach 1925–1928 studiował filozofię na uniwersytecie w Bukareszcie pod kierunkiem rumuńskiego filozofa Nae Ionescu. Uczył się też wtedy języków obcych, m.in. włoskiego, angielskiego i hebrajskiego. W latach 1928–1932 przebywał na stypendium w Indiach (uniwersytet w Kalkucie i półroczny pobyt w aśramie). Po powrocie doktoryzował się w 1933 roku na podstawie pracy Historia porównawcza techniki jogi. W tym samym roku otrzymał stanowisko profesora na uniwersytecie w Bukareszcie. W listopadzie 1934 roku rozpoczął wykłady zatytułowane Zbawienie w religiach orientalnych, zimą 1935 roku prowadził seminarium o Docta ignorantia Mikołaja z Kuzy. Wykładał też na wielu innych uniwersytetach europejskich (m.in. w Berlinie, Londynie, Bernie). W roku 1939 utrzymywał kontakty ze skrajnie prawicową organizacją, Żelazną Gwardią (rum. Garda de Fier), której członkowie 27 listopada 1940 roku zamordowali Nicolae Iorgę. W marcu 1940 roku dzięki poparciu Constantina Giurescu – rumuńskiego ministra propagandy – Eliade został powołany na funkcję attaché kulturalnego w ambasadzie rumuńskiej w Londynie. W Rumunii latem tego samego roku królewska dyktatura Karola II przekształciła się w reżim zorientowany na Niemcy. W konsekwencji w lutym 1941 roku po zerwaniu przez Wielką Brytanię stosunków dyplomatycznych z Rumunią Eliade został przeniesiony do Lizbony. W lipcu 1942 roku Eliade po raz ostatni przyjechał do Rumunii, aby osobiście doręczyć posłanie portugalskiego dyktatora Antonio Salazara rumuńskiemu dyktatorowi, generałowi Ionowi Antonescu. Od listopada do grudnia 1944 w rumuńskiej gazecie Dreptatea pojawiało się wiele artykułów autorstwa Oscara Lemnaru na temat ewentualnego powrotu Eliadego do Rumunii. Pisano wówczas: Mircea Eliade chce powrócić do kraju. Oczywiście – nie możemy być przeciwni, ale również nie możemy go powitać chyba z tysiąca powodów: (...) 2) reprezentuje za granicą rumuński hitleryzm (...). Byłoby lepiej, gdyby odjechał do Indii. W roku 1944 faszystowskie rządy w Rumunii upadły. Eliade, świadom negatywnego wizerunku swej osoby w kraju, wyemigrował w 1945 roku do Francji. Jego konserwatywne i nacjonalistyczne sympatie są najlepiej widoczne w książce poświęconej Antonio Salazarowi pt. Salazar a rewolucja portugalska (rum. Salazar şi revoluţia din Portugalia, 1942). We wrześniu 1945 roku przybył do Paryża, gdzie – na zaproszenie Georges’a Dumézila – wygłosił wykład w École Pratique des Hautes Études. W 1949 roku poślubił Christinel Cottesco. Na wiosnę tego samego roku wyjechał do Włoch, gdzie na zaproszenie Giuseppe Tucciego i Raffaele Petazzoniego wygłosił wykład na Uniwersytecie Rzymskim. W sierpniu wziął udział w pierwszej konferencji Eranosa w Asconie, gdzie poznał Carla Gustava Junga, Gerardusa van der Leeuwa i Louisa Massignona. We wrześniu uczestniczył w międzynarodowym Kongresie Historii Religii w Amsterdamie. W latach 1951-1955 był stypendystą nowojorskiej Bollingen Foundation. We wrześniu 1956 roku wyjechał do Stanów Zjednoczonych, gdzie prowadził wykłady w ramach Haskell Lectures w Uniwersytecie w Chicago. W październiku otrzymał na tym uniwersytecie stanowisko profesora (visiting professor) historii religii. Odtąd co roku nauczał dwa semestry w Chicago, a wakacje spędzał w Europie. W 1960 roku wziął udział w Kongresie Historii Religii w Marburgu. W 1970 roku wziął udział w Międzynarodowym Kongresie Historii Religii w Sztokholmie. Osobista przyjaźń wiązała Eliadego, m.in. z Samuelem Beckettem, Emilem Cioranem, Eugéne Ionesco, Paulem Ricoeurem; Eliade przyjaźnił się i korespondował z Carlem Gustavem Jungiem. Z własnego życia szczegółowo zdał sprawozdanie w dzienniku Moje życie.Mircea Eliade już za życia stał się legendą. Obecnie jest powszechnie znanym religioznawcą i zalicza się go do klasyków myśli humanistycznej. Pozostaje jednak postacią kontrowersyjną, po pierwsze z uwagi na swoje wczesne poglądy polityczne, po drugie z uwagi na ocenę wartości jego prac. Podczas gdy przez wielu uważany jest za autora publikacji o doniosłym znaczeniu i twórcę nowatorskich koncepcji, to z innej strony padają oskarżenia o brak naukowości. Wskazuje się, że jego prace mają wartość bardziej literacką niż naukową. Zarzuca mu się brak jednoznaczności i ścisłości metodologicznej.Choć Eliade przytacza opisy różnorodnych rytuałów na poparcie swoich teorii, jest oskarżany o dopuszczanie się nieuzasadnionych uogólnień. Wielu uczonych wskazuje na brak dowodów, które pozwoliłyby na uznanie jego idei za uniwersalne, czy choćby ogólne zasady myślenia religijnego. Zdaniem Douglasa Allena Eliade jest być może najbardziej popularnym i wpływowym współczesnym historykiem religii ale wielu, o ile nie większość specjalistów w zakresie antropologii, socjologii czy nawet historii religii albo zignorowało albo szybko odrzuciło prace Eliadego. Także Geoffrey Kirk uważa, że Eliade nadmiernie rozszerza swoje teorie. Na przykład twierdząc, że mit szlachetnego dzikusa wynika z religijnych skłonności do idealizowania pierwotnych, mitycznych epok. Zdaniem Kirka takie ekstrawagancje, wraz z tendencją do powtórzeń, sprawiły, że Eliade stał się niepopularny wśród wielu antropologów i socjologów.Prace Eliadego są krytykowane także za brak empirycznych dowodów. Zdaniem krytyków Eliade nie zaproponował odpowiedniej metodologii do badań nad historią religii, które uczyniłyby ją nauką empiryczną. Przykładowo, antropolog Alice Kehoe krytykuje prace Eliade na temat szamanizmu wskazując, że nie wykonał on żadnych badań terenowych ani nie kontaktował się z grupami tubylców, którzy praktykowali szamanizm – przeprowadził jedynie syntezę informacji pochodzących z różnych źródeł, nie dbając o poparcie swych tez wynikami badań terenowych.Ronald Inden – historyk Indii z Uniwersytetu w Chicago – skrytykował Mircea Eliadego, a także innych intelektualistów (w tym Carla Junga i Josepha Campbella), za propagowanie „romantycznej wizji” hinduizmu i wskazał, że ich podejście opiera się głównie na orientalizmie i ukazuje hinduizm jako prywatne królestwo wyobraźni i religijności, którego potrzeba, ale brakuje, człowiekowi Zachodu.

[jamesgraybooksellerworld]

Nicolás de Cusa: «De Docta Ignorantia»

Nicolás de Cusa: «De Docta Ignorantia»

Hard translating but worth it. De Docta Ignorantia. is one of my favorite books.

[bocadosdefilosofia]

«Filosofía es conocimiento del Universo o de todo cuanto hay. Ya vimos que esto implicaba para el filósofo la obligación de plantearse un problema absoluto, es decir, de no partir tranquilamente de creencias previas, de no dar nada por sabido anticipadamente. Lo sabido es lo que ya no es problema. Ahora bien, lo sabido fuera, aparte o antes de la filosofía, es sabido desde un punto de vista parcial y no universal, es un saber de nivel inferior que no puede aprovecharse en la altitud donde se mueve a nativitate el conocimiento filosófico. Visto desde la altura filosófica, todo otro saber tiene carácter de ingenuidad y de relativa falsedad, es decir, que se vuelve otra vez problemático. Por eso Nicolás Cusano llamaba a las ciencias docta ignorancia.»

José Ortega y Gasset: ¿Qué es filosofía? Revista de Occidente, pág. 110. Madrid, 1958.

TGO

@bocadosdefilosofia

@dias-de-la-ira-1

[newsnigeria]

Check out New Post published on Ọmọ Oòduà

New Post has been published on http://ooduarere.com/news-from-nigeria/world-news/in-praise-of-shamelessness/

In Praise of Shamelessness

by Jimmie Moglia for Ooduarere.com

So much has been said about the Venezuelan crisis that adding more would equate to gilding the lily or bringing coal to Newcastle.

The following, then, is but a brief aside on the psychology and physiognomy of the protagonists of the ongoing coup, starting with Guaido’ – or “Guido” as per Mike Pompeo’s re-baptism, while he anointed him as self-appointed president of Venezuela.

The true face of Guaido?

If the face is indeed an open book where men may read strange matters, the attached image of the afore-said putative president of Venezuela proves the point. A camera immortalized him thus in 2009, during a political demonstration.

I have unprofessionally modified some extreme features to obscure a part of the body that I will forbear to mention out of my inviolable respect for the ladies.

Still, apart from the image, it is as clear as the summer sun that, despite his pathetic rabble-rousing, Guido is but one of the many lying knaves and stipended ruffians, abounding in politics and in Christendom at large.

Political liars notoriously invert factual reality to suit their personal interest, or utter bragging and platitudinal nonsense about freedom, democracy and the like. Confirming the proven maxim that ‘it will come to pass that every braggart shall be found an ass.’

On the other hand, watching the current Administration with an impartial eye, it would appear that bragging and arrogance are recommended as the supply of every defect, and the ornament of every excellence.

Furthermore, given the Administration’s engineering of the Venezuelan coup, I wonder how the same Administration would react if a congressman or senator imitated Guido and declared himself president, instead of the elected Trump.

Sometimes chances mock, and changes occur unexpectedly in place and time. For instance in France, where it is impossible to ignore the similarity between the two winters of discontent, distant in space but not in time.

For the yellow-jackets shout “Macron Dimission” in France, as loud as Guido wants Maduro to resign in Venezuela. Probably the Administration thinks that the fool multitudes that choose by show should either avoid to ask what is the difference between Macron and Maduro, or provide unaided their own answer.

As for Mike Pompeo, add a glass of wine in one hand and a sausage in the other and we have a tolerable reincarnation of Falstaff, or of one of the gluttons in the hell of Dante’s Divine Comedy, though in some way more sublimely ridiculous – or rather, more ridiculous and less sublime.

Politically, Pompeo states that, “The Heritage Foundation has shaped my thinking on matters of the world and public policy issues.” Where ‘thinking’ refers to Reaganomics, Thatcherism and freedom to loot and pollute by the usual suspects. An ideology perfectly embodied in the notorious “Citizen United” Supreme Court case, which treats corporations as persons – sanctifying the notion that he who has (or receives) the most money wins the elections (presidential or otherwise).

Internationally and briefly stated, the Heritage Foundation stands for regime-change in any country whose interests appears not directly benefiting the elites who created, maintain and fund the think-tank. Besides Venezuela, Nicaragua is at the front, along with El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Grenada, Cuba and, of course, all wars in the Middle East.

According to Pompeo, Congress should pass a law re-establishing collection of all metadata. Followed by combining the collection with publicly available financial and lifestyle information of individuals into a comprehensive and searchable database. That is, legal and bureaucratic impediments to surveillance should be removed.

Understandably, Pompeo opposes closing Guantanamo. After a visit to the prison while some prisoners were on hunger strike, he said, “It looks to me like a lot of them had put on weight.” Though he may have been inspired to say so while seeing himself in the mirror.

He criticized the Obama administration’s decision to end secret prisons and the requirement that all interrogators adhere to anti-torture laws.

Expectedly, Pompeo strongly disagreed with the nuclear deal with Iran negotiated during the Obama administration. He said, “I look forward to rolling back this disastrous deal with the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism.” Adding that a better option than negotiating with Iran would be to directly carry out “under 2,000 sorties to destroy the Iranian nuclear capacity. This is not an insurmountable task for the coalition forces.”

Naturally, during a visit to Israel in 2015, Pompeo said that “Prime Minister Netanyahu is a true partner of the American people” (!), and that “Netanyahu’s efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons are incredibly admirable and deeply appreciated”. And further, “In the fight against terrorism, cooperation between Israel and the United States has never been more important,…we must stand with our ally Israel and put a stop to terrorism. Ongoing attacks by the Palestinians serve only to distance the prospect of peace.”

Given that Israel just killed or wounded about 3000 Palestinians during the last year of unarmed demonstrations by Palestinians in Gaza, I will direct the Aesopian-minded reader to review or remember the Latin story about the wolf and the lamb.

Of Assange, “… we can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us. To give them the space to crush us with misappropriated secrets is a perversion of what our great Constitution stands for. It ends now … Assange and his ilk make common cause with dictators today. Yes, they try unsuccessfully to cloak themselves and their actions in the language of liberty and privacy; in reality, however, they champion nothing but their own celebrity. Their currency is click-bait; their moral compass, nonexistent. Their mission: personal self-aggrandizement through the destruction of Western values.”

Talk about a world upside-down. Even assuming the statement to be true, it’s a case of the pot calling the kettle black or, if you like, of whipping his own faults in other men. As for his interpretation of “Western values” maybe Mr. Pompeo should speak for himself and stick them up where he thinks best.

He disapproved of the “Clean Power Plan” and in 2013 introduced the self-explanatory “Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act.” And in his latest performance he has taken to insulting the nation of Venezuela with the rage of a superstitious crank.

If there’s a history in all men’s lives, the tales of Pompeo speak for themselves. As they do for Bolton, whose own history and actions in government prove him to be as opposite to any good as the south is to the north.

Bolton personifies, in appearance and posturing, the classic bully, qualified by nature, servility and experience to exercise the office of a criminal. He is as prone to mischief as able to perform it. The number of Bolton’s ‘accomplishments’ is great and well known – listing them would constitute an unwanted mode of annoyance.

Suffice a short glimpse of his mode of reasoning on an important issue. Bolton enlisted in the Maryland Army National Guard, which was at the time an unofficially-official means to avoid the draft, and being sent to Vietnam. In a 25threunion book of his university he wrote, “I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy. I considered the war in Vietnam already lost.” And in his own book he clarified his decision, “… by the time I was about to graduate in 1970, it was clear to me that opponents of the Vietnam War had made it certain we could not prevail, and that I had no great interest in going there to have Teddy Kennedy give it back to the people I might die to take it away from.”

A statement that would be a perfect entry in an instruction and operating manual for chicken-hawks, in the chapter titled, “How to persuade others that cowardice is courage.”

According to experts in his train, Bolton is a “conservative” rather than a “neo-conservative.” What’s the difference? It’s a diffuse and complicated question that may be examined by different methods, upon different principles – it requires a great labor of research and dexterity of application.

Suffice to say that the neo-conservative movement was founded by a handful of followers of the communist philosopher Leon Trotsky. Which makes communists of the neo-conservatives, and neo-conservatives of communists. A perfect instance of the unity of opposites “Coincidentia Oppositorum” – a term attributed to 15th century German philosopher Nicholas of Cusa in his essay, “De Docta Ignorantia,” (Of Learned Ignorance.)

But I digress. There is one more character in the troika of evil in the train of Trump. Associate his deeds with his countenance, add a couple of horns, and an observer may be tempted to say, “Here comes the devil in the likeness of Elliot Abrams.” And although national security frees crime from reproach, Abrams, as we know, is actually a convicted criminal, later pardoned by Bush Jr.

Again, rather than a list of his crimes, a glimpse into his mode of reasoning is shorter and I think more meaningful.

Needless to say, all members of the troika are Israel-firsters. In 2005 Abrams, as an even more special friend of Israel, was a protagonist in a meeting between the US Foreign Secretary and Syrian envoys, including the Syrian minister for emigration, Bouthaina Shaaban. The US advanced the thesis that Syria was hostile to the American invasion of Iraq – because, allegedly, Syria allowed the Iraqis defending themselves against the US, to cross into Syria.

They were pretexts. The Syrians told the US party that the news was false and probably propagated by hearsay. If the Americans wanted to know the truth, they should visit and interview those who lived in the affected area.

Abrams then pulled Ms. Shaaban aside and said, “What is the relevance of truth in what happens in the world? The important thing is the concept and the images that affect the minds of people. Whether the conveyed images reflect reality is secondary and reflect nothing.”

From which we deduct what we already know, namely that, for the US Administration, reality is an abstraction, where the truth or falsehood of a fact depends on the size of the audience, as with a TV serial.

I could not verify the source of the anecdote, but it fits the character. Besides, it is almost a mirror rendering of the historical answer given by Donald Rumsfeld to a journalist who questioned the truth and reality of an Iraq-related report, “We create our own reality.” Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defence during the Bush Jr. invasion of Iraq.

Back to Venezuela. I realize I am in a minority, but I do not think that the primary US goal of destroying Maduro is the desire to own the oil resources of Venezuela. Just as in Iraq Saddam Hussein was quite happy to sell the oil to any buyer who agreed on the price.

Astutely, the media serfs of the deep state have foisted two creeds onto their followers. One is for the distracted multitude, who like not in their judgment but their eyes (or ears). It holds that Venezuela is a dictatorship and Maduro tortures and starves the Venezuelans, because he is a socialist.

The idea may satisfy a certain section of an old right that associates the words ‘socialism’ or ‘social measures’ with evil.

The other creed addresses those who prefer to believe a more tenable reason than a somewhat obsolete fear of socialism. In twitter-like terms the creed goes, “They do it for the oil” – where ‘they’, of course, are the wise guys of the State Department.

Instead, I rather think that the ongoing attempted coup in Venezuela follows the steps of the so-called ‘globalization’, a euphemism for the Kalergi Plan, described in the article “The Waves of Time,” and carried out according to the objectives – of and for – the chosen people.

That the political-ideological leaders of the chosen people may have a particular ax to grind with Venezuela is understandable. It is one of the few countries not to have diplomatic relations with Israel. And while defending the Palestinians during a televised rally, Hugo Chavez called Israel “un pays de mierda.”

Given that even a minor criticism of Israel causes the ADL to brand the critic as an ‘anti-Semite,’ Venezuela had it coming. Keeping in mind that Saddam Hussein was also a defender of the Palestinians.

But there are other indirect signs showing the progress of the Kalergi Plan, besides the hatred for Venezuela.

For example, the inflow of migrants into Europe continues steadily, even if the media no longer talks much about it. From what I am told by some friends, migrants in Italy, unofficially are no longer required to pay for public transportation, nor are they asked to show a ticket. This follows various reported cases of a conductor being assaulted by migrants when they were requested to produce the ticket. Though the same world media give ample coverage to any episode that may be artfully construed as ‘racist.’

Just very recently, Feb 4, 19, in Sweden, a black pregnant woman was removed from a train for not having a ticket. All networks broadcasted the news, claiming that the woman had been roughly handled. Even so, she had a voice strong enough to complain and threaten the allegedly ‘racist’ police.

Here in the US I will refer to the sequence of events surrounding the Covington Catholic High School students’ trip to Washington D.C, for a peaceful demonstration against abortion. Apparently they do this every year, as a component of their guided visit to the capital (and they pay for the trip).

Anyone can have his own views on abortion, but no one, as yet, prohibits peaceful demonstrations. As most readers may know, the media blasted the students for not yielding to an abusive group of Black Israelis (sic), plus one Native American who chanted and banged his war-drum in the face of the students.

The media attempted to turn the event into another Charlottesville, but further videos showed clearly who were the attackers and that the students reacted quite civilly, without answering in words and kind to the provocative actions of their opponents.

In the meantime, in one of its articles, the Guardian interviewed a Dan Siegel, a Jewish psychiatrist, interested in remodeling the teenage brain to prevent what he calls “in-group attachments” – translation, consciousness of being white.

Siegel has invented a method called “mindfulness wheel of awareness” aimed at leading his patients to abandon any sense of ethnic identity (Kalergi docet). He called his method ‘Essence’ (Emotional Sparks, Social Engagement, Novelty-seeking and Creative Exploration). Here is a quotation showing all the finesse of Freud-like pseudo-science.

“You want to expand your “circle of identity” so that within the phrase “like me” you include a lot of diversity. What I would say is that the plane of possibility is accessed more when people integrate consciousness. People are too confined, so they are excessively differentiated and not accepting the value of other life forms including other humans that do not fit into that initial high plateau of identity. What has been fascinating about doing the wheel of awareness practice — and I think this is consistent with some of the research about reducing some of the implicit racial bias with mindfulness practices— is that when people access the hub, they’re gaining more access. They are more readily accessing the plane of possibility and in the plane, there is no racism. In the plane, there is this experience of reality that embraces the fluidity of identity. That is, “you” are made up of people who are not your racial background. You are people who don’t speak your same language. You are people who are of different religions. It’s not just that they’re different and that is okay. It’s that you are both part of the same sea of potential or the plane of possibility. What has been beautiful about explaining this is that people get a feeling of relief that they can now basically be in a state of love and acceptance.”

Siegel convinces his clients that they will be happy by thinking that they are several different people all-in-one, a Muslim from Afghanistan, a Voodoist from West Africa, a Buddist from Tibet etc. That is, to feel a “reality that embraces the fluidity of identity” the patient (or in this instance, the misled and young European-American student,) must have a multicultural mind. He must convince himself that he contains within himself other people who are not of his racial background and have different religions.

I paraphrased the last statements to avoid the rambling Freudian psycho-babble of such remarkable captain of erudition.

Anyone among the rest of us, who came up with this nonsense, would be branded as a producer of low merriment and buffoonery. But Siegel is highly regarded by the mainstream academic and scientific establishment. And, even more ominous, he has even received an invitation to address the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Family on the subject of child psychology.

I strayed from the main subject, only to show, with a few examples, what the Kalergi operatives, and the world shapers of the collective mind, have in store for the rest of us. And any objecting government must be overturned.

As for Venezuela, we cannot look into the seeds of time and see which grain will grow and which will not, but it never yet did hurt to hold some likelihoods and forms of hope.

As for the organizers of the coup, we cannot even ask, “Shame where is thy blush?” because they have brought shamelessness to grand new heights and turned a liability into an asset or, if you like, have made a virtue out of a vice.

[bananartista]

De Docta Ignorantia : : : : : #arte #art #bananartista #ballpointpen #artemoderna #minimalismo #pendrawing #dailydrawing #disegno #outsiderart #outsider #visionary #psychedelicart #philosophy #nikolausvonkues #kunst (at Kues, Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany)

[kebikec]

On learned ignorance

Nicolaus Cusanus, De Docta Ignorantia 1440

The universe has no circumference, for if it had a centre and a circumference there would be some and some thing beyond the world, suppositions which are wholly lacking in truth. Since, therefore, it is impossible that the universe should be enclosed within a corporeal centre and corporeal boundary, it is not within our power to understand the universe, whose centre and circumference are God. And though the universe cannot be infinite, nevertheless it cannot be conceived as finite since there are no limits within which it could be confined.

…

Life, as it exists on Earth in the form of men, animals and plants, is to be found, let us suppose in a high form in the solar and stellar regions. Rather than think that so many stars and parts of the heavens are uninhabited and that this earth of ours alone is peopled – and that with beings perhaps of an inferior type – we will suppose that in every region there are inhabitants, differing in nature by rank and all owing their origin to God, who is the center and circumference of all stellar regions …. Of the inhabitants then of worlds other than our own we can know still less having no standards by which to appraise them.

[sixtensason]

Aha, finally found them, hidden in Cusanus his De Docta Ignorantia, how could I forget !

When did I wrote this ? That's only four months ago and I couldn't even recall.

source: http://allynscura.blogspot.com/2012/03/ludwig-mies-van-der-rohe-c1950s.html

[bananartista]

De Docta Ignorantia "With the senses man measures perceptible things, with the intellect he measures intelligible things, and he attains unto supra-intelligible things transcendently." Nicholas of Cusa