Some reflected thoughts!

Hi!


Remember I said I was taking calmy?
Then, forget it I'm over it. But pushing myself to obligatory pauses on it.
Sharing it helps for some "ex-charging" ("descarga") of intellectual weight ("masa inercial y gravitotoria", at onces, totally ) in head.
Going well.
Book is going to be totally forgotten or directly thrown, beside some well bonded heavy piece of something, to my head
Gonna be good.
Now coming back to task. The contemplation of my mind here makes so emtional
Good hug, Loving Good!

By instance.  Connecting my talks about "abduction" to "logic digression", which means the using of transcendent function and, at once, logic deduction (not induction, much more simple, as Einsteins says, and able, in their own context, to "superior" animals).
The abduction does mean, in this context almost totally preconfigured for the coming explanation of all chapters:
that for many possible different reasons (state of mind, mood, memories coming brought out by any input on mind, Interest of study -obviously-...) mind does re-create, in a progressively stronger and better defined fixing process (continuation of mind structures working, not complete separations among processes), in the transcendent plane, an specific one made upon some determined elements and the corresponding deductive rules (fixed, as coherence from the principle of identity, non contradiction... and more and more complex -I'm using for essay well for connection the theory of "conjuntos", it will help me for explanation from yesterday, that I have defined much better in my whole context today for essay) making up the consequence.  There's like a "game" between them both: previous elements and deductive rules and the consequence, back and forth, pulling themselves by the cognitive pulsion to the Sense, where they do get meaningful together to mind (this is the magic that, by instance, an Author as Einstein , among others, though on different perspectives, as Rorty -this has to be explained, specially when their ontoepistemic positions are incomplete and not well defined-; talks about).
Though, I know the truly demonstration of metaphysicity is not lying here (it's more properly lying on the concept of truth and being and all the problems around paradoxes eternal), because you can say it's only the deduction working there. But not, it's the Making of the Plane, fixing the elements. This fixing, as long as it's truly working on the formal logic rigid principles, does mean, one way or another, the implicit conclusions you're making. Then you have the abduction or the magic explained there.
And this is just little part of today's achievements.  More than big discoverings, a connection of all abduction previously made.
Ah, and so happy to have read Wittgenstein said mathematician is not only a discoverer but more properly (catching all of his/her essence) an inventor.  I Agree.


Good Hugs Very Beautiful!!

Hi,
how are things, I think Im
Yesterday very much thinking.
It's OK, hours number enough.
This last "fixing" of concept of inner time was very important, for less or more finishing this part on the thinking. Though, it's probably the most hypothetically made; but I think it's not only coherent to previous ideas but also corresponding to my inner experiences, after studying it. Well, all thinking for global at some moment has to take some risk. I'll be thinking more about it.
Now little meal and Task.
Big Good Hug Loving!!

This effort was sbsolutely Necessary for the necessary minimquality of all developmeny. Some philosopher said it, Einstein too(means something): clear enough first of all to explain easy. After you can develpe later and huger horizon of conclusions. But ket points Easy to be explained by you (not easy to find, its when you did it first) cause then you totally (well this never absolute) understand what you found. This also gives confidence and let me see i dont need much more resding for this essay (for life Always Needing more, as All).
Hug Good.

Hi!
CAme for a moment for copying files. Please, pshh!, don't tell anybody
Had to say hi.
And this, because something has been erased, and for just in case of censoring, I repeat this saying:
I said my idea of God is the most Beautiful possible. And this, to my Sense as One, my Integral Reason, is the Universal One.
Look how this is not the "logic athomism" from Russell [which is a metaphysics searching for making the construction of the big connection, from the most simplistic entitites to the most complex of all, with not having to think about the transcendental role of senses -he's an Emprist as Locke, previous to Kant- and conceptuality -I actually like to think of me like a True pupil of him, for his Big Explanation of True Role of Logics for Understanding the language and, from it, the Reality (I am going further, as I've said, the "images" Damasio Explains in the brain, which, of course, are Corresponding to Language too, for obvious evolutionary reasons of survival)); who did listen well to Kant, Wittgenstein, Darwin...], because I'm using the whole Sense, which means Feelings and Transcendentality.
This Universal One, translated to Earth and Human Living does mean the Fixing of Spirituality for oneself and for (according to what follows, this is or this should be the same) the others as the True Source for Social Relationships.
This Deep Core of Spirituality, Wich Means the Elevation of the Symbol of Empathy to its Highest Possible Place of Felt Theory and Practicity, by this understanding, it's the only way for going further than the instrumentalization.
This last one is Necessarily coming from the Objectivistic Global Consideration of REality. You can say you're Loving People, but you're not coherent, though you're probably True, with your theoric bases of Existential Sense, because if everything is able to be objectivated, you can not pretend you're able to explain, by coherent theoric arguments, the fundament of your Empathy. Think about it.
The only Solution for this, is the Integral Reason, which means, among other things, the integration of cognitive paradoxes into the building of ontoepistemology as functional sources that let, and can only be explained by it too, the transcendent human side works. As I said, the problems for self.objectivation of the self, well easy to see, are the easiest argumentative base for see this. As the working of the "mirroring" mechanisms of our brains as Real and Fundamental Sources for the Learning and the Understanding, Directly.
Both sides, non "selfobjectivation" and the functional and direct working of the "mirroring" (automatic source of mind), are some very clear epistemologic justifying of metaphysics, just from the beginning. After, we can explain it by the developing of conceptuality and, after, the developing of Empathy (made of mirroring, traditional reason understanding and specially elevated involvement of Emotion in the building of Sense and its corresponding concepts for it).


ps: Good Loving Hug Good!!
Not writing so frequently, but sometime coming for Hi
I also remember my compromise for the posting of logic connections on the base of my philosophy.

Its True, big part of that, Whosay friends.
I studied and graduated law.
There was a qualitative improvement by Constitutionalism for Human rights, and though msny highs and lows since then, sensitivity inside of our societies has improved.
The other somebody who likes "corridas de toros" admited, by progressively fixed animal protectionism spirit, are condemned to dissapear someday.
But about materialism as ruler of the real social world im not so sure.
Its All impregned of it, and nations and their politics are seeing day by day how money property is leaving less and less space for democratic decissions.
Practic terms, in constitutionalism times and so on along history, privileged social minories
(burguesia) ruled; but Good Hearted Politics Still Had Something to say, though not so usual and depending very much on each personality and on many other confluencing circumstances.
And today?
I dont know.
And for Knowing i support Podemos. My fear is that it may be too late, because globalization, and economic and politic compromises derived from it, is progressively making nations so much little, in the world context. I mean, the other nations together -from the out but also the inside- can asfixiate you, specially if you not much big in the
actual macrocontext.
The whole world should be rebuilt, its structures of power, not its civilized laws, i mean.
Ill make my little part of work for Good too. Are you ready?
Maybe our grand-grand... Sons and Daughters will be. I hope its not too late. Because space travels are much farther than the transcendent historic point, and Global Warming is working Hard and Fast, and Social differences between rich and poor do get bigger dsy by day and...
I think i may not see any of these positive and negative extremes, butthis fact it is not a excuse (as it is not the big organized campaign if conspiracy cruel against me) for not Trying. For our Descendents, at last; and for us, from the beginning (moral salvation).
And Violence is a way we can Not get for changing things (look at real marxist revolutions and its results: few privileged vs many more so poor and dependent, just by instance).
Human True Progress can Only come from and be Built up by out Natural Goodness, and our skills, by selfconscience and education, for let this Get a Higher Level, where We See We Are All Different but the Same and We Do coherent to this.
Good night.

Hi!
Working active, on ordered systematic steps on very easy things (DIFFICULT to me), and calmy.
Today's evening and night doing the same.  It's not only number of hours but, more importantly I think, the state of hearted mind.  Bye, bye anxiety I'm saying.
Well Very Good Hug, and what a Beautiful Home, Brooke
So True!
And talking about my tasks, now I'm starting on january, the definitive first writing (taking 20 days from my legal holidays for my final edition; for after starting the same hard the doctorating, Important too), but after very well meditated and reflected period.  Maturation of these difficult thoughts is always necessary, even to squared heads like mine
This will turn into much clear style, simplicity of words and extension of needed space.  More concentrated, less digressions related to the main subject argued, and clearer.
See later, Loving Good Hug Beautiful!!


ps: next conference is not conference.  It's a monologue, made by a professional, talking about the myth of "Sísifo".  For some moment I at it, but I think it's very good confirmation (me the "professional doubter": my hugest simmilarity to Descartes is this, more for intellectual and vital instinct than for methodologic principle, or maybe, as I guess happened to him, for both at once) of my good normal hearted overreaching of this "sisific" concept.
Vital Sense for Real.  The "Homey" Pictures Helped for sure, Warm is Always key!!

Hi!


What I'm actually about on me is How Socialized I've become again. I should go back decades ago for this.
It's just for a case I commented at work to people from another department, "law specialist" ("jurídico").
Working fine. The walk and stretch Blessing. Energy.
I do hold all of my today words, though I translate them into gentle style. It's impossible any Person who gets separated (like in India "castas", by instances) and one way or another attacked from the shadows (think about it, get some empathy for thinking about this organized neighbouring and all), may get happy with the situation.
Not depending on what you're giving, anyway.
Though, for adding more naturally coming upon situation, I think I've Given Very Much, Honestly. And I'm Giving, and by Big Efforts and for Free.
Sometimes, the brain gets, from any input considerable as pervert or bad intentioned (because the fact of have got used to this stream for years, from the shadows, for more, I repeat); like "electroshocked"=big intensity of neurones reacting less or more instinctively for SELFDEFENSE.
I know it's well known my past. So I can not believe everybody is so Evil. So it has to be some try for repairing. But this tries are failing, for the reasons I've just commented at the beginning. You can not isolate a person and treat this as an experimental animal in a lab, before the public eye (so the scene from Javier Bardem in 007, Brilliantly Performed, playing the mouth broken for the poison; it was made for somehow waking up consciences on it? You see it did not wake anything, and it did only hurt and me; but I think and feel Intention was Good, somehow).
Well, "con un par", going on.
As I said, NO stalking at nights, True. I'm so BUSY for the Tasks. In a while sharing edition of last text. I'm Happy for this. I Wish All in the World was Going as Good as the Progress, Always for Good for All, of my Theories. But one Important thing I Learnt is that no matter what others do, you have to Do the Right thing, even when this means nothing to the collectivity or you're totally forgotten. It doesn't matter.
Moral Salvation is Private. Though, I have to add, that at once, it depends upon what you as Human Being Do to, and in, the World.

Hi!


Really Beautiful piece from Endless Love, a Myth from my youth to me, and for this, Always a Part of me.
It's Beautiful Scene, Represents the Heaven of Dreams, in the Living couple (this one too young, but so Beautifully on the Characters).
Thank You.
And here I'm going again. Finished All of Wittgenstein and prepared the Introduction for essay. Also yesterday's night finished Sartre's, and thought about structure of index. I'm remaking it. Getting two lasts chapters and another one I was writing, "Conclusions" into one with this tittle. Because I want to be, somehow, a little for the orthodoxy, as a sign of Respect to previous Historic Philosophers; and this does mean deal well with the heterogeneous chapters. I'm saying all, but in the proportion fine, by derivation from the argumentative core, the integral reason, this epistemology; into those concepts of theory of truth and the being/self, "el ser", the trascendental integration, morals, and the last conclusions on the philosophy goals I hope I've achieved along the task.
Yesterday also finished the real critic to the Author, Wittgesntein. Brilliant. Very summaried, the core: if it's all objective, if feelings and thoughts can not count for this (for solipsism and because they're not trustable to our selfconsciousness), and there's this "like coming from nothing and fixed on nowhere" concept of "figure" for defining the mental states; and we can talk well about physic world...
What about hte concept of "game of language". He could answer the objectivity is the rule, the quid and the use of language, which is the meaning. But the concept of game I'm asking for.
Here he could not answer me, on his own way. Cause he's always using a metalanguage, on the use of language and more things (philosophy of mind...), and this is always a Definition, fixed no matter how many examples and cercles you may be doing for defining it. It's what it is. And this definition, which is unique from him, can not be defined as another game of language.
First, because it's only his. There're no rules shared for objective judgement upon the truth, fiability...
Second, because we're in the classic paradox "ad infinitum", like ancient homunculus ad infinitum for defining conscience.

For more, he's defining mental reality as something as a a mess: "you can know what others think, by the objectived game of language, but not what you think" (memories are very failable, the time goes and you can fix moments, the impressions on the world are very usually mistaken...).
Though, he's defining reality exactly the same complicated: example: talking between doctors on a patiend, in hospital or a theatre: then all changes. But this is very simplistic. If we look further, the reality is the same complicated and the same "mess" (simply metaphysically involved to us, the reality, as our mind too). To see, take a look at all combinatory structures making objects and contexts of objects.
But he's not explaining this corresponding. He says, at the end of book, its possible if nature had been different our concepts were different, but somehow he tries to explain he's at another level.
Yes, at the level of the ontologic structures of reality, determining the realistic epistemology. Yes, a metalanguage. Yes, his Definitions playing on their own but saying things in a very special context of communication, were it's very difficult to deny the fact there's not a game played because it's all new, and also, because the book is not the talk, as Adorno says, it's a finished piece of literature or philosophy. But if it's finished (I see how the book finishes, the last pages and all ), there's no game for objectivated explanation, so...
I honestly think all these problems are getting solved by my theories.
Not humble at all; but if I was at all, I would not call myself a philosopher


Yesterday's night Nice Cute Movie, "The Best of me". One that I Have Liked the Most for last years.
Not too much extrarealistic performances, or violence, or athmospheres or dramatic narrative, not getting that level; but inside of Classic canons, that are Immortal I Hope, and so Very Well Made. Recommending!
And now going, I talked very much oh my. Big Hugging Good, and Loving True Forever!!

Hi!


Yes, You understood very well, I do feel, existential terms, like I'm like some kind of mix between Gary Cooper and James Dean.
Humbleness Up to Power!


It's gaming.
Today only making normal efforts of my official work (technic problems I still could not solve, but I'll do, at the very lest "rompetechos" -please see him because I Remember well how in my childhood this was some of the Best I've ever known, but well, this can be cultural and of course subjective... -, me in this case was able to situate and fix the Person in charge! ).
And the coming here, yes.
Not big reflecting for some while, going back and forth, on theories because my brain is a little till the upper point of it. Need some relax.
In the evening I'll take the line, but this morning only the Necessary.
I'm Happy for the going of the task, and this last Mirroring on Popper (I Did Only Know his Main Theory of "Falsacionismo"!, which was not very liked by me) has Been so Inspirational and Motivational.
But I did learn from efforts in the past, if too continued; and far from exhausted but knowing psycologically I need some hours of rest, I am going easy and funny Fine.
Good Hugs Good of Loving True and Kind!

Hello, Good morning everybody,

needed the whole weekend for rest of mind. Oh my
Have something to say.
According to the actual going of things here (very calm), the going of my very "efforting" brain and the going of coherences around the world, not always happy, have to say that I'm going to come and talk much lower and more seldom, actually.
Obviously, it's Nothing personal, on the Loving!!
But there're times when it's like you had all the certainty possible in the world, obviously a metaphore, about a decission. This was the time.
I have to deal with big efforts, and they're going to be made for Good. So, don't need to get worried, disturbed or angry with this; it's "heartly" made for the Better, cause I know it's like a moral duty and, at once, the whole thing is important.
God Bless!
And Neverencing Hugging Souls!!

Hello, Good morning everybody,

needed the whole weekend for rest of mind. Oh my
Have something to say.
According to the actual going of things here (very calm), the going of my very "efforting" brain and the going of coherences around the world, not always happy, have to say that I'm going to come and talk much lower and more seldom, actually.
Obviously, it's Nothing personal, on the Loving!!
But there're times when it's like you had all the certainty possible in the world, obviously a metaphore, about a decission. This was the time.
I have to deal with big efforts, and they're going to be made for Good. So, don't need to get worried, disturbed or angry with this; it's "heartly" made for the Better, cause I know it's like a moral duty and, at once, the whole thing is important.
God Bless!
And Neverencing Hugging Souls!!

Hello, Good morning everybody,

needed the whole weekend for rest of mind.  Oh my
Have something to say.
According to the actual going of things here (very calm), the going of my very "efforting" brain and the going of coherences around the world, not always happy, have to say that I'm going to come and talk much lower and more seldom, actually.
Obviously, it's Nothing personal, on the Loving!!
But there're times when it's like you had all the certainty possible in the world, obviously a metaphore, about a decission.  This was the time.
I have to deal with big efforts, and they're going to be made for Good.  So, don't need to get worried, disturbed or angry with this; it's "heartly" made for the Better, cause I know it's like a moral duty and, at once, the whole thing is important.
God Bless!
And Neverencing Hugging Souls!!

Hi

Good morning, God Bless.
Very Nice Videos, first One Beautiful!
I'm working very much. Tired. When not working I just Want to rest. I Need it, in fact. But quite Happy for the way these things are going.
Yesterday's night reading on Lyotard and "postmodernism". Coming from Hegel, this irrenuntiable fixing in the immanence of the language is a less or more conscious forgetting of the most important essences of us. Language is the final product, but there're many things happening in mind before and that mind, as previous to language and as by themself. And trascendence... It's the natural constitution of the thinking, of concepts...
The problem is the big prejudice against what many postmodernists call the "myth of salvation". But, instead, they're creating another myth not from beyond the horizons of our objectified mind, limited and naturally transcending; but from the language and the art as valuable just by itself.
First, the first choice is more deffendible, because it's not pretending to get selflattered on its own reason, but from Believes. I mean, I Agree Believes Do Need the Big Seed for Guard of Tolerance and Diversity, for Convivence and Peace; but it's not ilogic, differently to the postmodernist reductionism.
Second, it's not only about saying, it's about what we're saying and who is able to say it well. Not for dictators from right or left politics coming back again, but for the justifying arguments before all, who are necessarily to be educated People.
Not counting these things and some obvious more (starting by the individual difference; though able to be redirected to integrative convivence at all social levels), Lyotard and me I think do have many things in common.


Yes, some Sharing. Honestly True: for the coming times I am Truly not able to share more than I'm doing on these days. Energy is Limited, and the Task fixed temporary limits are imminent. So I'd better do coherently to this, cause it's Important.
See later tomorrow, very Big Good True Loving hug for Life!

Sorry for the time. Could not help thinking.
Essay title: "Inmanencia y metafisica del conocimiento".
Catches essence so, and sounds
cool.
Shared.
Now rest. Good night Loving

Hi!
Because it's always second or third or more meaning, have to say True that when talked about the metric line from my Grandpa was not talking about measures of noses ("Pinocho" no me trying to mean as hypocresy now), and in fact any other thing, excepting the funny behind the Heartfelt, this last one meaning was the important to me to express.
And my Mom...
Yes, I talk everyday to her; and Thank You for Being Nice at this kind of stuff.
Moms are Key to All.
In my case, we Always, as I've said, had a Special relationship; for inner problems of the family: we could almost say that, in the core of 5, my Father and my Two little Sisters, she could only Count on me. And well, it's nothing weird going beyond this Special and Mutual Comfortation and Support, Existential, between Mother and Son, for sometimes tough times through life.
These bonds, we're talking about Human not machines where you push a button and changes the program, are Impossible to be broken. Ever.
And, I repeat it, Thank You from Heart for so Much Nice Supporting and Understanding of this situation, as the meaning behind the "curtains", so Very Brilliant, Heartfelt and Beautiful They have Been, so Special, this last time. So Very.
Good Hug Loving!
God Bless Families, from the Heart, most Heartfelt way Possible I'm Able to Wish!


ps: today conference, today alone at home tonight ... and next week starts the tough, but a Real Balancing tough.

Hi!


Good going on the task. Focused multitask.
And yesterday, on the manual works, helped my uncle for the mechanic door. I was fixing, by the big strenght of my arm ("Su coartada" at corresponding scale ), screws (or bolts the Dictionary to me at this now). He has EPOC, suffering but after operations, two, one for each breathing organ, he's a little better; and on the going up and down the stairs he looked really on shape (he did it for many times when active working life, now he's retired, so it's a little more understandable), while I, comparedly (bit more than 90 kgs), looked as an elephant trained in the circus on the steps
Well, on the going, I Feel Good. Yesterday run after good walk, and quite well not forcing the "machine". Me athletic you know very well
On next days posting a Nice picture of me, for the context and good feeling. I think I was on the twenties, yes. I found the other day, and it's nice and quite on the wave for actual good spirits. Some other day some actual, as it come naturally, though I admit I'm actually so Very Focused in the Taks, so Much, that the last think I thing about is taking pictures of myself, True.
And this is all OK, actually even pulled to wait for some more time, cause I dont want it seems is in competition. And it's just goodness.
Good Big Hug, Loving!!

Hi!


Do I think of myself as if I was Marlon Brando, or Brandon Flowers (Both Super-Tremendous!)?
I don't think so, but I think I'm not so bad neither. And for this, some responsability.
Now posting last text after first edition. It's quite OK.
I do have also, write on hand, the next part, 1.2, 6 pages, though I have to add something else, not so long but important. About the "transhistoric" meaning in philosophy.
And now following Tremendous Eddie Murphy today's mood (just talking about the Funny Video it was posted today!). I'm chaning "pen-samiento transcendente" by "pensamiento trascendente", because it's right and this way it's better for differencing to Tremendous Kant's "razón transcendental".
Ah, and what was the name for the essay? I've forgotten, True
I cant remember now - For Real. Hope I wrote it in my not-ebook (not Notebrooke; no bad words, no bad "works" ). Going to see now (not a simple double meaning about the Fact of have forgotten the title; Fortunetely, many other Good things I have Not forgotten ).
Well, what I said, posting edition. Now sending to the University too.
"TEMA 1.- La filosofía en la historia: discusión crítica sobre un posible eje temporal de sentido.
1.1.- Orígenes y presente de la filosofía.
La naturaleza de la razón filosófica, considerada en el momento que la ortodoxia académica fija su nacimiento con carta de naturaleza, presenta unos rasgos muy distintos a la actualidad de lo que hoy se da en llamar, pese a su heterogeneidad, el movimiento postmodernista. Es más, en realidad, las conclusiones que se infieren de esta comparación pueden resultarnos casi escandalosas, si no conocemos mínimamente la evolución de la filosofía en la historia. Por dos razones fundamentales: primera, porque parece abrirse un abismo entre ambos momentos, si se presentan uno frente al otro sin intermediaciones; y, segunda, porque la contemplación desacomplejada y sincera de esta ruptura hace patente un decaimiento tan marcado de la racionalidad filosófica como vasto es el espacio de separación que se abre entre los dos “mundos”, el clásico y el postmoderno.
En la llamada época clásica (la de Sócrates, de Platón, de Aristóteles…; allá por los alrededores del s. III a.c.), la confianza de la filosofía en sí misma para comprender el mundo hacía gala de un esplendor máximo, que no ha vuelto a conocer. A partir de la suposición de que el universo, el hombre y el mundo se hallan regidos por el principio del logos , como orden superior racional de todas las cosas que existen y que son, el filósofo se concebía a sí mismo como aquél que puede explicar la totalidad regida por esa razón; una razón inclusiva de sí misma, esto es, autocomprensiva en grado absoluto. Semejante hazaña fue posible por la implicación de otra suposición concomitante fundamental: el hombre (entonces no había políticas globales de igualdad de géneros), que habita el cosmos en su calidad de ser superior frente a los animales, debía participar directamente –y formar parte- de ese logos, sin ninguna limitación ni intermediación natural o teológica.
La Postmodernidad es una época que se caracteriza por la profusión de cambios continuados e importantes, y, coherentemente con ello, por la consagración de la flexibilidad como uno de sus valores supremos. Esta laxitud existencial, necesaria en todo caso para participar con garantías eficaces del marco de un mundo laboral y social cada vez más tecnologizado, en modo general, a menudo lleva implícita una actitud acrítica, “tecnocratizada” y consumista; que se adopta como modelo de vida por el cual el ciudadano se deja “arrojar” –en términos heideggerianos-, sin más reflexiones, en la corriente del devenir postmoderno, llevado por el interés de lo inmediato (que no siempre es de naturaleza puramente material). Detrás de esta dinámica creciente, como principio justificacional o metarrelato de sustentación del sentido –existencial, filosófico-, se encuentra la doctrina monolítica del cientifismo instrumental y el materialismo de mercado, los cuales, en su vertiente ideologizada de pensamiento único, representan el resultado materialista de la deconstrucción final de la razón filosófica occidental.
El reverso de las “facultades” que potencia el nuevo modelo social postmoderno también tiene, no obstante , sus propias manifestaciones originales para el modelo de la reflexión filosófica. Una de sus mejores versiones es el “pensamiento débil”, expresión acuñada por Gianni Vattimo , el cual lo describe, en un sentido axiológico claramente positivo, del siguiente modo: “Frente a una lógica férrea y unívoca, el pensamiento débil es necesidad de dar libre curso a la interpretación; frente a una política monolítica y vertical del partido, necesidad de apoyar a los movimientos sociales transversales; frente a la soberbia de la vanguardia artística, recuperación de un arte popular y plural; frente a una Europa etnocéntrica, una visión mundial de las culturas”.
Ambas posiciones, en el seno mismo de lo postmoderno, dan lugar a un dualismo casi esquizofrénico en términos de sentido justificativo global. Se enfrentan: por la vertiente acrítica, el cientifismo instrumental y el materialismo de mercado triunfantes sobre una razón filosófica –tanto en su sentido clásico, cuanto en su sentido moderno- ya casi definitivamente deconstruida a los ojos del “gran público”; y una razón crítica “débil”, originada desde la multiplicidad indiferenciada de tantos puntos de apertura intelectual como participantes sea posible incluir en el discurso racional. Éste, todavía es concebido como instancia válida para reconstruir un fondo racional crítico respecto de sí y de la realidad, pero sobre una base totalmente nueva en el contexto filosófico: el principio democrático absoluto, es decir, considerado éste como dimensión de totalidad, extrapolación por la cual lo político llega a no diferenciarse ontológicamente de lo epistémico.
Jean-François Lyotard, autor de La condición postmoderna, propone una nueva racionalidad, coherente con los nuevos tiempos; donde ya no hay lugar para la razón moderna, históricamente limitada desde afuera y desde sí por la incorporación de las devastadoras críticas de los “maestros de la sospecha” , a las cuales se añade, ya en pleno s. XX, la deconstrucción hermenéutica. Es un nuevo modelo de racionalidad que, pese a los avatares históricos, no renuncia en absoluto a su naturaleza crítica consubstancial. En este sentido, no cabe duda de que la formación y praxis neomarxista de Lyotard tiene mucho que ver con su concepción filosófica; pero sólo la evolución posterior de su pensamiento definirá la idea que se trata de recoger aquí. Esto es: una vez agotado el crédito de legitimidad de los metarrelatos filosóficos, es el momento para la floración en libertad de las opiniones y verdades individuales de una sociedad abierta, compleja, múltiple y multiforme, sin centros de autoridad intelectual susceptibles de fijar un marco crítico y de fundamentación de sentido; entendido éste, y en adelante, como referencia, valor y fundamento justificativo último –o primero- de todo lo racional y de la experiencia existencial, en su integridad constitutiva.
Este autor sostiene, de acuerdo con las críticas comentadas y en atención a los resultados históricos más o menos comúnmente aceptados, que todo “metarrelato” con pretensiones de fundamentación filosófica del mundo en un grado más o menos universal (“legitimación del relato” o discurso), no sólo está condenado de antemano, por su probada incapacidad manifiesta para dotar de sentido global al pensamiento libre y crítico, sino que, además, debe ser rechazado sin remisión por su carácter monolítico y de imposición antidemocrática de alguna clase de pensamiento único. Si el principio democrático impone el reconocimiento de los derechos universales (antepuestos, sobre todo, al cientifismo y al capitalismo mercantilista imperantes en todos los ámbitos de la vida, no sólo el económico), no es posible volver hacia atrás, al trasnochado mito de la infalibilidad de los sistemas filosóficos cerrados sobre sí y, por ello, con dejadez de toda alteridad subjetiva democrática. En definitiva, la proliferación de metarrelatos nacidos de la subjetividad filosófica sólo ha servido para justificar y acentuar la “condición postmoderna” o, en el mejor de los casos, para proporcionar un conjunto de fútiles intentos de la recomposición social e ideológica. Esta última, al fin, sólo puede llevarse a cabo por medio del reconocimiento de los principios democráticos y su incorporación absoluta a los cauces habituales de la configuración del sentido.
Jean-François Lyotard considera que la racionalidad subjetiva, entendida como “ídolo”, es fuente directa de inconmensurabilidad (en la multiplicidad de juegos de lenguaje existentes) o de ideologización . Su imposición (por la vía que sea) siempre resultará interesada e injusta para uno o más sectores amplios de la sociedad. Sólo la expansión libre y sucesiva de ideas y opiniones –en acción acumulativa permanente y como “multidiscurso” global- puede plantear una crítica de validez del momento presente y, asimismo, reivindicar y configurar nuevas fórmulas para la interacción social y para el sentido filosófico y existencial. La racionalidad debe auto-pensarse por la mediación de todas las razones individuales y libres, en un “modelo abierto” de “narraciones descentradas de validez limitada” (a modo de “microrrelatos” locales). Ya no hay lugar para los metarrelatos o narraciones de “función legitimatoria” para la universalización del sentido, por la doble razón de su ineptitud histórica y de su sesgo de interés socioeconómico.
Esta posición, llevada al extremo, supone no pocas dificultades de realización teórica y práctica, sobre todo relacionados con la cuestión de las garantías procesuales de la justificación y de la validez discursivas . Pero para Lyotard ésa es la esencia del método filosófico, esto es: su propia ausencia en pro de la riqueza vitalizadora de una razón democrática “pura”. El problema es que dicha teorización conduce a una bifurcación imposible: o hay alguna clase de teleología implícita en la naturaleza humana que conduce al progreso democrático y social, sin necesidad de acuerdos ni presupuestos valorativos y/o formales –casi recordando a Jean-Jacques Rosseau-; o nos vemos abocados a otra clase de desvalorización, distinta de la que el autor de referencia pretende derribar sólo en su origen, no en su resultado. Sin referencias valorativas y formales para un modelo racional, la razón misma se diluye, y pierde su propia esencia epistémica y su prestigio moral.
No obstante, Jean-François Lyotard sí sostiene un valor fundamental sobre el que propiciar en la práctica este desarrollo epistemológico abierto, aunque es un principio de carácter no racional. Se trata del deseo, desnudo, como fuerza libidinal y pulsional vinculada al inconsciente, que fluye libre sin localización a priori posible (esto supondría una objetivización no querida, claro), y que, hasta ahora e interesadamente, ha sido controlado en la cultura occidental por medio de una racionalidad generadora de categorías y conceptos que buscan su uniformización -imposible. Este control representa una tentativa formalizadora sistemática– a menudo exitosa-, y su fin es la alienación de la naturaleza más fecunda del deseo, que siempre nace de su carácter de “extrañamiento” íntimo respecto de todo intento de objetivación limitadora.
El arte –o tarea “contradiscursiva” esencial- es el medio por el que pueden fluir los impulsos libidinales, irreductibles per se a la objetivación del espacio lingüístico. Será la exteriorización incondicionada de aquéllos, la que propiciará la experiencia del “sentimiento estético de lo sublime”, donde experimentar -en la autoconsciencia de las limitaciones de la propia mente- algo parecido a la “grandeza absoluta”, como un infinito capaz de modificar de forma radical la comprensión de la realidad, permitiendo así un repensar incondicionado de las formas previas de su comprensión .
Esta última posición no es sensiblemente diferente a la de autores como Richard Rorty o Donald Davidson (para los cuales no hay diferencias ontológicamente relevantes entre, por ejemplo, un átomo y un personaje literario). Sin embargo, el autor francés se manifiesta contrario a la vaporización absoluta de la racionalidad, y se autodeclara no irracionalista ni relativista: el valor de los microrrelatos es una vía directa con que reducir el dogmatismo y su más que habitual degeneración en violencia verbal o física.
Pero esta teoría adolece, repito, de serias dificultades. En primer lugar, porque cualquier posible arquitectura del acuerdo social y filosófico queda derrumbada por la vía de la inconmensurabilidad “metodologizada”, pues cómo ha de ser posible posible la formación de acuerdos para la integración en libertad sin ninguna clase de fundamentos comunes –artefactos de la razón constructiva- sobre los que edificar la convivencia pacífica y democrática. ¿No será acaso, tal vez, que el fulgor extático de la creatividad y del arte en efervescencia ha cegado parcialmente a un sector de la postmodernidad crítica?
El arte es una experiencia fundamental en todas las sociedades humanas, como creación de la razón simbólica y trascendente, entendida en un sentido integral; hasta el punto de que es lugar común que ninguna de aquéllas puede ser considerada como sin la institución reconocida del arte. Pero sin criterios de justificación racional, sin criterios reguladores de la validez del discurso comunicativamente pragmatizados (en pos del horizonte de una verdad de “rostro jánico”, constituida sobre las bases de la experiencia y del discurso, como diría Jürgen Habermas), el pensamiento débil de Gianni Vattimo, definido por él mismo como “una anarquía no sangrante”, bien podría convertirse en un caos sin sentido o en una nueva clase de dictadura. La socialización necesita de acuerdos formales, y la justificación de éstos necesita de un sentido. El arte puede proporcionar un sentido -incluso en términos globales, y de modo individual o colectivo- pero éste siempre se halla imbricado con los elementos estructurales de nuestra razón, tanto en su configuración práctica, por lo que respecta a la creación artística; cuanto en su configuración ideal (epistémica y moral), por lo que respecta a la participación del creador y de su arte en cualquier clase de proyecto común (estético, filosófico, político…).
Dentro de la sistemática del presente trabajo, cuya finalidad primera es, precisamente, aportar nuevos elementos a la discusión racional; no es éste el lugar para ir más allá de la breve crítica que antecede. Por medio de la misma, sólo he intentado expresar las profundas diferencias que subyacen a la dicotomía de los dos referidos modelos de racionalidad, lo clásico frente a lo post-moderno; como polaridad histórica que es origen de muchos problemas en el tiempo presente, sobre todo, referidos al sentido filosófico y a la convivencia pacífica en términos globales.
Una vez afirmada tal magnitud de cambio conceptual en la autopercepción de la razón filosófica, no puedo evitar una pregunta que casi salta como un resorte en mi mente: ¿es posible realizar un análisis crítico de los distintos “momentos” filosóficos, con visos de fundar alguna clase de metasentido, en el eje de su devenir histórico? No parece ésta una cuestión superflua, pues la concibo como una exploración previa y esencial, al objeto de calibrar las posibilidades para una argumentación objetiva de la razón, susceptible de ir más allá de la incomensurabilidad histórica entre discursos individuales (más o menos racionales o, reconocida y directamente –como en el caso del pensamiento “libidinal” de Lyotard-, carentes de rasgos visibles de racionalidad).
La oportunidad de encontrar uno o varios ejes de sentido histórico interno, en el seno de la filosofía misma, representa un factor clave -aunque no necesariamente el único- con el que argumentar nuevas dimensiones válidas para su autocomprensión crítica, inclusiva de una posible comprensión integradora de carácter existencial, en términos globales. No se trata de pergeñar nuevos ejercicios de formalización pura de la razón individual, sino, desde la propia consciencia histórica de su situación, de buscar lugares comunes dentro del discurso filosófico general, y dentro de sus márgenes de validez discursiva y democrática. El “final” de este trayecto se presenta como difícil pero irrenunciable ante la voluntad. Y su objetivo puede explicitarse como sigue: lograr la formulación de unas nuevas bases, estructurales, de la razón; no excluyentes de ninguna de sus dimensiones científica, material, epistemológica, moral, artística, emocional o espiritual".


ps: not much changed, You'll See. Adored Beautiful, Heavenly Hugging Kisss!!

Hi!
Difficult concepts to mind, but developing well. Now I've got the "vinculación" of the arguments. True.
Ever coming to visit me?
I'd be a good host. Poor , but good. Could come with Friends or Family. I know it could be Friendly Calmy.
Well, maybe on time. Who knows!
On the works, back again now. This is like jump for getting into the water, "sumergido" for exploring conceptuality good Yeah, I've got it, the "line" for the whole next 1.2, justifying metasense in philohistory.
Loving!

Hi!


How are things!!
I don't remember have dreamt very much, though I remember have thought about, very thoughtful, about the opening institution language, as symbolism, is. The opening naturally connected to transcendent knowledge and so.
What a cold heart!
Well, it's what I Need for finished the task; though those Pictures in HEAVEN, There's the place, as long as You're Up There; are "Brutally" Helping for INSPIRATION Big.
Now repeating a Real Truth: I did not know what the name of the chicken female was till I said directly here. True. So, those talks about "rogeta", my hen when I was a kid crying for the Devastating good-bye, True, were Not at all for funny attacks.
Though.
For going on even almost like definitive instituted peace:
The other day I did see there's a Movie from 2012, "Midiendo el mundo", which is a parallel vision of Tremendous Humboldt and Gauss Lifes. So Different, so Bright, and Finally Coincident on a Meeting of them two.
So, Vocalizing Well for Fine Peace, after "Han"...
I remember a scene when Gauss meets Kant. He tells him: oh my, finally I did find somebody who can understand me and to whom I can talk free, knowing we're on the same mental wave (of Geniuses, he should add, but it's too clear). And he ends saying to Kant: "do you feel the same?"
And Kant answers, very thoughtfully, I guess: "Sal-Chi-Cha". On a 3-1 Chat, not shot.


For Good Staying, Going and I Hope.
I Admit I'm a little physically "tupat", taking easy the calm rest 24-48 hours.
Yesterday did edit (tons of notes for correcting, almost as much as tons of thread I feel all around my gum ) good number of pages on the next "sub-epígrafe", and today finishing, probably only on had, the whole of it.
I Have also to Admit the Dream, related to derivations of Wittgenstein Theories (Nothing erotic True , but the shared passion for the understanding of all), somehow, Did Help me to Make my Ideas Get More Fixed in mind. This Task Never ends to a thinker. On Good TV Program where that Movie was Commented, "Días de Cine", it was also said, on the same Movie, that scientists are like condemned to a solitary life, pure introspective "sacrifice" and joy for the Searching of intellectual and practic goals. There's a scene where one of Leading Roles (it was a little mess to me the difference between them, True) is told, by a Lady whom He seems to Like Very Much, that he was not made to get married, because he was Married to his intellectual neverending search. Oh, well.
I don't know, but I Do Feel Very Heavenly, Necessary and Deeply Fulfilling Connection, since I remember!!
But, well, this is Helping, cause somehow it's True. As I always say: big going deep under, on thinking goals, gets you a little further than usual from the real living (as it proves this last dream tonight I had), that related to "our" doing could be called as living of the pure feelings naturally born.
Well, everything cant be measured by our litlte brains, and though this, however,
I Love You for Eternity, I Know!! And the physical touch was Electrifying, and the Tight Kind Hug is a Dream coming True someday I Know
(and hormones do still Work!! )

Hi!


Good morning Hug, on the going.
Really Inspired for the Task. Energized Fine.
Nice Pictures and Messages Up There. Kind Inspiring
Well, on the going, after Good resting night (though I'd have expent couple of hours more in bed ).
Good Hugs Loving for Eternity!

Hi!


Good working evening-night. Focused. When brain is out of shape for the tired, the best is to leave papers and rest. I did it, this weekend, and here I've got results.
Finished Descartes (Good!), with edition, and edition of previous point, myth and logos, too.
Tonight preparing on mind next one.
I guess a good title, for the "perspectived" focusing I openly admit I'm using for the historic vision, could be: "The critic rationalism and empirism" ("Racionalismo y empirismo críticos"). Focused on Hume and Kant. Shorter than Descartes. And this was quite shorter than the previous too. I think it's more meaningful than I thought: the construction of reason is a progress, the constructive and deconstructive evolution of it at onceM; and to my historic perspective, the closer I come to the present, the easier is to develope the subject.
Though, tons of notes, explaining and bibliographic references too.
I do feel like a boxer training in the ring (at this Good, cause I don't like the hitting; well...; anyway, some friendly rugby or football I used to adore when young).
Well, Good night and Hugs, on the Loving!


ps: rocket heart on the kind ways, with a permanent vision of hope, I actually guess. Good! God Bless!
There's so Much to Do.

I cant see if all I wanted to say it's there, but my brain does need a time out.
I can not exactly say thanks for the collaboration, forum, but it's OK.
Frustration does only come when you have some expectations. When there's no expectation, there's no frustration.
Seeing!
God Bless, a Hug!


ps: so Happy for Pictures and Vienna things, I KNOW I don't belong. So it's OK. And I Really Adore You're Treated and Admired this Way!

Hi OK it's done!
A little tired but on really good feeling. It was tough, but it is accomplished.
Next week I am finishing this historic part. AFter it, starting the second chapter.
Now resting and some TV Sports at night (or in the morning if my brain and body can not handle the time).
Good Hug Loving, Heavenly!!

Hi Good,

how are things!
Here it's raining. Finally! Dried fields, problems for all biology living, specially the every year's grwon seeds (now salvation at this time of the year, the most of them) and trees. This last ones is a little more worrying and painful, cause there're also economic perjudices here, and the fact trees are such a special creatures.
But well, it's finally raining!
Yesterday triples and dunks, wow Tremendous! (well, I had to watch yesterday for the issue of hours difference). And today the Match!
I dedicated the weekend to Rest as Much as I Could (acceleration for inertial mind for efforts for official work + investigation, was so Real, but I did actually drive it well to lower heartbeats) and to have some fun too, for real (I'm at my actual natural states; the goals I'm achieving as obvious to my judgement, in the philosophy field, do mean some that's adult and kid me so much, it seems -the 3 first years were really "angustiating", cause I was not catching the conclusions, and I was always afraid I was forgetting something, or missing the read of some book..., and now I've got the structure of all my thinking almost finished, and I Know and Feel it's only a matter of focused work on efforts, to see the treatise Finished, something happening in june).
And well, we did not exactly go to the Chateu Marmont , but I have some relaxing fun too. Wow!
Also hope the Music I was listening on the cell was known -I guess so, and I did, mainly, for this Communcation.
Well, Fixing the low heartbeats this morning, taking the week very Intense but easy. Now to Concentrate and Intense Tasking, but Moderate too.
God Bless!
And Very Good Loving Hug for Eternity!!