How Long Does It Take Strep To Heal

Lyotard e la condizione postmoderna

Frederick Sollazzo (p.sollazzo @ inwind.it)

The table, below, an excerpt of the interview, Postmodernism and the notion of "resistance" , Jean-François Lyotard released in 1994 at the 'Italian Cultural Institute in Paris.

The term "postmodern" means a scientific and technological development that has immediate impact on daily life and politics. The decisive question for me is this: as far as writing, painting, good cinema - short articles of our creativity -, si può dire che è il sistema che li produce? Le automobili si vede bene che le produce il "sistema", che ci sono uomini che si mettono al servizio della produttività, in modo da conseguire una perfezione sempre maggiore. La stessa cosa si può dire per i missili interstellari o per gli aereoplani. Ma quando si scrive, quando si dipinge, quando si fa musica: si può dire che è il sistema a produrre tutto ciò? C'è una azione del sistema, sia pure inconsapevole e invisibile?
Di fatto il carattere invasivo dello sviluppo e della logica della produzione penetra addirittura nei laboratori, nelle redazioni, persino nella camera dove lo scrittore lavora per ottenere, at the end, the product that will sell the system, and circulation.
I believe that the crisis of so-called "vanguard" comes from the fact that the system imposes the following order: "we have had enough of unwatchable painters, writers unreadable, and so on. Let us decipher the products and expendable." I will never forget that a publisher once told me: "Look, we publish it, but give us something readable." What did he mean? He demanded a goods that could be put into service in the cultural market. Here replaces the term "culture industry" means the system penetrates into the head of the painter, the filmmaker or writer to make it do what the system needs, because the culture will remain in use.
Imagine Van Gogh before the choice of yellow or red. It is clear that here there is a job on color, which is not required by anyone except by Vincent himself. But where there is the need for us to persevere in the effort to think, write or make music or painting or to produce images?
I think we are inhabited, without knowing it, from what Lacan called the "thing" that is never satisfied. We lived in the symbolic productions, from the cultural market, from the system, from what requires communication and circulation. The system is not never satisfied with our communicative exchanges with others, there probably will not demand anything, but we feel towards it in due course.
Actually we groped, I would not say to express, but at least to give shape to what it rejects. It 'an act of resistance , and only this measure may be a source of cultural works, including works unnecessary.

This work is published under a Creative Commons License .

How To Learn To Cut Ha

New domain models and possible alternatives: for an Ethics on anthropological base

Frederick Sollazzo (p.sollazzo @ inwind.it)

(workplan for the Postdoctoral Research
at the University of Szeged – Hungary –)

The history of mankind is strongly characterized by dynamics of domain (domination of man by man and nature), in modern times these dynamics are initially materialized in the phenomenon of totalitarianism (to be understood, therefore, both as a historical event, either as a conceptual category). On the one hand, it represents a specific history event of the twentieth century, as demonstrated by the arendtian analysis (concentrating almost exclusively on the totalitarian model of national-socialism), on the other, it appears as a genuine philosophical category, as shown by the studies of "critical social theory" of the early Frankfurt School, (looking mainly to western societies of so-called welfare); with the superposition of these perspectives, we see how they delineate, respectively, on the one hand, the description of the practical features, of historical events, through which has shown the phenomenon of twentieth century totalitarianism (violent imposition of ideology over reality, presence of a single party, control of media and physical elimination of dissidents), including therein also the "psychological manifestations”, such as the loss of the faculty of judgment, on the other, the philosophical reasons that make it possible any repressive system (suffocation of the psycho-physical human faculties, triumph of instrumental rationality, of consumerism and of the industry of entertainment and information, "one-dimensionality"), irrespective of how quotas through which it show this repression. Therefore, the integration of these two perspectives allows us to observe the phenomenon of totalitarianism/authoritarianism in its entirety: the Arendt's studies reveals how totalitarianism is originally shown, those Frankfurt what is its essence. To understand this essence (the essence of a domain that is no more "discipline", but "control"), is also useful to consider the most recent analysis in this direction, denouncing the advent of new forms of social ills, designated as a "new consumerism fascism" and Empire.
Several possible solutions have been proposed to overcome these problems; political solutions (analysands mechanisms regulating coexistence): the definition of the status that democracy should perhaps be able to consider such, and how to materialize this status ; ethical solutions (based on behavior that each person can take in respect to the dynamics of coexistence): from the movement of "rehabilitation of practical philosophy" (which has renewed the interest of philosophy for the legal-political issues, but not addressed from an "institutional" perspective, but moral), to the individualism (that leads, of course, to liberal theories), from the neocontractualism (which serves as a conciliatory attempt between different moral claims), to the communitarianism (sort of " alter ego ” of the individualism, that enhances features of each community, instead of those of each individual), from the Naturphilosophie (which born as a warning about the consequences of the actions of the modern " unleashed Prometheus"), to the thinking of otherness (proposal for a new way of relating to the next).
All these philosophical perspectives can make a significant contribution to social pacification, however, they share the same shortcoming: none of them is based on a particular anthropological view, none of them has a solid anthropological foundation, they debate about which can be the ideal "home" for man, without specifying who is the man; contrary to what, I would like here to argue that only from a determined image of man, we can build the more suitable home for him. This raises, then, the problem of clarification of the elementary, basilar, anthropological constitution, containing elements that, in relation to man, can be considered universals. Now, being man a sort of empirical-spiritual allotrope, the proposal that I wish to make here is that these "universalisables" can be traced in biology, and emotions. In other words, every man is in possession of psycho-physical needs and capabilities, emotional and physiological, from whose satisfaction depends both the survival and the realization of truly rewarding existence. Recognition of this is a kind of moral glue, of shared minimum Ethics and, consequently, remove the idea of an ethical pluralism (to one anthropological basic structure, corresponds one possible minimum Ethics), but not that of cultural pluralism, understood as a plurality of historically different ways of achieving the same minimum Ethics. To decipher this scene, in recent years it has been proposed to use the conceptual tool of multiculturalism, which, however, seems to contain within itself a danger and a inaccuracy. The danger, is that multiculturalism does not seems to be nothing but the liberal face of the fundamentalism: both share the vision of society as a system of ghettos and identity logics, mediated only through physical violence and/or the law. The imprecision, is the inadequate description that is offered of the current global scene, which is better described by the term "interculturalism", in fact, now, there is not the existence of a culture alongside another, but the presence of a culture inside another. The comparison between different cultures must therefore plays through another concept, a kind of "disjunctive synthesis" in which the not equated of the identity is the trait d’union between them. In this new perspective the idea of tolerance is obsolete and therefore replaced by the idea of respect: only by respecting other can trigger real communication with him, in Which Each of the cultural identity is Contaminated, polluted, and then enriched with exogenous elements. Would thereby preserved in both of the uniqueness and, consequently, the universality of Ethics, and the plurality (But Not the incomparability) of cultures.

dall'italiano Traduzione di Federico Sollazzo

New systems of domination and possible alternatives are: anthropology, based on ethics

significantly determine the history of mankind dynamics of domination (the the domination of man over nature and man), the dynamics of the modern ages, this phenomenon manifests itself in totalitarianism (which is both meaningful and historic event in the conceptual category). This is the first twentieth-century history sajátosságaként one occurs, as Arendt's analysis shows (which are almost exclusively focused on the model of a totalitarian national socialism), appears on the other hand a true philosophical category, as the Frankfurt School of social criticism in the early theoretical studies also show (which are primarily the so-called welfare societies in the West are based on the observation). This perspective is outlined first, putting together a description of historical events through which the phenomenon manifests itself in the twentieth-century totalitarianism (the ideology of pushing reality, the one-party control over the media and the physical removal of dissidents), including the related psychological phenomena, such as the loss of discernment; second, the philosophical Description of the theories that allow for the presence of an oppressive regime (the human's physical and mental capabilities of oppression, the instrumental rationality of the consumer society and the triumph of information and entertainment, the one-dimensional existence), independently from the módozatoktól through which repression takes place.
these two perspectives allows the integration of totalitarianism / observation of the phenomenon of authoritarianism in its entirety: while Arendt studies show it, how manifests itself in totalitarianism, the Frankfurt School to reveal that what is the essence. The important thing to understand (and here is a substantive rule, which is not only "discipline", but "control" means) should take into account the new analysis is that recent social problems, namely the "new consumer society fasizmusának" and "empire" coming to explore.
to remedy these problems, several possible solutions were proposed: a political solution (social co-regulatory mechanisms), its status for the definition of what a democracy should play that lives up to its name, the status of implementation of such a concrete way ; ethical solutions (the fundamental norms of behavior that people employ in coexistence in society): a practical philosophy of rehabilitation mozgalmától (Which again for your interest in philosophy led to political-legal, but is no longer institutionalized, but a moral approach), individualism (liberal, of course elméleteknél behind), the neokontraktualizmustól (which is reconciling the different needs, attempting to moral) to kommunitarizmuson (which individualism 'alter ego "that the individual characteristics of the individual communities rather than individuals points) and total n-Naturphilosophie (which is the modern Prometheus unleashed" the consequences of his actions warning) to the "otherness" idea (which in our relationship with others, suggests a new foundation).
each of the aforementioned philosophical perspectives can significantly contribute to social reconciliation, but the same deficiencies: none specified based on the anthropological view, one is no solid basis for anthropology, the dispute as to what should be the ideal man "home" without that would specify what the man really is, by contrast, would require that people set out from képéből build the best for your home. Thus arises the basic anthropological system to clarify the problem, which would include such human qualities, which are considered to be universal. A kind of spiritual experience of man-allotróp being, a proposal should come up to the universally regarded as' traits can be traced to the biological and emotional aspects. In other words, all people have a physical, mental, emotional and physiological needs and possession of skills that not only satisfaction túléléstől, but is also a certified önmegvalósítástól.
All of the recognition of a moral connection, the minimum mean shared ethics, which consequently abolishes the principle of moral pluralism (the an anthropological basic structure of a ethics corresponds to the minimum possible), but not the idea of \u200b\u200bcultural pluralism, which is not only the historical diversity of the different paths understood, but also the ethics of the same minimal realization. In recent years, made attempts to interpret the present situation, namely by introducing the concept of multiculturalism, which, however, a danger and a lack of precision is hiding himself. The danger is that multiculturalism is nothing more than a liberal face of fundamentalism: both share the látáspontot thinking that society is a system in which only physical violence and / or maintain the legal system. The inaccuracy of the current global (and global) situation is not appropriate lies in the description by the "interculturalism" to express the concept more precisely: in fact, not adjacent cultures, but rather on the presence of each other cultures.
A comparison of different cultures is another concept to be under the authority of, and that is 'differential synthesis' would be, which is the identity beolvaszthatatlansága forming an intermediate link with the cultures. In this new perspective a toleranciáról való elképzelés elavultnak tűnik és a “tisztelet” fogalma váltja fel: csak a másokat tisztelő tud olyan hiteles kommunikációt kezdeményezni, melyben mindegyik fél kulturális azonossága “megfertőződik”, külső elemekkel gazdagodik. Így maradhatna meg az az etika egysége - és következésképpen egyetemessége - és a kultúrák sokszínűsége (de nem a kultúrák összehasonlíthatalansága).

Traduzione dall'italiano di Mária Kovács

This work is published under a Creative Commons License .