The psychopathology of ultranationalistm

The psychopathology of ultranationalistm

sociologie Baldovin   01:56

Varianta in limba romana aici http://baldovinconcept.blogspot.ro/2013/12/psihopatologia-mentalitatii.html:

The concept of nationalism actually reffers to three quite different things in terms of mental resorts involved in this feeling:

1 . the basic nationalism;
2 . the moderate nationalism ;
3 . the ultranationalim ;

These three forms of nationalism can be interpreted inside the language , depending on the attitude of those who subscribe to it. Interestingly, although they are specific to human race, their base is found in the animal world also, of course, somewhat in a kind of rudimentary form.

Te basic nationalism is the simple need for sociability, the need for belonging to a social group. There is not much to analyze here, simply some animals have found that community life is easier than solitary in certain circumstances. Likewise, the the human being noticed that if the individuals split up life issues and each one specializes in a particular activity, the community is more effective and things are better done. This type of nationalism involves the cordial relations a individual have with all community members. The moderate nationalism is different; it appears when the community has separate groups within, when there exists a certain tendency to reject other community members, or other nearby communities, and being more affective to it’s own community . It can be related to certain animal species that are threatened by a predator, by an unfavorable geographic reality, or by insufficient necessary for survival resources. In this case, the natural selection has a visible role for promoting for survival the most competitive individuals and for marginalization those less endowed . At this stage, the conflicts between groups inside of communities occur only in certain specific cases of mating or sharing resources, and the tense atmosphere does not perpetuate after they ended.

On the contrary, the ultranationalism has a constant hostility to these external groups that the individual does not belong, and visible aggressive behavior or attitudes towards them . Such a psychopathological conformation is basically modeled by the phenomenon of marching and marauding armies against other communities that constantly happened in the last millennia, plus other factors that I will analyze below. There is a precedent in the animal world, namely the predators species rival families that decimate each other when they have the chance, not only when are competing for resources or for mating. For example, a wolf that belongs a rival family can be killed by other family members if caught alone, without the protection of his family. But such behavior can not be yet called ultranationalist but rather normal wild. If the other two forms of nationalism have a visible correspondence in the animal world, on the contrary the ultranationalism is specifically human being. It cannot be reduced to such a savage war relationship because, in human’s case, it exists in peacetime also. In order to understand its inner mechanisms there must first be analyzed the social context of the other two forms.

Starting from its own family, the human being tends to decreasingly love people in a centrifugal direction from the core of its own person, to the family and then to other people outside of it, positioned on the next levels . On this centrifugal spiral line there are gradually found the self, the 1 degree relatives, the 2 degree relatives, the friends , the neighbors, acquaintances, coregionals and fellow-citizens. The society is a kind of extended family just as the normal family is a small society with closing and separations and with tensions and alliances between its members. Any social group works as the swarm of bees, when bees swarms hive off the older members form a new family, practically forgetting that the newest bees were part of their family not long ago; if the two bee families do not separate each other then there is likely to arise conflicts between them. In the same way, every family and every community, as it grows, it tends to separate in more compact but less antagonistic to the other small groups. The psychology has observed for long time now that the exclusion or marginalization of a member helps to strengthen the links between other members. Such a repositioning of connections between the groups members is a healthy natural movement for species in order to occupy more efficient the habitable territories; the conflict between species members, families and communities forces certain individuals to move on and colonize other territories. In this way , the species takes a kind of protective measure in case of possible natural disasters, populating the most diverse habitable territories increases the chances of survival of the species if such potential disasters.

As just being out from the wilderness, the human being behaves very much like the rest of the species, in this regard. 5000 , 10 000 or 15 000 years of civilization means very little compared to the humanity million years of evolution. Therefore, with overpopulation, tensions begin to appear inside the human community, as desire for separation and rejection. They are much stronger in the case of predators, as is the human being. In this case, the specie self-regulates itself in relationship with the prey that dependent on. This type of self-regulating process is made by strong assault against some of its own specie members. If predator specie would multiply too much, thus potentially bringing the prey to extinction, then the predator threaten its own specie with extinction. So instead exterminate its prey, the predator naturally accepts tighten the belt of its own specie. The enmity with rival species of predators is a stage of this self-regulating trend.

As ultimate predator, it is almost a miracle that the human population has reached over 7 billion individuals. The tiger, the snow leopard and so many other predators’ species worryingly stay around 1000. Anyway, our prosperity as a species comes not from a prey extermination unnatural caprice, but from the technology that we have developed in these few thousand years of civilization evolution. Instead of exterminating hunting, the human being innovatively turned to create farm animals, and started to breed and feed them. Not only that the man did not exterminate the prey species, but it has diversified them by artificial mating and somehow creating new ones. Genetics has allowed in the last century even creating completely new animal species.

Nevertheless, our number might still be too big. The perpetuating "nature colonization", its destruction to implement new human settlements or for its resources exploitation may cause such an imbalance which means even greater threat to already endangered species. The warrior mentality, predisposed to aggressive gestures against other social groups, is based on this opinion. Just like the predators self-regulating number through fierce struggles, in the same way those who subscribe to this mentality are directly or indirectly involved into reduction the number of individuals within their own species. But, on the other hand, there are opinions or psychical attitudes that the earth has enough resources to keep even more people than now*. However, when the humanity collective mindset comes the theme of reducing the number of individuals, each member proposes a criterion on which to meet it too. The nationalism, the xenophobia and all other forms of getting close to a particular group and rejection to other social groups is a cultural extension of this wild biological imperative to reduce the number inside its own species. The stronger the threats become the nationalism turn into ultranationalism, as aggressiveness, in response to these threats, becomes proportionally stronger.

[ ( The following paragraph is more technical . Covering it can help the comprehension following text, but one can skip it if consider too difficult) The Oedipus Complex is not only the Z erotic predisposition to X and the hostile predisposition to Y, as classical psychoanalysis says. The sexual instinct is secondary in this equation. In fact, the Oedipus Complex is a transgenerational synthesis of the warrior society mental heritance. Before being erotic, the Z closeness to X is a comradeship one, while the hostility toward Y originates in confrontation with the enemy. If a child inherits from parents strong sexual impulses then its Oedipus complex will be directly proportional strong to the intensity of those impulses, as been described by classical psychology. But if these impulses are weak then the Oedipus Complex is undersexualized also inversely proportional to the sexual instinct energy intensity that was inherited, thus manifesting less (inner) neurotic and more (outer) paranoid. In fact, the Oedipus Complex itself is the implication of childhood hostility and aggressiveness. And the aggressiveness is the secondary stage of the Traumatic Complex, after the primary stage which is the regressive-depressive phase**. Any psychical energy intensity increasing is due to the presence of resources to satisfy impulses, coupled by an actual threat or a traumatic experience that prevents this meeting. This Complex is a universal one since any human mind is governed by negotiation between the desire for pleasure and the fear of punishment. But it is more pronounced in the lower social classes, since they are more threatened with punishment than the upper ones. ] 

The ultranationalism problem is the social lower classes problem themselves, as they are dominated by cultural aggression due to the frustration education. The aggressiveness involves the refusal to accept a lower place in a social expanded hierarchy. The lower place that the social lower classes accept it is due to a simple need for social survival but not a total acquiescence. In their inside forum, the lower classes hate their social position and hope for a higher position, sometimes a mystical one. The key of religion itself originates here. That is why the social lower classes are unable to organize themselves and to accept a modest place in the decision making hierarchy. Thus the members of these social classes are unable to genuine fraternize and empathy each other. "Proletarians of all countries, unite! " is a true ideal, a push to streamline an outdated social status. If the communist political theories wanted a such empathy through what they called "the class struggle", on the contrary, the ultranationalism extends the social class to the whole nation. For the ultranationalism "The enemies of the people" are not bourgeois (at least not bourgeois only) but other nations (that the bourgeoisies belong to). Sometimes, between the two theories there is common ground. There are ultranationalists today who believe that the new bourgeoisie, the new owners, the rich have different national genealogy from the one that economically activate, thus they often paranoid ideation regarding this theme.

Emotionally speaking, the ultra-nationalists are very lonely people. Their empathic capacity is very small, proportionally inverse to the commitment that they love their country. That is because the notion of "nation", "people" and "country" are very ambiguous and implies the projection of an ideal into them, without being actually verified. In reality the ultranationalist is a paranoid, suspicious, loud and opinionated person, ready to start arguments with anyone who does not accept its views. The paranoid personality disorder is the most common among ultranationalists. The few friends they have are poor minded people who need a reference in the world that do not understand. Nevertheless, they often leave the ultranationalist and its theories, therefore, the word “traitor " is very frequently used. The ultranationalist goes to historical commemorations trying to establish emotional relationships with other ultranationalist planning to start a "national revolution”, eventually. The tears and the hopes for an ideal (national) world coming out from such meetings can be relatated to acute oedipal discrepancies of this psychopathological structure; such a titanic - melodramatic meeting resembles with the mother-child meeting after she has been gone a while. It is very interesting that, at the slightest disagreement or difference of opinion, the yesterday’s ultranationalist "brothers" can radically be perceived as ... traitors. The ultranationalists’ paradox is that, although they enormously love their (abstract) country and their (abstract) nation, they have often hostile or cold relations with their (real) people. Most of their acquaintances are appreciated either as cowards or as traitors. Being tired of so many “traitors”, the ultranationalists sometimes think about emigration to another "more civilized" country whose citizens are "real men" and "honest" ...

Ultranationalist can also be the hooligan from European football stadiums. When the national team is playing the ultranationalist puts the hand on its chest and very involved sing the national anthem. This person ecstatically embraces other hooligan that does not know when the national team scores. This thing is completely forgotten when the supported club team is facing a rival same country league team that previously had sung for. Although days ago, the hooligan was showing great deal of love for the other hooligan, later the table could turn into profound hate for those who support the rival team. Such a discrepancy has a traumatical resonance and, consequential, an oedipal one too. This case shows a social-family spiral distortion; instead of focusing the specific natural affection to its family core, the ultranationalist expels it to outer area into the national unknown. This person puts out there its chances of finding such a blank person in order to (positively) project an ideal in order to share its love with. Likewise, the hostility is also randomly thrown out of social-family spiral into the unknown of another nation area. Its own nation is perceived as a good parent while the different nations are perceived as a bad parent. In the case of at the ultranationalists, the psychopathological paranoid constitution dominance, the conflict between love and hate, pour out of classic oedipal familial riverbed, crossing over the border to the nation.

There will be a basic nationalism and a moderate nationalism as long as the slavery (either classical or corporate) will exist in this world. And as long as the technology will not have replaced all the human labor, there will be slavery. Of course, as long as there is slavery, the human society would be caught with one foot in the wildness. This will also involve the need to promote our own offspring in front of others, meant to be slaves. Nevertheless, the ultranationalism is outdated. There is no need for aggression against other nations and other groups in today’s civilized world. If endanger other species, the human species may decrease its number of individuals by controlling birth. It is more convenient and less traumatic than the war solution proposed by the ultranationalists. A very different spectrum of contraception methods that humanity developed can provide such a solution. Therefore, as a moral solution, the ultranationalism must be rejected.

* Personally, I subscribe to the second view. There are many deserts, steppes and other arid lands that human being could turn into oasis, with technology. Such a human specie development does not involve collateral damage to other species but their promotion. 

** The careful reader might notice a discrepancy with my theories from “The Dynamics of abyssal psychology”, now placing the Oedipus Complex near to the human archaic- primitive level of development, which is first Complexes group, the Traumatic-Eden one. In from “The Dynamics of abyssal psychology” I placed the Oedipus Complex as a part of the Narcissus Complex, as a particular form. But there is no inconsistency here. Simply the first group of Complexes metamorphoses in the second one (Polis - Cain) and also in the third one (Tabu- Narcissus) . In fact, all the subsequent Complexes are cultural-historical metamorphosis of the Traumatic Eden Complexes group.

Gabriel Baldovin

Psihopatologia mentalitatii ultranationaliste

Psihopatologia mentalitatii ultranationaliste

sociologie Baldovin   05:50

english version here: http://baldovinconcept.blogspot.ro/2014/01/the-psychopathology-of-ultranationalistm.html

Atunci cand vorbim de nationalism vorbim de fapt de trei lucruri total distincte in materie de resorturi psihice implicate in acest sentiment:

1. nationalismul gregar;
2. nationalismul moderat;
3. ultranationalimul;

Aceste 3 forme de nationalism pot fi interpretate in limba, in functie de atitudinea celor care subscriu la el. Interesant este ca, desi sunt specific umane, baza lor se regaseste inclusiv in lumea animala, fireste, intr-o forma ceva mai rudimentara.

Nationalismul gregar este simpla sociabilitate, nevoia de apartenenta la un grup social. Nu e mare lucru de analizat aici, pur si simplu unele animale au observat ca viata in comunitate e mai usoara decat cea solitara. In acelasi fel, omul a observat ca daca isi imparte sarcinile si fiecare se specializeaza pe o anumita activitate, comunitatea este mai eficienta, lucrurile sunt facute mai bine. Caracteristic pentru acest tip de nationalism sunt relatiile cordiale cu toti membrii comunitatii. Nationalismul moderat presupune la om deja o nevoie de separare pe grupuri in interiorul comunitatii, o anumita tendinta de respingere a altor membri sau a altor comunitati si de apropiere afectiva superioara fata de propria comunitate. El poate fi corelat cu speciile de animale amenintate de un pradator sau de o realitate geografica nefavorabila, fie de insuficienta resurselor necesare supravietuirii. In acest caz intra vizibil in rol selectia naturala care promoveaza cele mai abile exemplare pentru supravietuire, cu marginalizarea celor mai putin dotate. In acest stadiu conflictele intre grupurile unei comunitati apar doar in cazurile concrete de imperechere sau impartire a resurselor, fara ca atmosfera tensionata sa se perpetueze si dupa ce acestea s-au incheiat.

Dimpotriva, ultranationalismul inseamna o constanta ostilitate fata de aceste grupuri externe celui din care individul face parte si comportamente sau atitudini clar agresive la adresa lor. O astfel de conformatie psihopatologica este modelata principial de fenomenul armatelor marsaluitoare si jefuitoare de comunitati din ultimele milenii la care se adauga alti factori pe care ii voi analiza mai jos. Exista si precedent in lumea animala, respectiv la familiile rivale ale speciilor de pradatori care se decimeaza intre ele si in afara momentelor cand concureaza pentru resurse sau pentru imperechere. De exemplu, un lup dintr-o familie rivala poate fi ucis de membrii altei familii daca este prins singur, fara protectia familiei sale. Dar astfel de comportament nu poate fi numit ultranationalist ci mai curand salbatic normal. Daca celelalte forme de nationalism au corespondent vizibil in lumea animala, ultranationalismul este specific uman. El nu se reduce la o astfel de relatie salbatica de razboi pentru ca, la om, el se manifesta si in timp de pace. Pentru a-i intelege mecanismele trebuie analizat mai intai contextul social al celorlalte doua forme.

Pornind de la propria familie, omul tinde sa iubeasca descrescator oamenii intr-un sens centrifug, de la nucleul propriei persoane, catre membrii familiei si apoi catre ceilalti oameni din exteriorul ei, aflati pe nivelurile urmatoare. Pe aceasta linie centrifuga spiralata se gasesc progresiv propriul eu, rudele de gradul 1, rude de gradul 2, rude de gradul 3, prieteni, vecini, cunoscuti, concitadini si conationali. Societatea este un fel de familie extinsa la fel cum familia este o societate restransa, cu apropieri si departari, cu tensiuni si aliante intre membri. Orice grup social functioneaza dupa modelul roiului albinelor; cand stupul roieste albinele mai in varsta formeaza o noua familie, uitand practic ca stupul mai nou erau parte din propria familie; daca cele doua familii de albine nu se separa atunci risca sa apara conflicte intre ele. In acelasi fel, orice familie si orice comunitate tinde sa se separe in grupulete mai compacte dar mai antagonice cu celelalte pe masura ce se dezvolta. Psihologia a observat de mult ca excluderea sau marginalizarea unui membru ajuta la intarirea legaturilor dintre ceilalti membri. O astfel de repozitionare a legaturilor dintre membrii unui grup este o miscare naturala sanatoasa a speciilor de ocupare cat mai eficienta a teritoriilor locuibile; conflictul dintre membrii, familiile si comunitatile unei specii face ca o parte aflata in el sa se mute mai departe si sa colonizeze alte teritorii. In felul acesta, specia isi ia un fel de masura de protectie in cazul unor posibile cataclisme; popularea cat mai distribuita a teritoriilor locuibile face ca sansele de supravietuire a speciei in cazul unor astfel de posibile dezastre sa fie mai mari.

Ca fiinta abia iesita din salbaticie, omul se comporta foarte asemanator ca restul speciilor in aceasta privinta. 5 000, 10 000 sau 15 000 de ani de civilizatie inseamna foarte putin fata de evolutia multimilionara a umanitatii. Prin urmare, odata cu suprapopularea, in interiorul comunitatii umane incep sa apara tensiuni, dorinte de separare si respingere. Acestea sunt mult mai puternice in cazul pradatorilor, asa cum este si omul. In acest caz, specia se autoregleaza conform cu speciile pradate de care depinde. Acest tip de autoreglare se face prin agresiune puternica impotriva unora dintre membrii sai. Daca specia pradatorului s-ar inmulti prea mult, riscand astfel sa aduca in pragul disparitiei prada, atunci practic si-ar ameninta pe sine cu disparitia. Asa ca, in loc sa isi extermine prada, pradatorul accepta in mod natural sa isi stranga cureaua propriei specii. Dusmania fata de speciile rivale de pradatori este o etapa a acestei tendinte autoreglative.

Ca pradator maxim, este aproape un miracol ca omul a putut ajunge la un numar de peste 7 miliarde de indivizi. Tigrul, leopardul de zapada si atatea alte specii de pradatori se invart ingrijorator in jurul cifrei de 1000. Insa prosperitatea noastra ca specie vine nu atat dintr-un huzur nenatural de exterminare a prazii, ci de la tehnologia pe care am dezvoltat-o in aceste cateva mii de ani de evolutie a civilizatiei. In locul unei vanatori exterminatore, omul a ales in mod inovativ sa creeze ferme de animale, sa le inmulteasca si sa se hraneasca cu ele. Nu doar ca omul nu a exterminat speciile pradate de animale, dar le-a si diversificat, imperechindu-le artificial si creand astfel specii oarecum noi. Genetica a permis in ultimul secol chiar crearea astfel de noi animale.

S-ar putea ca numarul nostru sa fie totusi cam mare. „Colonizarea” perpetua a naturii, distrugerea ei pentru implementarea unor noi asezaminte umane sau pentru exploatarea resurselor sale poate produce un dezechilibru care inseamna amenintarea si mai mare a unor specii aflate deja in pericol. Mentalitatile razboinice, predispozante la a porni agresiune impotriva altor grupuri sociale, au la baza aceasta opinie. Asemenea pradatorilor care isi autoregleaza numarul prin lupte feroce, si cei care subscriu la aceasta mentalitate realizeaza direct sau indirect o reducere a numarului de indivizi din interiorul speciei. Dar, pe de alta parte, exista si opinia sau atitudinea psihica dupa care pamantul are destule resurse pentru a mentine chiar si mai multi oameni decat acum*. In orice caz, atunci cand in mentalitatea colectiva a umanitatii intervine tema reducerii numarului de indivizi, fiecare membru isi propune un criteriu de selectie pe care sa il indeplineasca si el. Nationalismul, xenofobia si orice forma de apropiere de un anumit grup si respingere a altor grupuri sociale este o prelungire culturala a acestui imperativ salbatic biologic de reducere a numarului propriei specii. Pe fondul unor amenintari mai puternice, nationalismul poate deveni ultranationalism, atunci cand agresivitatea, ca raspuns la aceste amenintari, devine si ea direct proportional mai puternica.

[(Urmatorul paragraf este mai tehnic. Parcurgerea lui poate ajuta pentru intelegerea textului ce ii urmeaza, insa se poate si sari peste el in cazul in care cititorul il considera prea dificil) Complexul Oedip nu este numai predispozitia erotica a lui Z pentru X si predispozitia sa ostila pentru Y, asa cum spune psihanaliza clasica. Pulsiunea sexuala e secundara in aceasta ecuatie. De fapt complexul Oedip este sintetizarea transgenerationala a societatii razboinice. Inainte de a fi erotica, apropierea lui Z de X este una camaradereasca, in timp ce ostilitatea sa fata de Y isi are originea in confruntarea cu inamicul. Daca copilul mosteneste pulsini sexuale puternice de la parinti atunci complexul sau Oedip va fi pronuntat erotic direct proportional cu intensitatea acelor pulsiuni, avand practic forma descrisa de psihologia clasica. Dar daca aceste pulsiuni sunt slabe atunci complexul Oedip va fi si el desexualizat invers proportional cu intensitatea energetica a pulsiunii sexuale mostenite, manifestandu-se mai putin nevroticist (interiorizat) si mai mult paranoid (exteriorizat) . De fapt insusi complexul Oedip este implicatia infantila a ostilitatii, a agresivitatii. Iar agresivitatea este momentul secundar al complexului Traumatic, dupa momentul primar care este faza sa regresivo-depresiva**. Orice intensitate crescuta a energiei psihice se datoreaza prezentei resurselor de satisfacere a pulsiunilor, dublata de o amenintare concreta sau chiar o experienta traumatica ce impiedica aceasta satisfacere. El este un complex universal devreme ce psihicul oricarui om este guvernat de negocierea dintre dorinta de placere si teama de pedeapsa. Insa el este mai pronuntat la clasele inferioare, amenintate mai mult cu pedeapsa decat cele superioare. ] 

Problema ultranationalismului este problema claselor inferioare insele, dominate de agresivitate culturala, ca urmare a frustrarilor la care sunt supuse prin educatie. Agresivitatea implica refuzul de a-si accepta un loc inferior intr-o ierarhie extinsa. Locul inferior pe care clasele inferioare si-l accepta se datoreaza unei simple nevoi de supravietuire sociala ci nu unei consimtiri totale. In forul lor interior, clasele inferioare isi detesta pozitia sociala si spera la o pozitie superioara, uneori mistica. Aici sta cheia religiei insasi. Din aceasta cauza clasele inferioare sunt incapabile de a se organiza si de a accepta un loc mai modest intr-o ierarhie a luarii deciziilor. Astfel ca membrii acestor clase sunt incapabili sa fraternizeze si sa empatizeze autentic unii cu altii. „Proletari din toate tarile, uniti-va!” este un adevarat ideal, un imbold de eficientizare a unei stari sociale anacronice. Daca teoriile politice comuniste isi doreau o astfel de empatizare prin ceea ce ele numeau „lupta de clasa”, dimpotriva ultranationalismul extinde clasa la natiune. Pentru ultranationalism „dusmanii poporului” nu sunt burghezii (sau nu numai burghezii) ci alte popoare (eventual din care fac parte burghezii). Uneori, intre cele doua teorii se pot gasi puncte comune. Exista astazi ultranationalisti care cred ca noii burghezi, noii patroni au genealogie nationala diferita de cea in care ei activeaza economic, deseori construind ideatie paranoida legata de descendenta acestora.

Din punct de vedere afectiv, ultranationalistii sunt foarte insingurati. Capacitatea lor empatica este foarte mica, invers proportional cu devotamentul cu care ei isi iubesc tara. Asta pentru ca insasi notiunile de „natiune”, „popor” si „tara” sunt ele insele ambigue si comporta proiectia unui ideal in ele fara a putea fi verificate concret. In realitate ultranationalistul este un om paranoid, suspicios, galagios, incapatanat si gata sa se ia la harta cu oricine nu ii accepta opiniile. Tulburarea de personalitate de tip paranoid e cea mai des intalnita printre ei. Putinii prieteni pe care ii are sunt spirite slabe, care au nevoie de un reper in lumea din care nu pricep mai nimic. De multe ori si acestia il parasesc si, de aceea, cuvantul „tradator” e foarte frecvent folosit de ei. Ultranationalistul merge la comemorari istorice incercand sa stabileasca relatii afective cu alti ultranationalisti cu care sa porneasca o revolutie „nationala”, evental. Lacrimile si sperantele unei lumi ideale (nationale) care apar la astfel de intalniri pot fi puse in relatie cu discrepantele oedipiene acute ale acestei mentalitati; o astfel de intalnire titanico-melodramatica seamana cu intalnirea copilului cu mama care a fost plecata o perioada. Interesant este ca, la cea mai mica neintelegere sau divergenta de opinie, „fratii” ultranationalisti de ieri se pot transforma radical in… tradatori. Paradoxul ultranationalistului e ca, desi isi iubeste enorm tara (abstracta) si poporul (abstract), el e in relatii ostile sau reci cu membrii (concreti ai) acestora. Majoritatea cunoscutilor sai sunt apreciati fie ca lasi fie ca tradatori. Satul de atatia tradatori, ultranationalistul se gandeste uneori la emigrarea intr-o alta tara, mai „civilizata” si cu cetateni mai „barbati” si mai „onesti”…

Ultranationalistul poate fi ultrasul de pe stadioanele de fotbal. Cand joaca nationala isi pune mana pe piept si canta foarte implicat imnul. El se imbratiseaza extatic cu ceilalti ultrasi pe care nu-i cunoaste, atunci cand echipa nationala da gol. Lucrul acesta e uitat pe deplin atunci cand echipa de club cu care tine se confrunta cu o echipa rivala dar din aceeasi tara pentru care cantase anterior. Atunci ultrasul e gata sa ii linseze pe ultrasul echipei rivale. O astfel de discrepanta are rezonanta traumatica si, pe cale de consecinta, oedipiana. Putem vedea aici o distorsionare a spiralei familial-sociale; in locul afectivitatii naturale specifica nucleului sau familial, ultranationalistul o expulzeaza in zona exterioara a necunoscutului national. El mizeaza acolo pe hazardul agatarii unui individ care sa permita proiectia unui ideal si cu care sa isi imparta iubirea. In acelasi fel, ostilitatea este si ea aruncata la intamplare in afara spiralei familial-sociale in zona necunoscutului alt-national. Natiunea proprie este perceputa ca un parinte bun in timp ce natiunea diferita este un parinte rau. Dominat de o constitutie psihopatologica paranoida, conflictul intre dragoste si ura la ultranationalist evadeaza din albia clasica familial-oedipiana, trecand granita catre natiune.

Vom avea nationalism gregar si nationalism moderat atata timp cat vom avea si sclavagism (fie clasic fie corporatist) in aceasta lume. Iar atata timp cat tehnologia nu va fi inlocuit total munca umana, va exista si sclavagism. Desigur, atata timp cat va exista acest sclavagism, societatea umana va fi prinsa cu un picior in salbaticie. Acest lucru va implica si nevoia de a ne promova propriul copil in fata altora, meniti sa fie sclavi. Insa ultranationalismul este inactual. Nu mai e nevoie de agresivitate fata de alte natiuni si alte grupuri sociale. Daca pune in pericol alte specii, specia umana isi poate scadea numarul de indivizi prin scaderea natalitatii. Este mult mai comod si mai putin traumatic decat solutia razboiului propusa de ultranationalisti. Metodele diverse de contraceptie pot oferi o astfel de solutie. De aceea, ca solutie etica, el trebuie respins.

*Personal, subscriu la aceasta a doua opinie. Sunt foarte multe deserturi, stepe si alte zone aride pe care omul le poate transforma in oaze cu ajutorul tehnologiei. O astfel de dezvoltare a speciei umane nu implica distrugerea colaterala a altor specii ci chiar promovarea acestora. 

**Cititorul atent ar putea observa o discrepanta cu teoriile mele din Dinamica Psihologiei Abisale, plasand acum complexul Oedip aproape de zona arhaico-primitiva a omului, respectiv prima grupa de complexe, cea Traumatic-Eden. In Dinamica Psihologiei Abisale, plasam complexul Oedip in cel Narcis, teoretizandu-l ca forma particulara a sa. Insa nu este nici o inconsecventa aici. Pur si simplu prima grupa de complexe se regaseste metamorfozata si in cea de-a doua (Polis-Cain) si si in cea de-a treia (Tabu-Narcis). De fapt toate complexele ulterioare sunt metamorfozari cultural-istorice ale grupei Traumatic-Eden.

Gabriel Baldovin

The Voice of Ecological reason

The Voice of Ecological reason

sociologie Baldovin   23:46

Click aici pentru varianta in limba romana: 

Since when I was a child I keep asking myself why did we, as a species, stuck with the mind. We became the most successful one, we have ensured our survival among the others but, somehow, on the other hand thinking (with its direct consequence, knowledge) has poisoned our peace of mind and innocence that look like being lost forever. Our moments of peace and comfort seem to be temporary. We created religion and art which give us some assurance that the soul is eternal. But that seems to be rather a counteraction symptom of a metaphysical death fear that superior human consciousness, as intelligence and experience consequence, put in our way. In addition to such ancestral fear, the civilization gives us daily reasons for desolation, observing how the rules are changing during the game and how the injustices and the abuses happen everywhere. Actually our ability to think has brought a disturbing different side of the story. The depressions in the civilized world reach over 80%. That means that, somehow, 80% of people would (unconsciously) like not to exist. It is frightening. Many don not attempt actual suicide due to the death pain fear moment or to religious principles. Somehow, our intelligence seems to be rather damnation than a quality.

And yet, I trust in the nature wisdom. Nobody wanted to punish us as a species by giving thinking and consciousness. I am convinced that these are nature qualities meant to protect and promote the environment itself. Our moral anguish that surrounds us concerning the ecological disasters that we have done in the past or we might do in the future, show actually what is its purpose. The life protection in all its diversity, creating races and even new species of animals and even moving them to another galaxy in a few millions or billions of years, when the sun will have exhausted its energy, is the purpose of this strange mind capacity that we ourselves do not understand yet and do not know what to do with. The human being is not life executioner but its child. The life has put hopes and invested in human being just as parents do in offspring. The intelligence does not belong to human being only but to life as a whole. If we bring water into the empty deserts and if we bring life on other planets then the human mind has washed away all its past sins. The crimes of history that we did against other species and against our own fellows would be forgiven.
But we are not yet the mature human being that our mother nature wants from us. We are still primitive despite cultural and technological chasm that separates us from the rest of living creatures. We are still children. But, even now, from our early childhood, we must make this life saving exercise in order to practice it when will grow up. We can say that the problems that we have now, the environmental disasters that we deeply feel that must avoid, are actually some tests in which the nature put us like a parent curious to see how the child evolved.

I read the opinion (http://www.gandul.info/puterea-gandului/caini-si-oameni-11290769) whose main theme is the stray dogs killing. This article is full of contradictory to each other ideas or to their consequences. It is not my propose here to analyze them in detail, I just focus on one of them, namely the right to kill dogs would be legitimate since we have the right to kill for food, on the one hand, like we do with the pigs, the cows and the chickens and, on the other hand, the right to kill for our safety, like we do with the cockroaches or rats.
Such a view continues the ancient Protagoras statement that “man is the measure of all things”. Indeed, I agree, the human being is the supreme value. But, if mocks with the environment, the human being needs a flick to wake up no matter who it might be. That is what the human species needs today that came close to the point of suffocation the environment. Therefore, now, that the man power over other creatures got so big, the Protagoras’s maxim should be reconsidered. If follow it blindly, we can reach an absurd result. Killing all the animals and multiplying ourselves beyond the current economy sustainability, according to this, may seem a good thing because the human species would flourish for a while. Yet, in the long term, such an action would be a catastrophe because, without animals, the human being might not be able to survive any more. In the best case our life would be very difficult and our species would reduce the area. That is why we should not let ourselves seduced by a superficial understanding of our privileged relationship with other creatures under us, although we are in the top of the food chain. That is why we need to limit our moral power both in front of the other creatures and in front of our fellows.

It is true that, as a species that just came into civilization, the human being feels a certain pleasure killing and hunting. Such pleasure is a natural consequence of the nutritive instinct whose wild ruins still survive in our DNA. But, at the same time, most of us empathize with our victims and with the prey that we kill. The end hunting rituals are practiced by both modern and primitive hunters. We pity the animal killed and we are flooded by depressive feelings analyzing our act, no matter how we justify it in terms of our own survival necessities. This is the “practical reason” that I. Kant used to speak. It applies to reporting to the rest of living things, not just to other members of our own species. The practical reason is not just a maternal complex projected into the species that we breed or hunt but a independent moral force with a very precise self-regulating function. I am sure that the maternal and the traumatic complex can strengthen such a force in the psychical system court. But the practical reason exists besides these complexes as separate physical pulsion.

At this point we can say that the human species preservation in the current status, in terms of both conservation and expansion limitation, is a moral action. First, as it concerns the conservation purpose, breeding and killing animals for food but also the wild animals controlled hunting is a moral action according to rational principles in Protagoras. On the contrary, stopping growing human population, especially in Far Eastern areas, may be a moral action since the human expansion led to putting other species close to extinction. Declining birth rates in western civilized areas attest this trend, providing moral higher chances of survival for endangered species. Any attempt to destroy the environment in civilized areas for the illusory goal of increasing living standards, there where the standard of living is already very high, is an immoral action.
Moreover, there is a top of animals’ importance regarding man and life in general. There are certain more valuable animals than others. Some are endangered, others thrive in man-made farms. In this moral evaluation there two key elements are considered that decide which animal is closer and which is farther away from us. The first one is the ability to think. The other one is the affection. Animal thinking can help us in our human goal to promote life. Therefore we have a duty on our turn to protect the smartest animals among the less smart ones (regarding a roughly equal numbers of individuals). The affection that the animals show us, their fidelity in love for us associate them with the maternal love that is a true shield for life for each of us. The affection that some animals give can motivate us to believe that our millennium turmoil has goal and it worth to be continued. We feel more painful a dolphin hunting than a reindeer, moose or African antelope hunting just because the dolphin is a smart and very affectionate species. Killing a dolphin for food seems close to killing a neighbor for food; it is immoral if the environment has enough food but may become acceptable if scarcity.

The human reason avoid killing this kind of animals for food just because such a gesture look like pure cannibalism since they are so much alike us. There are some primitive tribes today that until recently practiced cannibalism as a form of hunting and only the authorities’ pressure stopped it. But surely, as Europeans and civilized people in general, we consider it as a macabre practice although, in the twentieth century, we also practiced it sporadically.

Perhaps if we would live in the Far East then the dogs killing for food would not be perceived as a barbaric act precisely because, considering the absence of food, such a practice justifies preservation of the human species. But killing dogs without such a condition becomes a total immoral action. This principle applies not only to dogs. If we kill pigs, cows and chickens just for the sadistic pleasure to kill and not for our own species survival justification, then our gesture is truly inhuman. An example for that is the bosons pointless killing in North America after it has been conquered by European colonists. They have destroyed a lot of bison herds with the intention of indirectly hitting the Native Americans who depended on these animals. Such prolonged massacre remained in history as a barbaric act. Fortunately, the white Americans colonists themselves have realized that due to their moral conscience that speaks and accuses from the depths of the human soul. That is why, later, when some Europeans had similar ideas to exterminate “inferior races” the former eugenicists colonists showed their human face and opposed this plan.

There is a totally different fact about exterminating or trying to exterminate vermin. Killing these animals is not the same with killing stray dogs as pointed in the quoted above article. First, according to the mentioned criteria, cockroaches show no affection and no ability to think to be very close to human being and thus we have to evaluate them differentially than we do with the dogs. Then, just like the flies, they can be dangerous to our health by walking through the dirty or unsanitary places. If cockroaches would not threaten our health then I would leave them alone. We decimate them because they could bring harmful substances in our food. Likewise did the rats, famous for spreading diseases like cholera or plague. These diseases have practically decimated humanity in past centuries. The fear we inherited from those periods remained as collective unconscious trauma.
But since the medicine has advanced and these diseases have been removed, it is possible that, in future, the rats become pets. That is what happened with the wolf. This animal terrorized us for thousands of years, eating our domestic animals and threatening our wellbeing. Today, when these animals are industrially reared in isolated farms, the wolf is no longer a problem. After being decimated in recent centuries, recently the wolf came to be protected and respected. The polecats used and still use today to kill the peasants chickens but recently they became some very cute playful pets. But the opposite can also happen, if raccoons, rats and bears enter our vital space bringing trouble to our life by stealing our food and threatening our hygiene, then we can become exterminators again. That would also be a temporary solution until the medicine would find solutions thus the old threats will turn in partnerships. Today, many animal species are involved in direct competition on the resources with humans. But there are also reasonable voices calling to reduce human expansion in wild spaces and there are intense debates about this issue.

Either way, the human race cannot survive without the other species and without a healthy environment. Indeed we are the measure of all things, yes we are the most important species, but if we want to abstractly show our power by torturing animals just for a morbid pleasure, by killing them without the necessity of our own species conservation purposes and by making their lives hard, as some of us do, we actually prove otherwise. We prove that we are not smart enough since we feel the need to race with them. In this way, the nature looks like should invest in another species (or, let's say, other individuals of the human species) in order to achieve the goal of helping and protecting life against future terrestrial or cosmic cataclysms.
The social system educates us in the spirit of individuality in order to decimate our political power. Isolation, desolation and uprooting are the consequences of this reality. As we estrange from others day by day, a pet or even a random animal, whatever it may be, can be our salvation. An animal can anchor us into reality, against the human nature corruption into false dreams and ideals that, on the long term, could endanger our own species and other species below us. An animal can teach us to enjoy the simple things and to take the world as it is but not desperately change it for fitting our personal insignificant ambitions raised from a mental uprooted background. If our human mind would become so corrupt so that we would not pay attention to the wisdom of nature, being lead by the immediate utility greed, then we risk extinction. Personally, I am not really afraid of such black future because I am convinced that the human spirit is still strong. But, by the power I acquired, especially in the last century, we could destroy the earth in a few minutes. Existing atomic bombs in the world at this time can destroy the human species and most species on Earth. The innocent eyes of an animal or a child can temper our criminal sublime revolutionary - technological- social actions. Therefore I say NO to killing stray dogs just like I say NO as environmental destruction.

Gabriel Baldovin

Manifestul ratiunii ecologice

Manifestul ratiunii ecologice

sociologie Baldovin   10:11

english version here 

De cand sunt copil ma tot intreb de ce oare ne-am pricopsit cu inteligenta asta, noi ca specie. Am ajuns cea mai de succes, ne-am asigurat supravietuirea insa, cum necum, inteligenta (cu consecinta ei directa, cunoasterea) a si otravit linistea si inocenta noastra pe care se pare ca le-am pierdut definitiv. Momentele noastre de pace si tihna par a fi temporare. Am creat religia si arta care ne da o oarecare asigurare ca sufletul e etern. Insa asta pare sa fie mai curand un simptom de contracarare a unei frici metafizice de moarte pe care constiinta umana superioara, produs al inteligentei si experientei, ne-a scos-o in cale. Pe langa o astfel de frica ancestrala, civilizatia ne ofera zi de zi motive de dezolare observand cum regulile jocului se schimba in timpul sau si cum nedreptatile si abuzurile semenilor se intalnesc pretutindeni. Iata ca inteligenta noastra a adus si un ingrijorator revers al medaliei. Procentul depresiilor in lumea civilizata atinge cifre de peste 80%. Asta inseamna ca, cumva, 80% din oameni si-ar dori (in inconstient) sa nu mai fie. Este inspaimantator. Multi nu recurg la sinuciderea propriuzisa de frica durerii momentului mortii sau datorita principiilor religioase. Cumva inteligenta noastra pare un blestem mai curand decat o calitate.

Si totusi, am incredere in intelepciunea naturii. Nimeni nu a vrut sa ne pedepseasca pe noi ca specie dandu-ne inteligenta si constiinta. Sunt convins ca acestea sunt calitati date de natura tocmai pentru protejarea si promovarea mediului insusi. Tocmai angoasa noastra morala care ne cuprinde odata cu dezastrele ecologice, pe care le-am facut sau le putem face, ne arata ca scopul ei este exact acesta. Protectia vietii in intreaga ei diversitate, crearea de rase si chiar specii noi de animale si chiar mutarea lor in alta galaxie peste cateva milioane sau miliarde de ani, cand soarele isi va fi epuizat energia, este scopul acestei ciudate inteligente pe care noi insine nu o intelegem inca si cu care nu stim ce sa facem. Omul nu e calaul vietii ci copilul ei. Viata si-a pus sperantele in om si a investit in el la fel cum parintii o fac. Inteligenta umana nu este doar a omului ci a intregii vieti. Daca aducem apa in deserturile pustii si viata pe alte planete atunci mintea omeneasca si-a spalat toate pacatele. Crimele istoriei pe care le-am facut impotriva altor specii si a propriilor nostri semeni ne vor fi iertate.

Nu suntem inca omul matur pe care mama noastra natura si-l doreste de la noi. Suntem inca primitivi in ciuda prapastiei culturale si tehnologice care ne separa de restul vietuitoarelor. Suntem inca copii. Dar, inca de pe acum, inca din frageda pruncie, trebuie sa facem un exercitiu de salvare a vietilor. Se poate spune ca incercarile la care suntem supusi, dezastrele ecologice pe care simtim profund ca trebuie sa le evitam, sunt niste teste pe care natura ni le pune asemenea unui parinte curios sa vada cum a evoluat copilul sau.

Mi-a ajuns prin fata ochilor si parerea lui Cristian Tudor Popescu, de aici (http://www.gandul.info/puterea-gandului/caini-si-oameni-11290769 ) a carui principala tema este eutanasierea cainilor vagabonzi la care dansul subscrie. Articolul in cauza e plin de idei sau consecinte ale acestora flagrant contradictorii unele cu altele. Nu imi propun aici sa le analizez in detaliu, ma rezum doar la opinia exprimata de dumnealui si preluata si de altii, cum ca dreptul la a ucide cainii este legitim in virtutea dreptului cu care ucidem, pe de o parte, animalele pentru hrana ca porcii, vacile sau gainile si, pe de alta parte, animalele daunatoare ca gandacii de bucatarie sau sobolanii.

O astfel de viziune continua antica maxima afirmata de Protagoras, respectiv „Omul este masura tuturor lucrurilor". Intr-adevar, sunt de acord, omul este suprema valoare. Insa, in situatia in care isi bate joc de mediu, omul are nevoie de un bobarnac pentru a se trezi indiferent de cine ar fi el. Si cam de asta are nevoie specia umana astazi, ajunsa practic in pragul sufocarii mediului. Prin urmare, acum, cand puterea omului asupra necuvantatoarelor a ajuns atat de mare, maxima lui Protagoras trebuie regandita. Daca o luam ad litteram, putem ajunge la o consecinta absurda. A ucide toate animalele si a ne inmulti pe noi insine peste limita sustenabilitatii economiei actuale, conform acestei ei, poate parea un lucru bun deoarece specia umana ar prospera o perioada. Si totusi, pe termen lung, o astfel de actiune s-ar dovedi o catastrofa deoarece, fara animale, omul ar risca sa nu poata supravietui. In cel mai bun caz viata i-ar fi foarte grea si specia si-ar reduce aria. Iata de ce nu trebuie sa ne lasam sedusi de o intelegere superficiala a raportului nostru ca fiinta aflata in varful lantului trofic, cu celelalte creaturi aflate sub noi. Iata de ce avem nevoie de o morala care sa ne limiteze puterea atat in fata celorlalte vietuitoare cat si in fata semenilor nostri.

Este adevarat ca, fiind o specie de animal abia intrata in civilizatie, omul simte o oarecare placere ucigand si vanand. O astfel de placere este o consecinta fireasca a instinctului nutritiv ale carui ruine salbatice inca supravietuiesc in ADN-ul nostru. In acelasi timp insa, majoritatea dintre noi empatizam cu victimele noastre si cu prada ucisa de noi. Ritualurile de la sfarsitul vanatorii sunt practicate si de vanatorii moderni dar si de cei primitivi. Ne e mila de animalul ucis si ne cuprinde un sentiment depresiv analizandu-ne fapta, indiferent de cat ne-am justifica-o prin prisma necesitatii propriei supravietuiri. Filmul „Domestic”, regizat de Adrian Sitaru are ca principala tema aceasta angoasa morala a uciderii pentru hrana. Aceasta este ratiunea practica de care vorbea Kant si care se aplica si la raportarea la restul vietuitoarelor, nu numai la semenii nostri. Aceasta ratiune practica nu este doar un simplu complex matern proiectat in speciile pe care noi le crestem pentru hrana sau le vanam ci este o forta morala independenta cu o functie autoreglativa precisa. Sunt convins ca complexul matern si cel traumatic poate intari o astfel de forta in tribunalul psihicului. Insa ratiunea practica exista pe langa aceste complexe ca pulsiune psihica separata.

In acest moment putem spune ca pastrarea speciei umane in limitele actuale atat in sens de conservare cat si in sens de stopare a expansiunii, este o actiune morala. In sensul conservarii este o actiune morala cresterea si uciderea animalelor pentru hrana dar si vanarea rationala a celor salbatice conform principiului enuntat de Protagoras. Dimpotriva, stoparea cresterii populatiei umane, in special in zonele extrem-orientale, poate fi o actiune morala in conditiile in care expansiunea umana ameninta cu disparitia alte specii. Scaderea natalitatii in zonele civilizate ale globului atesta acest trend moral de acordare de sanse mai mari de supravietuire altor specii. Orice incercare de distrugere a mediului in zonele civilizate pentru scopul iluzoriu al cresterii nivelului de trai, acolo unde nivelul de trai este oricum foarte ridicat, este o actiune imorala.

Mai mult decat atat se poate face un top al importantei animalelor pentru om si pentru viata in general. Exista animale mai valoroase decat altele. Unele sunt pe cale de disparitie altele prospera in femele construite de om. In aceasta evaluare morala omul ia in calcul doua elemente fundamentale care il fac pe animal sa fie mai aproape sau mai departe de noi. Primul este inteligenta. Celalalt este afectiunea. Inteligenta animalelor ne poate ajuta in demersul nostru uman de a promova viata. Prin urmare suntem datori la randul nostru sa protejam animalele inteligente mai mult decat pe cele mai putin inteligente (la un numar aproximativ egal de indivizi). Afectiunea pe care ele ne-o arata, fidelitatea lor in dragostea pe care ne-o ofera le asociaza cu insasi dragostea materna care ne este pavaza pentru intreaga viata pentru fiecare dintre noi. Afectiunea de care unele animale dau dovada fata de noi ne poate motiva sa credem ca truda noastra milenara are un scop si ca merita sa continuam. Daca vedem o vanatoare de delfini o vom simti mult mai dureros decat ca pe o vanatoare de reni, cerbi sau antilope africane tocmai pentru ca delfinul este o specie inteligenta dar si foarte afectiva. Uciderea lor pentru hrana pare la fel cu uciderea unui semen pentru hrana; ea este imorala in conditiile in care hrana se gaseste din abundenta insa poate deveni acceptabila in conditiile in care hrana lipseste.

Spiritul uman are o retinere in a ucide pentru hrana astfel de animale tocmai pentru ca, asemanandu-se foarte mult cu omul, un astfel de gest poate parea canibalism curat. Exista unele triburi primitive astazi in care canibalismul este o anumita forma de vanatoare si numai insistenta autoritatilor l-a stopat. Dar, cu siguranta, noi europenii si oamenii civilizati in general il consideram o practica macabra desi in secolul al XX-lea ne-a mai scapat sporadic si noua.

Probabil ca, daca traiam in Orientul indepartat, uciderea cainilor pentru hrana nu era vazuta ca un act barbar tocmai pentru ca, in lipsa hranei cu care se confrunta acei oameni, o astfel de practica justifica conservarea speciei umane. Dar uciderea cainilor fara un astfel de scop devine un act imoral in toata regula. Nu numai cu cainii se aplica acest principiu. Daca am ucide porci, vaci si gaini doar pentru placerea sadica de a ucide si nu datorita justificarii supravietuirii propriei noastre specii, atunci gestul nostru ar fi cu adevarat unul inuman. Exemplu este uciderea fara noima a bizonilor in America de Nord, imediat ce a fost cucerita de colonistii europeni. Acestia au nimicit turmele de bizoni cu intentia de a lovi astfel, indirect, in nativii americani care depindeau de aceste animale. Un astfel de masacru prelungit a ramas in istorie ca un act barbar. Din fericire americanii insisi si-au dat seama de asta tocmai datorita constiintei morale care vorbeste si acuza din strafundurile sufletului omenesc. De aceea, ulterior, cand unor europeni le-au venit idei similare de exterminare a „populatiilor inferioare”, fostii eugenisti colonisti si-au aratat fata umana si s-au opus acestui plan.

Altfel stau lucrurile in privinta animalelor daunatoare pe care noi le exterminam sau incercam acest lucru. Uciderea acestor animale nu poate fi pusa pe aceeasi treapta cu uciderea maidanezilor asa cum crede domnul Cristian Tudor Popescu in articolul citat mai sus. Mai intai, conform criteriilor amintite, gandacii de bucatarie nu arata nici afectivitate si nici inteligenta care sa ii apropie foarte mult de om si sa ii judecam astfel dupa cum facem cu cainii. Apoi, la fel ca si mustele, ei pot atenta la sanatatea noastra intrand prin locuri murdare sau chiar insalubre. Daca gandacii nu ne-ar ameninta sanatatea atunci nu am avea nimic cu ei. Ii decimam pentru ca risca sa ne aduca substante nocive in alimente. In acelasi fel au facut si sobolanii, vestiti pentru raspandirea unor boli ca holera sau ciuma. Aceste boli au decimat practic umanitatea in secolele trecute. Ura impotriva lor vine din traumatismele acelor perioade ramase intiparite in inconstientul colectiv.
Dar, odata ce medicina a facut progrese si aceste boli au fost inlaturate, nu exclud posibilitatea ca, in viitor, sobolanii sa ajunga ei insisi animale de companie. Asa s-a intamplat si cu lupul. Acest animal ne-a terorizat mii de ani, mancandu-ne animalele domestice si amenintandu-ne bunastarea. Astazi, cand animalele domestice sunt crescute industrial in ferme izolate, lupul nu mai e o problema. Dupa ce a fost decimat in ultimele secole, el a ajuns recent sa fie ocrotit si respectat. Dihorii, care dadeau si inca mai dau iama in pasarile taranilor, au ajuns mai nou niste foarte dragalase animale de companie. Dar, se poate intampla si invers; daca ratonii, sobolanii si ursii intra in spatiul nostru vital si ne ingreuneaza viata, ne fura mancarea si ne ameninta igiena, putem sa devenim iarasi exterminatori. Asta ar fi de asemenea o solutie provizorie pana cand medicina ar gasi remediu iar vechile amenintari s-ar transforma in parteneriate. Multe specii de animale intra in concurenta directa pe resurse sau hrana cu omul astazi. Exista insa si voci rezonabile care cer reducerea expansiunii umane in spatiul salbatic si dezbaterile sunt intense.

Oricum ar fi, specia umana nu poate supravietui fara celelalte specii si fara un mediu sanatos. Intr-adevar suntem masura tuturor lucrurilor, intr-adevar suntem cea mai importanta specie insa, daca vrem sa ne aratam puterea chinuind gratuit animalele sau ucigandu-le fara a fi sprijiniti de scopul conservarii propriei specii si nepromovandu-le, asa cum fac unii dintre noi, de fapt dovedim contrariul. Dovedim ca nu avem destula inteligenta de vreme ce simtim nevoia sa ne intrecem cu ele. In felul acesta poate natura ar trebui sa investeasca in alta specie (sau, hai sa zicem, alti indivizi din specia umana) pentru a ajuta viata in viitoare cataclisme terestre sau cosmice.

Sistemul social ne educa in spiritul individualitatii pentru a ne decima puterea politica. Izolarea, dezolarea si dezradacinarea sunt consecintele acestei stari de lucruri. In situatia in care zi de zi ne instrainam de semeni, un animal de companie si chiar un animal, oricare ar fi el, ne poate fi salvarea. Un animal ne poate fi ancora in realitate impotriva coruperii naturii umane in false vise si idealuri care, pe termen lung, ne pot periclita propria specie si speciile inferioare noua. Un animal ne poate invata sa ne bucuram de lucrurile simple, sa luam lumea asa cum e si sa nu dorim cu disperare sa o facem conform cu unele ambitii personale nesemnificative provenite dintr-un fond psihopatolgic dezradacinat. Daca spiritul nostru uman ajunge intr-atat de corupt incat sa uite de intelepciunea naturii, lasandu-se sedus de lacomia utilitatii imediate, atunci riscam pieirea. Personal nu mi-e frica de o astfel de perspectiva pentru ca sunt convins ca spiritul uman e inca puternic. Dar, prin puterea pe care am dobandit-o in special in ultimul secol, noi am putea distruge in cateva minute pamantul. Bombele atomice existente in acest moment in lume pot distruge specia umana si majoritatea speciilor de pe Pamant. Privirea inocenta a unui animal sau a unui copil ne poate tempera pornirile criminale sublimate in actiuni revolutinar-tehnologico-sociale. Prin urmare spun NU eutanasierii maidanezilor dupa cum spun NU distrugerii mediului.

<

Gabriel Baldovin

Are dreptul artistul sa primeasca bani de la stat? Replica la articolul lui Lucian Mandruta

Are dreptul artistul sa primeasca bani de la stat? Replica la articolul lui Lucian Mandruta

recenzie Baldovin   12:09

Am citit recent un articol aproape stupefiant in revista Dilema Veche scris de un fost prezentator de stiri, Lucian Mandruta. E trist ca un astfel de articol poate aparea in paginile unei reviste culturale. Poate ca Dilema Veche isi doreste un experiment mediatic cu o dezbatere aducatoare de audienta. Poate ca vrea sa devina din revista culturala un cotidian de business. Nu stiu. Insa un astfel de articol e scris de un om care pare sa nu aiba nici o legatura cu fenomenul artei in general. O fi bun ca analist politic sau prezentator de stiri. Insa tu ca revista nu trebuie sa ii oferi o astfel de rubrica si sa il lasi sa abereze intr-un domeniu in care e insuficient pregatit. Am citit cu perplexitate si de mai multe ori acest pasaj:

”Artistul (…) e un medic de suflete. E un reparator de tristeti. E un mecanic al masinariilor noastre interioare. El vine pe lume s-o faca mai frumoasa, nu s-o minjeasca cu trei pete maro si sa ne roage sa ne uitam pina intelegem.” 

Obtuzitatea domnului Mandruta e atat de oarba, incat e in masura sa stearga nu doar arta noua si cea inca neafirmata, dar chiar si o parte din arta traditionala, respectiv tragedia. Pentru ca a relatat despre uratenia lumii, artistul tragic, fie el Sofocle, de Kooning, sau Ionescu, trebuie eradicat pentru ca nu i-au distrat mecanismele interioare ale domnului Mandruta. Cineva de la aceasta revista ar fi trebuit sa-i spuna domnului Mandruta ca s-ar putea sa nu fie potrivit pentru a judeca arta. Din aceste cuvinte se vede ca punctul central de judecare al culturii, pentru dumnealui, este divertismentul. Atitudinea textului invita la o imbatare colectiva intr-un entuziasm consumist, menite sa-i satisfaca anumite placeri, supranumite de dumnealui, „estetice”.

Sunt multe gogomanii in acest articol, si nu am sa-mi pierd timpul cu ele. Vreau sa insist insa pe o tema, ce la prima vedere ar parea indreptatita. Aceasta tema este cea a subventionarii culturii, a sustinerii ei de catre stat, pe care domnul Mandruta o contesta. Dumnealui pune urmatoarea intrebare: „are dreptul artistul sa primeasca bani de la stat?”. La prima vedere ar parea ca un astfel de drept nu ar trebui sa existe. Artistul nu este facut de stat, ci de publicul sau, care plateste biletul la intrare sau lucrarea de arta. Insa o astfel de sustinere, de fapt se justifica prin angrenajul social al fenomenului inovatiei culturale. In ultimele doua secole, atunci cand un artist inoveaza, de cele mai multe ori foarte putini sunt cei care rezoneaza la revolutia lui. Asta este realitatea culturala tipica a oricarei noutati. Se intampla si in fashion la un nivel mai restrans. Trebuie acceptat faptul ca majoritatea contemporanilor nu inteleg lucrurile valoroase care se creeaza in acest moment, in virtutea faptului ca asa s-a intamplat in istoria artei moderne de cele mai multe ori. Din acest motiv, valoarea artei contemporane nu poate fi data de contemporani. Nu e nimic de ironizat aici, asa cum crede domnul Mandruta ca fac artistii la adresa sa. Nu e nimeni prost din cauza asta, nu face nimeni misto de conditia contemporanilor. Pur si simplu unii artisti traiesc in viitor, si nu pot fi intelesi de contemporani. Partea proasta e ca, fiind noi insine contemporani, nu stim cine sunt aceia care vor fi pastrati de cultura copiilor si nepotilor nostri. Daca artistul nu vinde la inceputul carierei, asta nu inseamna ca arta lui nu are valoare.

Ideal ar fi ca artistul sa si inoveze, si sa si vanda in acelasi timp, asa cum s-a intamplat in trecutul mai indepartat cu vechii maestri, si asa cum s-a intamplat in secolul al 20-lea cu un Dali sau Picasso. Dar exista artisti, deveniti ulterior simboluri pentru o cultura sau mentalitate, care in timpul vietii n-au vandut mai nimic. Cel mai elocvent caz este cel al lui Van Gogh. Daca domnul Mandruta s-ar intoarce in timp sa il convinga pe Van Gogh sa faca bani in loc de a-si urma destinul de inovator, asta ar fi o catastrofa pentru cultura universala. Sunt convins ca la fel s-ar intampla daca, prin absurd, dumnealui ar ajunge presedinte, si s-ar ocupa direct de organizarea de expozitii de arta (!!!). Dupa principiile pe care le afirma domnul Mandruta, Van Gogh ar fi trebuit sa se lase de a inova expresionismul si sa vanda ceva pictura realista sau academista, ce era la moda la sfarsitul secolului al XIX-lea. Nu doar Van Gogh e in situatia asta, ci majoritatea artistilor moderni care, initial nu au vandut mare lucru. Intre timp insa, ei s-au afirmat si au reusit sa si vanda lucrari. Un tablou de Van Gogh nu doar ca a ajuns sa coste milioane, dar artistul insusi a ajuns o emblema culturala pentru un segment de societate.

Prin urmare, sustinerea artei de catre stat are o logica de tip asigurare. Pe Van Gogh l-au distrus suferintele creatiei cu care el si-a construit opera, insa i-a imbogatit colectionarii din jurul lui, printre care insusi statul. Toti au obtinut un profit colosal de pe urma artei lui. Prin urmare, aceste resorturi sociale trebuie sa intoarca spre arta cumva o parte din acest profit, in virtutea faptului ca l-a obtinut nemeritat, neplatindu-i artistului valoarea contributiei sale la patrimoniul cultural universal. Cum el nu mai traieste, o astfel de renta revine artistilor promitatori neconsacrati care, de asemenea, vor face creatii peste valoarea cu care vor fi fost achizitionate initial. Cei mai multi dintre ei nu vor confirma si vor fi o pierdere, insa cativa vor confirma, si, astfel, vor deveni profitabili, per total. Investitia pe care statul o face la un moment dat in aceste achizitii se va dovedi, pe termen lung, nu doar rentabila pentru el, dar si onesta relativ la schimbul intre producator si colectionar.

Dincolo de acest argument microeconomic, exista si unul macrosocial relativ la chestiunea in cauza. Dupa ce Van Gogh a murit sarac si aproape anonim, sistemul social n-a picat tocmai bine in perceptia publica. Si astazi suntem revoltati de gandul ca el s-a zbatut in mizerie, iar dupa moarte tablourile i s-au vandut pe multe milioane. Dupa el, multi artisti au avut aceeasi soarta, tocmai pentru ca statul nu s-a implicat destul in protejarea muncii si conditiei lor inovatoare. Eroarea aceasta naturala de evaluare a artistului din timpul vietii trebuia cumva corectata. O astfel de realitate culturala a pus sistemul social in situatia de a parea nedrept. Iar acest lucru a fost, si inca este, in masura sa puna la indoiala echitatea si onestitatea sistemului social in general. Nu vorbim aici doar de artisti, ci si de oamenii simpli insisi, care se intreaba daca truda de o viata in schimbul unei bunastari promise, merita acest efort. O astfel de situatie poate afecta direct credibilitatea omului simplu in onestitatea sistemului social. In modernitate, baza economiei si societatii nu mai e fortata cu armele sa sustina acest angrenaj, ci convinsa cu perspectiva castigului reciproc. Ori daca tu, sistem social, nu ai fost in stare sa il platesti la adevarata valoare pe cel care ti-a imbogatit patrimoniul spiritual, atunci, desigur, nici omul simplu nu va mai avea incredere in sustinerea angrenajului social, si va refuza sa creada ca ascultarea de regulile superiorului ierarhic ii va fi la un moment dat favorabila si lui.

Fara sustinerea statului, vazandu-se marginalizati, umiliti si neintelesi, multi artisti au luat din lume doar partea urata. Din pacate, partea urata a lumii, in care ei s-au regasit la un moment dat, a supravietuit revolutiilor si evolutiilor civilizatiei. Multe lucruri, prezentate drept certitudini si valori, sunt doar vorbe frumoase ce ascund realitati macabre. Adevarul este ca societatea umana este, in acelasi timp, si un camp cinic si absurd de batalie, dar si un rai. Daca il marginalizezi pe artist, daca il pacalesti la pret, si nu ii arati si partea buna a civilizatiei, desigur, el va vorbi unilateral despre civilizatie si lume in general, ca despre un cosmar. Desi domnul Mandruta, in totala necunostinta de cauza, face apel la abilitatea de comunicare pe care artistul nu ar avea-o, totusi exact acesta abilitate este marele lui talent. El reuseste sa comunice si sa isi impuna punctul de vedere initial elitelor si apoi si maselor, la un moment dat.

Tu, ca sistem social, ai doua optiuni: fie ii interzici arta, asa cum a facut Hitler, fie incerci sa ii arati si partea buna, pentru ca sa se inspire din ea. Iar sustinerea sa presupune subventionarea sa. Hitler a mers pe partea opusa. A lansat un atac furibund la adresa „artei degenerate”, dar asta mai mult i-a grabit sfarsitul. Lumea civilizata s-a trezit si ea aproape de o astfel de situatie pana prin anii 1970, cand sistemul social s-a decis sa intervina mai clar pentru a mai indulci oarecum viziunea artistilor despre lume. Lumea civilizata nu a trecut la gesturi din astea, insa lipsa de sustinere a artistilor tineri a facut ca temele artei sa fie pline de cosmaruri. Dupa anii 1970, sistemul social occidental s-a decis sa intervina mai clar, pentru a mai indulci oarecum viziunea artistilor despre lume. Astfel ca, in ultimele editii ale Bienalei de la Venetia, sentimentul pe care exponatele il dau se apropie rar de macabru sau de cosmar.

Asadar, intrebarea legitima care se pune cu privire la artist nu este „are dreptul artistul sa primeasca bani de la stat?” De fapt, o astfel de intrebare nu a fost niciodata legitima. Din cele mai vechi timpuri artistul a fost chemat de statul insusi sa construiasca catedrale, resedinte si sa imortalizeze portretele mai marilor zilei. Desigur, acest rol traditional de document al artei a fost luat recent de arhivele media, si statutul artistului s-a modificat. Astazi intrebarea care se pune cu privire la arta e cu totul alta, si anume: „doreste statul sa ii faca artistului viata un pic mai frumoasa pentru a nu transmite in viitor, dar si in prezent, o viziune sumbra despre o realitate sociala urata?” Talentul artistului de a-si comunica viziunea catre semenii sai trebuie folosit pentru coeziunea structurilor sociale.

Dimpotriva, reformularea structurii statului, asa cum este propusa de domnului Mandruta, se inscrie intr-o strategie de extrema dreapta. Acest tip de abordare este identic, repet, identic (nu similar) cu cel al nazistilor, care s-au gandit ei cum sa eficientizeze societatea, exterminand handicapatii, bolnavii si toti „sustinutii” sociali. Indraznesc sa spun ca judecarea unor activitati si institutii sociale, in functie de cat reusesc ele sa vanda in acel moment, este un act mai periculos decat al nazistilor. De exemplu, educatorii nu reusesc sa vanda produsul lor cuiva anume. Medicii la fel. Asistentii social, la fel. Ce facem, le taiem subventionarea? Cati medici, cati profesori si cati alti functionari ai statului ar putea supravietui doar din salariul oferit de clientii lor directi? O putem face, dar la un moment dat ne putem trezi cu o revolta masiva si cu haos in sistem. Desigur, cu banii economisiti, unul ca domnul Mandruta ar putea investi in jandarmerie, armata si alte organe de represiune. In loc de Ateneul Roman va scrie „Serviciul roman de securitate”. Sistemul social va fi constituit din batalioane spartane.

E aproape inutil sa mentionez ca articolul domnului Mandruta este o replica la atacurile repetate ale protestatarilor RMGC la adresa presei cumparate in masa de catre aceasta companie. In ciuda milioanelor de dolari investiti de aceasta companie in design, si in ciuda expunerii pana la refuz pe toate canalele media, artistii independenti care si-au oferit serviciile pentru tinerea vie a miscarii de rezistenta impotriva acestui proiect, a fost mai mare. Rezultatul este ca orasele Romaniei si cele din strainatate s-au umplut de proteste impotriva proiectului, in timp ce sustinatorii sai sunt politicienii angajati, si mass-media, toti cumparati. Aceste acuzatii au ajuns desigur la urechile celor implicati, si de aici acest atac furibund al domnului Mandruta, speriat de proportiile reducerii excursiilor in vacante exotice, ca urmare a incetarii contractelor de publicitate de la RMGC. Argumentul latent al articolului domnului Mandruta ar fi cam urmatorul: „protestatarii antiRMGC sunt niste paraziti sustinuti de stat, care sunt incapabili sa isi vanda produsul muncii si prin urmare nu mai trebuie sustinuti, ci eliminati”.

Una dintre acuzatiile stupide adusa de dumnealui artei neconsumiste, sustinute de stat, este faptul caprezinta o lume urata. Nu, domnule Mandruta! Cei care fac lumea urata sunteti domniile voastre, care va vindeti constiinta si concetatenii pentru sutele de mii de euro. Dumneavoastra distrugeti natura si o transformati in iazuri de cianura. Dumneavoastra vindeti cetatenilor iluzii goale despre o falsa lume frumoasa, cu care ii atrageti in corporatiile in care ati facut cariera, dupa care ii sleiti de puteri si ii aruncati ca pe niste rebuturi. Dumneavoastra creati razboaie de colonizare in scopul profitului. Dumneavoastra transformati entuziasmul in deznadejde. Nu noi inventam aceste orori. Noi artistii doar le relatam.

Gabriel Baldovin

DSM attacked from philosophical positions: response to an article written by Robert D. Stolorow

DSM attacked from philosophical positions: response to an article written by Robert D. Stolorow

recenzie Baldovin   06:50

Click aici pentru variantain limba romana:

I have not read yet the DSM-V, but I heard about the debates that took place around its appearance, especially concerning some possible new disorders like the addiction to video games or the addiction to internet. Here is not the place for this debate to continue however but, with such intention, the DSM had upset some companies that found themselves in the position of competing with the pharmacological medication proposed by psychiatry. This finally ended with the new-antipsychiatric documentary "the marketing of madness". Made for to reach the ears and eyes of the public, this documentary uses all possible arguments, especially those relating to advertising, to demolish not only the DSM, but in the psychiatry in general. I analyzed in detail these arguments in this article:

But recently, I have read an article by the psychoanalyst Robert D. Stolorow, published here:
or here on 02 Apr 2012.

In the article quoted above, Stolorow make another kind of criticism to the DSM V, quite bizarre, respectively from a philosophical position. I’m not saying that DSM would not fit a philosophical investigation; if the epistemology seems rather a discipline in itself, detached from traditional body of philosophy, though, the philosophy of science (which has not yet announced its independence) could apply for such an approach. But the Stolorow’s article, somehow, seems written in a hurry, rather looking like a need to maintain a halfabandoned blog than a need to seriously develop a theoretical approach. I have in mind the philosophy professionals that use to write as if, over a certain period, the writing would not be permitted any more. Their need to construct an idea as complete as possible and to exhaust its implications, lead to very long texts which often bore an unprofessional reader.

DSM atacat de pe pozitii filosofice: replica la un articol de-al lui Robert D. Stolorow

DSM atacat de pe pozitii filosofice: replica la un articol de-al lui Robert D. Stolorow

recenzie Baldovin   03:46

Click here for English version:

N-am apucat sa citesc DSM-V, dar am auzit sumar despre dezbaterile care au avut loc in jurul aparitiei sale, in special privind anumite noi posibile tulburari ca dependenta de jocurile video sau de internet. Nu cred ca e locul aici pentru a continua aceste dezbateri insa, cu o astfel de intentie, DSM a deranjat anumite companii care s-au vazut in postura de concurenta cu medicatia farmacologica propusa de psihiatrie. Acest fapt s-a soldat in final cu aparitia documentarului neo-antipsihiatric „Marketingul nebuniei”. Facut cu scopul de a ajunge la urechile si ochii marelui public, acest documentar foloseste mai toate argumentele posibile, in special cele de natura publicitarista, pentru a demola nu doar DSM, ci psihiatria in general. Am analizat mai in detaliu aceste argumente in acest articol: http://baldovinconcept.blogspot.ro/2012/09/marketingul-nebuniei-observat-de.html. Recent am citit articolul psihanalistului Robert D. Stolorow publicat aici,  sau aici.

In articolul citat mai sus, Stolorow face un alt tip de critica, destul de bizara, la adresa DSM V, respectiv de pe o pozitie filosofica. Nu zic ca DSM ar scapa unei investigatii de tip filosofic; daca epistemologia pare mai curand o disciplina in sine, rupta de corpul traditional al filosofiei, totusi filosofia stiintei (care inca nu si-a anuntat independenta) oricand ar putea face un astfel de demers. Insa articolul lui Stolorow pare cumva scris pe fuga, parca mai curand din nevoia de a intretine un blog semiabandonat decat dintr-o nevoie de dezvoltare a unui demers teoretic serios. Ma gandesc la profesionistii din filosofie care scriu de parca, peste o anumita perioada, li s-ar interzice scrisul. Nevoia lor de a argumenta cat mai complet o idee si de a-i epuiza implicatiile ii duc la niste texte foarte lungi care plictisesc cititorul nepasionat.

The Marketing of Madness analyzed by the marketing’s madness

The Marketing of Madness analyzed by the marketing’s madness

psihopatologie Baldovin   01:31

Varianta in limba romana

For winning control over the mental disorders person there is a big battle and ruthless competition. Whoever manages to get this person as a client, simply gets a slave. The profit is huge, as it ever was. I am convinced that the severe mental disorder is the result of past slavery mentality inherited from past generations and passed through contemporaries. The slavery was the institution that brought the psychopathological state into the mental disordered present individual (through transgenerational inheritance) and the slavery will dominate this person's mind in the future. Slave mentality survives generations, although it somewhat diminishes. The slave is weak; it is a threatened, frustrated and fragile person that fearfully executes master’s orders. Whether it is threatened with weapons – as in the classical edges – or it is lured with the need of overconsumption, the slave resignedly accepts its situation and serves its masters. The slave brings profit and that is why the mental disorders, as descendant from the slavery state of mind, are very profitable for the occult forces of the social system. The battle for winning this contemporary slave, as trade partner for services or products, is fierce because here is room for unequal exchanges that bring profit.

I saw the documentary “The Marketing of Madness”. Lasting about 3 hours and technically unimpeachable made, this film remakes the 1970’s antipsychiatric criticism current except for some slight differences. If back then the antipsychiatrists wanted dismantling psychiatric hospitals, on the contrary, this documentary deplores the drugs usage. But there seems to me that this criticism is not just a remake of the 1970’s antipsychiatry message. I think that, beyond this already outdated topic, there are invisible but very clear objectives. In the beginning, the film message seems to be justified: it is an abuse of drugs both in psychiatry and in the rest of medicine. Unfortunately, when this general idea is particularized, when the examples are brought up and when arguments are shown, then the discourse starts creaking. At the end of this documentary the audience remains with the idea that the drugs themselves would create the mental disorder, which is a pretty big exaggeration. The viewer that is unfamiliar with the field of psychiatry is discretely being induced this idea in order to create an evil inquisitors image for psychiatrists in the eyes of the public. They are presented as lurking innocent people on the streets in order to be turned into sick people. Using such a popular conspiracy theory among ordinary people, unfamiliar about psychiatry, has yet a very perverse sense. I think that, behind this documentary, relies much more and I will show it further on, in this article.

Due to the very complex topic but also to the documentary’s length, this article came out slightly longer than usual so I decided to split it into several sections. Moreover, out of the nearly 3 hours, on this documentary I will not comment that part where studies and statistics, made for some certain drugs, were questioned. The ability to distinguish the falsified data and relative adverse effects of these substances is not related to my field. I will comment instead the numerous errors related to psychiatric analysis phenomenon as a whole. For the beginning I will start with the good parts of this documentary and after that I will continue with its errors.

Marketingul nebuniei observat de nebunia marketingului

Marketingul nebuniei observat de nebunia marketingului

sociologie Baldovin   06:25

English version here

Pe omul cu tulburari psihice e batalie mare si o concurenta nemiloasa. Cine reuseste sa il aiba client are pur si simplu un sclav. Profitul este urias, la fel cum a fost dintotdeauna. Sunt convins ca tulburarea psihica ceva mai severa este tocmai rezultatul sclavagismului trecut imprimat in mentalitatea generatiilor trecute si transmis ereditar la contemporani. Sclavagismul a fost cel care l-a dus pe individul tulburat in starea mentala in care se afla (prin mostenirea transgenerationala) si sclavagismul il domina si pe viitor. Mentalitatea de sclav supravietuieste generatiilor chiar daca e ceva mai diminuata. Sclavul e un om slab, un om amenintat, un om frustrat si fragil care accepta ordinele stapanului. Fie ca e amenintat cu armele, ca in perioada clasica, fie ca e ademenit cu consumul in exces, sclavul isi accepta resemnat situatia si isi slujeste stapanii. Sclavul aduce profit iar omul cu tulburari psihice, ca urmas al sclavului din trecut, este un om foarte profitabil pentru fortele oculte ale sistemului social. Batalia pentru castigarea lui lui ca partener de schimb de servicii sau produse este apriga pentru ca vorbim de cazul unui schimb inechitabil care aduce profit.

La sugestia lui Freeyourmind am vazut Documentarul „The Marketing of Madness”. Cu o durata de aproape 3 ore si realizat impecabil din punct de vedere tehnic, acest film reia cu unele diferente criticile curentului antipsihiatric din anii 1970. Daca atunci antipsihiatrii doreau desfiintarea spitalelor de psihiatrie, dimpotriva, acest documentar deplange acum folosirea medicamentelor. Insa mie imi pare ca el nu este un simplu remake al mesajului antipsihiatriei anilor 1970 si ca, dincolo de aceasta tema deja perimata, se afla obiective clare dar nevazute. La inceput mesajul filmului este corect: se face abuz de medicamente atat in psihiatrie cat si in restul medicinii. Din pacate, atunci cand aceasta idee generala este particularizata si atunci cand se aduc exemple si se creeaza argumente, discursul incepe sa scartaie. Catre finalul sau spectatorul ramane cu ideea ca medicamentele insele ar creea de fapt tulburarile psihice ceea ce este o exagerare. Spectatorului nefamiliarizat cu domeniul psihiatriei i se induce discret ideea cum ca, de fapt, insisi psihiatrii ar crea tulburarile psihice, dandu-le astfel imaginea de inchizitori ai raului care pandesc oamenii pe strada pentru a-i imbolnavi. Folosirea unei astfel de teorii a conspiratiei, foarte populara in randurile omului simplu si nefamiliarizat cu psihiatria, cred ca are un sens foarte pervers. Cred ca in spatele lui se afla mult mai multe si asta voi arata pe parcursul acestui articol. Datorita temei destul de complexe dar si lungimii documentarului, a iesit un articol ceva mai lung decat de obicei si am decis sa il impart pe mai multe sectiuni. Din cele aproape 3 ore ale documentarului nu am sa comentez partea in care se pune la indoiala studiile si statisticile facute pentru un medicament sau altul. Falsificarea datelor si efectelor adverse relative la aceste substante nu tin de domeniul meu. Voi comenta in schimb numeroasele erori ce tin de analiza fenomenului psihiatric ca intreg. Am sa incep cu partile bune ale acestui documentar si voi continua cu erorile sale.

Electoral institution: a contemporary social crime network node

Electoral institution: a contemporary social crime network node

sociologie Baldovin   11:51

Varianta in limba romana

This text is the theoretical basis of the this film:



From a strictly formal point of view, if half plus one of the citizens do not vote then democracy is really absurd. “The will of the people” can not be a minority regarding the total number of citizens. As we have seen before, the very concept of “people” itself contains certain contradictions and absurdities specific to social tradition and its slave systems crimes. But, if the number of voters is not at least half of the citizens, then the absurdity of democracy made with minority people, compared to the real number of citizens, acts as a mirror for the absurdity of the system itself. If the number of votes is smaller than of those who do not vote, then the feeble concept of “democracy” loses coherence for good. Such a democracy resembles very much with the dictatorships that loudly hates.

Therefore the main interest of contemporary social system is to hide, to camouflage as effectively as possible this situation. The problem is that the contemporary slave (called worker or manager, recently) loses its enthusiasm if find out that the society is based on this type of inequity and the “American Dream” is a long line of disappointments. Maintaining the illusions and creating new others, is part of electoral institution in democracy. The electoral institution is the system’s response to the contemporary slave life. Just like a circus magic number, the social system prospers by offering illusions to the slave, thus making her or him willingly serve the masters. This is the main difference between death threatening classical slavery and the illusions luring modern slavery. The slave lives through illusions, she or he agrees to give up her or his freedom and work in the factory or in a certain company in exchange for promises of rising up on the social hierarchy. After a while, she or he notices that not only there was no climbing on this ladder, but sometimes there was even stepping down and sacrifices on behalf of those promises. The political system is designed to reillusionate this disappointment. For this failure the salve blames the elected politician and her or his naive optimism turns into the image of the new politician. The new politician seduces as the old politician disgusts. Just like judo method that takes the opponent power, the system has learned to take the contemporary slave’s hard desire to change its life for even more enslavement.

2.5.4.4.6. Institutia electorala: un nod în reteaua crimei sociale contemporane

2.5.4.4.6. Institutia electorala: un nod în reteaua crimei sociale contemporane

sociologie Baldovin   08:09

Manifestul societăţii automatiste  

Acest articol se continua de aici

english version here

Acest text este baza teoretica a urmatorului film:



 

2.5.4.4.6. Institutia electorala: un nod în reteaua crimei sociale contemporane

 

(Acest articol a fost scris in 2012, dar apoi a fost absorbit intr-un text mai amplu)

Din punct de vedere strict formal daca la vot nu se prezinta jumatate plus 1 din numarul de alegatori atunci democratia este intr-adevar o absurditate. „Vointa poporului” nu poate fi minoritara fata de numarul cetatenilor. Dupa cum am vazut, insusi conceptul de „popor” contine in sine contradictii si absurditati specifice traditiei sociale si crimelor sistemelor sclavagiste. Insa in cazul in care insusi numarul de votanti nu se ridica la cel putin jumatate dintre cetateni atunci absurditatea poporului minoritar fata de numarul de cetateni are rol de oglinda pentru absurditatea sistemului insusi. Daca numarul celor care voteaza este mai mic fata de cei care nu voteaza atunci si asa subredul concept de "democratie" isi pierde total din continut. O astfel de democratie seamana izbitor cu dictaturile fata de care se bate cu pumnul in piept ca le uraste. .

De aceea interesul principal al sistemului social contemporan este sa ascunda, sa camufleze cat mai eficient aceasta stare de lucruri. Problema este ca sclavul contemporan, (numit muncitor sau, mai nou, manager) isi pierde din entuziasm daca afla ca societatea este bazata pe tipul acesta de inechitate si ca „Visul American” este un lung sir de dezamagiri. A-i intretine iluziile si a-i crea altele noi este parte din institutia electorala in democratii. Institutia electorala este raspunsul sistemului la viata sclavului contemporan. Asemenea unui numar de magie de la circ, sistemul social prospera iluzionand sclavul, facandu-l astfel sa serveasca de buna voie stapanii. Aceasta este in principal diferenta dintre sclavagismul clasic (al amenintarii cu moartea) si cel modern (al ademenirii cu iluzii). Sclavul isi face iluzii, accepta sa renunte la libertatea sa si sa lucreze in fabrica in schimbul unor promisiuni de ridicare pe scara sociala. Dupa un timp, el observa nu doar ca nu a urcat aceasta scara dar ca uneori chiar a coborat si chiar a trebuit sa faca sacrificii pentru a-si primi aceste promisiuni. Sistemul politic e menit sa reiluzioneze aceasta dezamagire. Pentru acest esec el da vina pe politicianul in functie, iar optimismul sau naiv se recanalizeaza inspre politicianul nou. Politicianul nou il seduce iar politicianul in functie il dezgusta. Asemenea unui procedeu de judo care preia forta adversarului, sistemul a invatat sa preia dorinta asidua a sclavului contemporan de a-si schimba viata, spre a-l inrobi si mai tare.

The aggressive games – a symptom of the contemporary neoslave society

The aggressive games – a symptom of the contemporary neoslave society

sociologie Baldovin   14:12

varianta in limba romana aici

The child and the animal play due to the inner desire to learn, to improve skills and to socialize. If we look on the genesis of the game we see that, by playing, children usually imitate some acts of adults (i.e. playing in the sand with pail and shovel) or improve their certain skills (i.e. hopscotch- as the precision of throwing the stone). Playing cat and mouse or mother and father, involves personal projections within these beings which children identify with and prepare to become like in adulthood. Regardless of aggressive, destructive or dreadful impulses that the child projects within the game, the purpose of game and toys is very important for her/his mental and physical skills development. But at this level, the child and animal game has a certain dose of innocence with the act of playing, especially given by the safety of game play activity.

Some adults have kept this healthy need to socialize through games or art. Actually, in English, “play” means playing a role as an actor or using a musical instrument. In Romanian, among to acting, “play” word is used for traditional dancing. Many games developed by the human society over time, for socialization and spending time as pleasant and relaxing as possible, is an important fact of human civilization. This is the innocent or infantile aspect of the game in adult human being. Unfortunately, among this, there is the aggressive game that shows the ugly face of human civilization, specially its wildhood remains. Getting into the game reveals sublimation of a very visible aggression so the gamer is irritable, aggressive, threatening and determined to get “more” from a particular activity. This determination and ambition is very useful for general capitalist economy but, actually, they are symptoms of a society that can not decide itself for war or peace.

Jocurile agresive- un simptom al societatii neosclavagiste

Jocurile agresive- un simptom al societatii neosclavagiste

sociologie Baldovin   09:39

 english version here:

Copilul si animalul se joaca din dorinta de a invata, de a-si perfectiona indemanarea si de a socializa. Daca ne uitam pe geneza jocului vedem ca, prin joc, copiii de obicei imita niste acte ale adultilor (jocul cu galetusa si lopatica i.e.). sau isi perfectioneaza anumite skiluri (sotronul- ca precizie a aruncarii pietrei i.e.). Jocul de-a soarecele si pisica sau de-a mama si de-a tata presupun proiectii personale in interiorul acestor fiinte cu care copiii se identifica si in care se pregatesc sa devina pe parcursul dezvoltarii spre viata adulta. Indiferent de pulsiunile agresive, distructive, mortifere pe care copilul le proiecteaza in interiorul jocului, rolul jocului si jucariilor este foarte important pentru dezvoltarea capacitatilor sale psihice si motorii. Dar, in acest nivel, jocul copilului si animalului pastreaza o doza de inocenta in actul jocului in special prin inofensivitatea activitatii de joc.

Unii adulti si-au pastrat aceasta nevoie de a socializa prin joc sau arta. Dealtfel, in limba engleza „play” inseamna si joc si a interpreta un rol ca actor sau a canta la un instrument. In limba romana, pe langa acceptiunea actoriceasca, cuvantul joc se refera si la dans popular. Numeroasele jocuri dezvoltate de societatea umana de-a lungul timpului, pentru socializare si ocuparea cat mai placuta si mai relaxanta a timpului liber, constituie un reper important al civilizatiei umane. Acesta s-ar putea numi aspectul inocent sau infantil al jocului la omul adult. Din pacate, pe langa acest aspect exista si jocul agresiv care arata partea urata a civilizatiei umane, mai precis ramasitele ei salbatice. Recursul la joc, sublimarea unei agresivitati foarte pronuntate in activitatea jocului, presupune un adult irascibil, agresiv, amenintator si determinat sa obtina „mai mult” dintr-o activitate anume. Aceasta determinare si ambitie, atat de utila capitalismului, este, de fapt, unul din simptomele unei societati care nu se poate decide daca traieste in razboi sau in pace.

Freedom, equality and fraternity in psychoanalysis

Freedom, equality and fraternity in psychoanalysis

sociologie Baldovin   09:38

varianta in limba romana

First it should be said that the term "equality" although has a long and dense history still has a metaphorical shape. We know that even that twins who resemble each other more than they resemble themselves [:)] are not equal, one is usually faster than the other. This metaphor has political flavor and involves the Western society’s need for liberation from classic slavery. Granting artificial divine or extrahuman value to aristocracy or regality automatically implies the same artificial withdrawal of slave’s human value. In this case there is a negative compensation involved.


Meanwhile the classic slavery was replaced by the industrial or corporate slavery and the mixture of liberty with slavery led to the explosion of mental disorders (depressive generally) especially in the second half of the twentieth century, which continues to beginning of the 21st. I saw written at one time on a shirt “Liberté, égalité, desolé” ... The ideals of “liberty equality and fraternity” were replaced by the rhetoric of impossibility of existence neither equality, because people are different, nor freedom, because we are affected by the organic / psychological laws, and nor brotherhood because we are not all born by the same mother. I used the term “rhetoric” because these realities have become instruments to promote new slavery by the contemporary rule of law society. Since there is no absolute freedom that is a reason for the new slave owners to create a restrictive legal framework or social system that increasingly looks more to police state than open society. All of these can be justified in the name of no absolute ontological freedom. But when it comes to justify their colonial impulses (like the invasion of Iraq or Vietnam) the new slavery social systems emphasizes the very gift of freedom given to citizens that they liberated from the “tyranny”. Here is how this dialectic of meaning is used in each of the two exclusive versions depending on the politicians’ short time interests as usual. Instead of old fashioned gas used by Saddam Hussein to crush the revolt the rule of law uses delicate gas specific to police forces specific to ... Western democracy meantime implemented in Iraq. In this case and in all cases of emancipation (including the famous 19th century American antislavery war between north and south) we are dealing with replacing the classical slavery with the modern slavery.