Short and thorny comments on the “emergencies” of our time

The problems we are experiencing in this temporally negligible, but a very acute parenthesis of the anthropocene, are of a planetary scale and, in addition to concerning the imminent collapse of all humanity (unless of a sudden “awakening of the tiger” inside every human being), these problems unfortunately concern the endangerment of that single (ontological and non-ideological) “law” to be followed and which is not debatable … that of the functioning of life, of biology, that is, of that authentic pre-technical realm which for all of us is a sacred womb as well as a desirable “great ocean” to return to after the journey “from drops of water” (as R. Panikkar puts it).

Biology, at its functional roots, and the biosphere as a whole, are being endangered… and not by natural “climate emergencies” (which have already occurred many times) or man-made ones… in the sense that, if anything, such emergencies are artfully induced, and with technological means unknown to most, precisely by the same unaware hand that propagates the responsibility of the multitudes of the demos, leading to the abyss of absolute biometric control. We are talking a about geo-engineering in our skies so much as we are talking about synthetic biology, about subtraction of water sources and decades-old land, about electrification, and antennas, scattered all over the globe. We are talking about a “green” agenda based on the promotion of a single form of energy supply (electricity) that does not solve any problem of environmental impact (indeed!), and about the removal of private property and making human beings de facto “users of their existence” (and undergoing blackmail).

We are talking about gender culture and the dissolution of innate biological sexuality, as we are talking about the deconstruction of the family according to nature, seductive neuro-programming of children and trans-humanism. We are talking about bisecular foraging of bio-medical-health beliefs in presumed epidemics and infections by “germs” (naturally or synthetically generated) that have nothing proven and the negation of scientific comparison, free from censorship, from bias, from “buffer gatekeeping” and factionalism. We are talking about injecting experimental synthetic products (so as to be “good citizens”), produced by the same exponents and supporters of the “overpopulation problem”, without anyone asking why (given their publicly declared ideas on the dangerous demographic excess) they do not seize the opportunity of a coronavirus “pandemic”, letting nature “run its course”. And instead they care so much about people “saving their lives” … so much so that they rush to create grotesque Christmas songs on television and blackmailing the reticent to the core. But they are philanthropists! Do we already understand it like this, or do we have to explain it?

Let’s be blunt. We are talking about the fact that if an enough sufficiently numerous multitudes of individuals does not understand (and quickly!) the “perverse design” that has been occurring over our heads for some time and does not begin to “connect the dots” that interlink the many levels of expression of the social-economic-political-technical “system” in which we live, and which we believe is impassable, then we are doomed. If a critical mass of people (in a numerical and philosophical sense), within a short period of time, does not become ready to tear down within oneself idols and cornerstones of many of those who are believed to be the basic references of the world (money, states, the market, wage labor, contagious diseases, laws, so-called education, science and various churches), built long ago to carry out undisturbed growing control, it means that we will not have time to prevent the establishment of a planetary dystopia whose horror some science fiction has been able to suggest to us.

What we are experiencing is the consequence of a hiatus between language and reality and the pathological claim, worthy of clinical psychosis, of the adaptation of the second to the first. The root of this narcosis is scientific (as well as aesthetic, perceptive). This becomes evident in empirical practice, which seems to deliver objective truths, but only when it does not remove what escapes measurement (such as, for example, the visceral perception of each organism of the meanings attributed to the environment in which it is a part and the powerful effects that this perception has on its physiology), making reality collapsing into a codified representation according to some arbitrary categories.

The outcome: there are people who have shown symptoms, perhaps even serious clinical pictures, and, if they didn’t say that the cause was a virus (never isolated), they were “deniers” or other insanities. As if someone who denies that Santa Claus puts gifts under the tree it means that he is someone who denies Christmas. It is easy to understand that the step to the Orwellian bi-thought is very short: 2+2 equals 5 and whoever denies it is a violent man and a fascist.

But it is good to make a note on the perceptive, aesthetic and psychic root of the acceptance of all this. The delirium in which we find ourselves, in fact, arises from a degradation that is as much narcissistic as existential:

  • it is narcissistic in the sense that the authentic perception of the self is replaced by performance and “value”. They both are codified according to parameters that are heteronous to the subject itself and constructed by a collectivism functional to another, without any grounding in nature. Hence the need for adequatio to canons of existence (not only aesthetic, but moral, cultural and social) which are necessary to guarantee an unmissable “status of belonging”, under penalty of marginalization;
  • it is existential in the sense that the emotional, analogical sterilization, the removal of closeness, the sense of factual care and cooperation (possible only in small-scale realities, such as villages and tribes), in the globalized standardization in which we are housed, totally empties the lives of deep inspirations and degrades communication between individuals to a merely descriptive level. This is testified by the diligent and indiscriminate acceptance of all the “distractions” that allow to saturate embarrassing silences from which munchian screams of a mal de vivre do echo… and ubiquitous and desirable substitute proto-remedies are made such as: pets, magazines, social networks, news, events, holiday packages, not to mention the dissipation in fashion, shopping and fans of all sorts. The important thing is not to abandon the chatter which ensures communication that is centered on non-intimate contents (with the exception of morbid gossip) and that feeds on comments on the weather, expensive petrol and the usual “thief government” [what?!?!]).

The delirium in which we find ourselves, arises from a degradation that is as much narcissistic as existential

These two factors support the architrave of conformism, which is essentially the perfect behavioral result of a premeditated-from-above and unknowingly-nourished-from-below cultural eugenics. In this way, where existential and spiritual deprivation are so irreparable, the opaque nihilism, disguised as normality, ensures that every occasion in which one can feel better and positively “recognized” is worth a godsend. Hence, the main actor that has moved social consensus (the only ingredient that can transform an impracticable dictatorship into a highly practicable hegemony, which is primarily desired by the masses). It is precisely a “great opportunity” to feel “better and commendable” (a service of the ubiquitous archetype of the sacrificial victim, but with the stature of the martyr and of one who “unfortunately has to bear and take charge, but head held high and with joy” despite “the irresponsible” ones, who become the scapegoats).

And so, let us take away the gags on the face, even for the little ones and even when they are not compulsory because we are “responsible people”. Let us keep off from injecting experimental stuff for which the indemnity of all responsibility is requested, by signing an “informed” consent on products covered by military secrecy. Let us keep away from giving each other elbows, leaving the shopping bags outside grandmother’s house who we did not hug embraced for months and preventing being close to a sick person in hospital (who perhaps we will never see again). And many other “goodies” that, if told only 10 years ago, would have caused the indignant uprising of the most apathetic and indifferent petty bourgeois.

The violence of this dutiful “good-thinking” is far more tragic than that of an armed revolt. In those do-gooders, they make themselves sacrilegious and blasphemous, or at least ridiculous (through labels such as “conspiracy theory”, “pseudo-science”, “all-knowledge”). Every dissent and criticism of that creed, as this creed constitutes precisely the system of coordinates within which the narcissistic and existentially poor image of “being better” can be worthy. The criticism of those who do not agree with all this becomes unacceptable and stinging, since it would overturn that same “laudable” self-representation into a monstrous and miserable “fool” or “incompetent”, but above all…. one of those less capable of a sense of the sacred towards that untouchable essence that one should not even discuss: the temple of one’s own body.

Obviously, since there are those who have remained immune to this perverse scheme, the “divide and rule” is done. But the reason cannot be dismissed in the trivialization according to which there are two factions of individuals who “both fools” wage war, placing them on the same level. This would be equivalent to not recognizing the true dynamics of the story. Here it is a question of the fact that an immense part of humanity is deliberately abdicating its own “being alive and free” in favor of an infernal machinery whose operation also involves those who see this havoc and do not want to allow it, but who are clear minority. The serious and dramatic thing is the impossibility of freeing oneself, saying to the first ones “you go your own way”, as the design is total and those who are struggling are also doing it for the sheep of the flock (both because of them and in order to help them). This aspect, with these proportions, is an unprecedented fact in the entire history of humanity.

Without being able to dwell here on the whole problem concerning the supremacy of scientific knowledge and all the glossy indisputability of what it produces from the academic world, protected by the rhetoric of excellence and the peer review that certify and accredit the knowledge that can and must be accredited, and without considering all the ideological and economic biases that this “knowledge” brings with it, we are well aware that institutional science actually has a big problem at its foundation and which concerns how scientific truth is constructed. This methodological aspect, especially in the medical-biological sciences, never becomes the object of scientific reflection itself, or does not become so to the point of questioning some untouchable cornerstones which would actually allow a paradigm shift in the understanding of the living kingdom.

An immense part of humanity is deliberately abdicating its own “being alive and free” in favor of an infernal machinery whose operation also involves those who see this havoc and do not want to allow it

Within this doctrinal “cathedral”, the academic world has remained inert and passive in the face of such a social delirium. Even worse: it has become its accomplice and implementer. The same has happened for the school, which has long been programmed and configured to guarantee a subscription to the “total reset”. This was an outcome that could be obtained through a very precise work over the last 30 years, hidden in the loopholes of procedures, carried out with blows of reforms and circulars, as well as with the vaunted practices of “synergy with the world of work” and “research funding” under the headings of development,
innovation, modernization, computerization…etc. (see E. Frezza).

Returning to the epistemological problem: if it is true that «data are not facts» (Bateson), we cannot take for granted what the traditional image of science has been doing since the time of Galileo, putting descriptive models (mathematical, lastly) and those irreducible aspects of experience with which we come to terms every day. Does this science know how to answer the question what is the difference between making a measurement and having experience…?

It is evident that for some time now we have been facing a (very useful) crisis constituted by radically calling into question a vision of epistemology which believes it can operate only by understanding the method as an independent tool from its object of study and as an abstract criterion of “scientificity” of a problem and its solution. In this case, the price to pay is to accept the physicalist procedure as the only valid one, and to accept a profound Cartesian “cut” between mind and nature (psyche and soma) that is profoundly dualistic and, therefore, unnecessary.

The “therapy” for this crisis (to use I. Licata’s words) lies, first of all, in the recognition that every “Epistemology” is born and develops within the emerging levels of reality and therefore also of description, keeping in mind that the study of every “world domain” – from the very definition of “domain”, to its objects and the relationships that bind at various levels – implies an explicit acknowledgment of the observer’s strategies and cognitive aims.

We must clearly focus on the fact that, of all the touted emergencies, the only true and real one is then that of the conscience: at the moment, in most human individuals there are no adequate tools to direct action and thinking… there is no compass to be in the world in a bio-logical way, that is according to a logic for life. We are not talking here of culture, skills, notions, but of the ability to feel (not to believe, but to feel!) what is true/good/useful (B. Spinoza) and necessary for life and to abandon a degenerate system-centric solipsism that has nothing human, and nothing pro-vital. What suppresses life is the lack of critical meta-observation of the needs that are expressed by each individual without the latter being able to distinguish his/her origin (whether truly authentic, necessary, bio-logical…or if induced, conditioned, oriented, functional to another).

In most human individuals there are no adequate tools to direct action and thinking… there is no compass to be in the world in a bio-logical way, that is according to a logic for life.

When this is missing, then there is room for the great détournements (to quote the Situationists and G. Debord) produced by the double-thought relativism that backs up the identity thinking.

Just to mention a few:

  • from the critique of anthropocentric humanism (“a human too human”) to the denial of the human in favor of a post/trans-human (in true expression of a paranoid hubris, trembling and incapable of grasping the relational ontology of every living and to integrate death as a fact of life);
  • from welcoming the needy, the different, the inept, the wounded (inside) to the prohibition of being “normal” (healthy, strong, independent, free, heterosexual, male or female), hence the ad minorem exploitation of Christian values, as Nietzsche had already well understood in his genealogy of morals;
  • from equality (which one?) as an inviolable decontextualized totem, to the suppression of diversity: but if we think about it, life is precisely biodiversity, differentiation (minimum entropy achieved precisely through the maximization of constraints, requisites and distinctions). Other than the suppression of the sexes or the prevalence of narrating self-declaration on biological factuality!
  • and therefore gender ideology as an act of collective psychosis due to the lack of sense of reality and a true subscription to the status quo: this seems to break patterns (with this idea it seduces followers, and more and more young people), when, on the other hand, the most acute gesture of conformity is made in which the arbitrarily given definition must be confirmed by a servile collective, under penalty of being out of place or outlawed, because …. “violent”;
  • from the high “children cannot be possessed because they belong to life”, to … “parents do not possess them because, as a matter of fact, someone else owns them”;
  • from technique as a tool to technique as a purpose

Man is a living being and if he wants to thrive in the biosphere and be flooded with authentic happiness, which can only be conferred by Nature, he must know how to listen, to move with care and emotion.

 

Bibliography, for further deepening: