Hl-dt-st Dvdram Gh40f Funktioniert Nicht

BECOME HARD!

Enzo Biagi during an interview with Pier Paolo Pasolini, who argued that television - a medium of mass - was "false" and "alienating", urged him thus: "television, in addition to bringing the cheese at home, as she once wrote, now brings his words ... we are discussing all with great freedom and without any inhibition or not?"

Pasolini's response was dry, sharp, peremptory and beautiful in the entire Her scandalous truth:

"no, not true. I can not say everything I want. I could not because I would be accused of contempt ... I can not really say anything. And then, beyond that, objectively, in front of naivety or sprovvedutezza of some listeners, myself I would not say certain things. " _{Pasolini feels, in a public context, to be forced to limit (and wanting to self-limited) because consciously feel a kind of boundary - the Pillars of Hercules of critical thinking - beyond which we can not push; penalty, vilification and accusations of being lynched by the community.} Those aspects of a society to which they can not be planted the seeds of doubt without arousing scandal, are enclosed in the domain of the sacred , intended as a reference system which is based on a dogmatic culture. Every culture has the same design concept of the sacred, but it may have different content. It directs the plasma and the people's common sense - is the foundation of moral nietzscheiana of the flock, the same flock "naive and inexperienced" to which Pasolini prefers to adopt an attitude of fear, or perhaps his father, silence (despite this, ventured too - he was then killed). The perverse mechanism that he complained in the interview is the reversal of subject-object: the original free individual, active and conscious is dragged into a dialectical course through the medium of mass that the "alien" objectifies it - the individual becomes receptive , and starts a relationship of total subordination to the mass medium, which evens out the plasma and the object, making the subject. The action that holds the new entity massifying primarily to entrench ever more deeply in the consciousness in the holy faith. In any rough and "helpless" flat soul can always find a place in a totally unreflective an ideal that is beautiful and majestic, almost self-evident , the individual who receives it and is in good faith, not even suspect its total arbitrariness . All this is evident in the fascist period, or in any religious fundamentalism, but is actually a process present in every historical moment, even if it is less obvious, is constitutive of the fact that intimate human tendency to sleep and laziness.

However every man is left to the right of choice. The dialectical process of inversion of subject and object is not in need , everyone is free to take the path of the existence or inauthentic existence that full and complete.

is defined as 'inauthentic existence' to be receptive object, an instrument at the mercy of the dominant forces, is the choice of the flock, where you deny the individual the individual will and intellect to become slaves of an alien will undifferentiated and alienating .

life that is authentic but has two conditions: recognition of one's will as distinct and essential to the success of the ontological entity, or as a way of affirming the oneness of the individual self, which is reflected in the activity creator and destroyer, and the confidence in the intellect as the only instrument capable not only of the direct ' speculation and scientific, but also free to conduct the individual self through the "mystical forest," populated by statues and shadows of the sacred.

The main role that must play the analytical mind is to demystify and thus destructor fictional concepts and hairpieces. The criticism, to be truly such, must consult with all its analytical power and polish to the sacred, which is the glue of the flock, the system of dogmas overpowering, unquestionable and inviolable, and shall cause for scandal, defile - the only way to be totally free and consistent with its role as demystifying, making reappropriate the ego of its deepest and most authentic roots, and making it free.

In this sense we must recover a fundamental virtue which belonged to the Socratic school of cynics, this is the year of
parresia , which is to tell the truth when it caused a sensation in the audience, but also when you run the risks of the text. Socrates, Diogenes of Sinope and Friedrich Nietzsche are three shining examples of majestic and exercise of virtue parresiastica.

must admit that in the modern world it is hard to talk about "truth" relativism (if not nihilism) prevents us from using it when not talking about factual truth (real objects). If nothing else, then, parresia has a duty to bring to light the absolute (this is absolute!) Passed to arbitrary concepts and most certain unquestionable dogmas.

E 'need to avoid the intellect and haunting take the easier path of temptation; his analytical faculties could sopirsi, and turning against the sacred without it, build a model of thought based on that mindless opposition. This is not a critical act nor demistificatorio, it is a trivial and immediate claim to the contrary, it may have for example (in religion) the form of blasphemy vulgar, empty, purely external. Such a position only serves to reaffirm the purpose of the opposition through its systematic denial: an anti-identity is constructed in the image and likeness of the sacred, which has its roots in it and from which it depends.

The analytical power should be therefore be directed also to the intellect itself, which must constantly refer to honesty, consistency, and above all the tireless critical exercise. only after revealing the arbitrariness of any content of the sacred, the subject can make, through the will, orthopraxy its own, built around its own being. From the rubble of the sacred, from the consequences of his thought, every one gets a successful ethical individuality, the construction of references (or, more evocative with an expression nietzscheiana, "stars") in particular to the self can and should be left to the speculation of each.

Among the biggest mistakes of humanity - and indeed elevated to the rank of "sacred" - is the concept of God Already Spinoza (XVII century), the reality began to blur dangerously (or, if you prefer, it became theoretically knowable, as it coincides with nature; therefore unnecessary!) with Nietzsche came to its final death

"what are now more churches if they do not tombs and sepulchres of God? "