The ideal of the renaissance and the contemporary one

The ideal of the renaissance was to be polymath, to learn from the world in all its aspects, and to enjoy it in the same way: to make music, to make poetry, to make mathematics, to make philosophy, all during the same life. The contemporary ideal of having money, of being financially independent, of drinking alcohol, of having a monotonous job, of wasting time doing silly things because one has not energy anymore because the work or the studies – which one does only to be able to obtain a job and money afterwards – have taken all energy away, is it better? Do you think we are better now?!

The ex-president has a new little girlfriend

The former president has a new girlfriend, a young blonde and, perhaps, crazy woman -because one has to be very crazy to want to be with this clown-;;; I was informed of this notice while I was listening to music so sugared that is still sweet in spite of age;;; this made me think about the silly obsession with youth. Why are there so many persons that do everything they can to have youth, if that youth has frequently proved to be so absurd and naive?

Continue reading The ex-president has a new little girlfriend

On defining felicity in terms of something else

Perhaps felicity (happiness, bliss) should not be defined in terms of anything else but the experience of felicity itself. Inherent in our being, immaterial. I think of those who reduce it to neuroscientific terms, or who reduce it to other ideas or emotions, or who want to give quasi-mathematical explanations (one is happy when one tends to unity…). A state of the soul can not be universally explained by a rule (my soul is happy if it finds peace or simplicity…). It can not be explained why «felicity» suddenly arises with a combination (where did felicity come from with that state that supposedly generates it?). There can not be explanations of emergence in a theory, to say that something emerges is not to explain.

Felicity has always been there, infinite felicity in my eternal soul, it is only affected by the diverse circumstances.

Anyway I know that:

  1. Whether it is a state of my soul in general or a specific part, it is in me always, it is my soul itself. And therefore…
  2. I do not obtain felicity from things and it does not emerge and is not given to me. Only circumstances affect it, as they usually affect my whole soul. But the ultimate form in which I shall «obtain» felicity shall be the circumstance which limits it the least, not the one which gives parity or unity or peace or anything like that. The union or any phenomenon does not generate felicity, but in that circumstance felicity is less limited.

A better world is inconceivable if equality is also inconceivable

Yesternight, after chatting —not for delight but forced by the circumstances— with a historian of the state, I understood that the principal reason why it is impossible for many to think in, and act to seek, a better world, is that it seems unacceptable to believe that we all are equal, or that we have the same intellectual potential.

Continue reading A better world is inconceivable if equality is also inconceivable

The anarchy is the only democracy

The “representative” democracy is a scam, and mystifying it does not help people to realise that it is a stupidity to elect “representatives” that have the power to do whatever they want. None can represent the individual better than the individual himself, and even in his own art his representation might be incomplete. Thus, with more reason, we all must govern in an authentic democracy, govern everyone on everyone, which is equivalent to none governing. The democracy is anacracy, the power of the people is the no power, and only when the no power be powering, there will be authentic democracy. Anarchy is the only democracy.