Calculations By Ansel

Return to Aristotle / 4. The romance of mathematics

Add another piece of meat to the fire of my fireplace Aristotelian. I do a little 'lost time on the day of Christmas, a Catholic, while around me there are those who casually watch the programs more or less on TV Christmas revelry after a few too many around the table ... time lost because it is not exactly what you expect to do during Christmas day, write a piece of philosophy, and lacking for too long because the shop, and I would not that not many of these visitors end up disaffected discharged short pages.
Then affix a contribution, certainly incomplete, but serves the sole purpose of continuing to weave the thread of a story that a little 'time I hope to become a beautiful new dress.

days ago I was talking with a dear friend, a wide culture Catholic intellectual, who asked, looking a bit 'to provoke discussion, "Why in the debate between mythos and logos , the Catholic Church opted for the second? There is nothing logical in Catholicism, starting with the founding myths (when I used the word "myths" he made a crooked face:), should rather opt for the myth, right? But in Christianity logos appear at the beginning of John's Gospel, where Jesus identified with the Logos is the means by which God created the world and incarnate in Jesus Christ, it has also become the savior. "
continuing to argue the ideas of the Gospel of John, who later find their conclusion in the definition of the two dogmas of the Trinity and the incarnation of God, made in the Council of Nicaea. "The term logos in the Christian - He said - is traditionally rendered in Italian as a verb , recovering with a cast of Latin verbum . More correctly, however, should be made with word. "
" It 's strange - I said - "just Christians that have prompted the mythos the edge of philosophical reflection, as alien to the traditions of the Bible, and that they just make the confusion between logos and words. "
"But no, instead - he says - is perfectly in the intentions of the Church, to avoid leaks excessively mystical interpretations, and instead try to keep our feet on the ground. Despite the different possible meanings, the logos refers mainly to the intelligibility of the cosmos, the ability to understand and explain the rational principles that govern it. The universe for the Christian must first be intelligible, a place of dialogue between God and man. The human person created by God in His image and likeness, is the only being enabled to recognize these meanings and decipher the information. We must avoid falling into relativism and mysticism to Ficino, forsitan in praesentia somniamus , remember? "(Because you understand the" remember? "At this point I have to specify that the speaker, the current dean of the school unified classical-scientific language T *****, My ex is a literature professor, who later became one of my closest friends).
He continues: "The university is a privileged place for dialogue between God and man in this dialogue you scientists share fully, often unconsciously, every time that you recognize the objective nature of intelligibility, a logos ut ratio, but an otherness, a logos ut verbum that attracts you to the search for truth. From our point of view, is the "Omega point" of Teilhard de Chardin, the maximum expression, purpose of evolution. "

After our chat in front of a (several, actually) short of cognac, I thought back to these fine words, and good fun to do them and enjoy them. And the content of the same, of course, and their possible link with my longstanding interest in the cognitive sciences, and my renewed interest and recent Aristotelian philosophy, in particular meaning of "status of the borders" I'm trying to draw.

I read somewhere (I find among my notes, unfortunately I lost the link came from) similar to my findings about the Christian belief in the Creator Logos, in the sense of having favored the development of a scientific mentality in which finds a place faith in the rationality of the world. Thus supporting the need to look for roots of a stable order and universal belief apparently shared by some scientists. In fact, I told myself, this may be an association only functional in the sense that a certain order of ideas, whatever their objective basis, could have accidentally ("historically") to encourage the use of a theory of knowledge more appropriate analysis Science. But put the Verbum the foundation of reality, serves to make the dialogue between man and nature nothing more than a metaphor for the dialogue between man and God
Always in my notes, I find another excerpt that reads "A possible reflection on the scientific debate may be, for example the question about the "Unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" (E. Wigner, The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences , "Comunications in Pure and Applied Mathematics" 13 (1960), pp. 1-14, JD Barrow, Because the world is mathematician? Roma-Bari 1992). Would always be possible to envisage a universe that did not have the property of being so easily mathematization like ours, where the main physical laws do not meet full convergence, as can be represented with simple scientific laws, where the geometry of space, for example, does not allow potential decreases with the inverse radial distance, or the law of gravity to be adjusted by the inverse of its square. Although the human mind exerts a clear projection of his fees in the physical world, trying to mathematize, this has to be both mathematization (emphasis Boston). There are reasons to reject the idea that it is the only scientist to impose such an order in nature. The language of scientific rationality, logic, like mathematics, is not a completely conventional language, one among many. "Things are exactly the opposite - Polkinghorne notes - The physical difficulty mastering mathematical techniques because experience has taught them that they are the best way, indeed the only, to understand the world physical. We choose this language because it is the only one with which the universe speaks to us "( Religion and Science, 1987, p. 72). Behind the idea of \u200b\u200ba cosmos "capable of speaking" is not difficult to see that one of its constitutive law with an original word. [...] It is no surprise, then, over the "comprehensiveness" of the universe - something that aroused the wonder of Einstein - and even the fact that the same elementary particles are all strictly identical. Still wonder about the latter's attention John Barrow, pointing out that if all the electrons are not exactly alike, and behave as such of footballs, each slightly different, the whole universe would become unintelligible (see Theories of Everything. The Quest for Ultimate Explanation, Oxford 1991, p. 197, a physicist, I must say that last remark of Barrow on equality of the particles is quite unintelligible, note Bostonian).

Here is the point where the mythos , kicked out the door, falls out the window. With the idea that nature, even nature, carries the stamp of God, manifested in the harmony of the universe understandable. The Universe speaks in mathematical language, the language of God transcends the body language of mathematics and the human mind, in this view that I think I can define without problems "platonic." In a nutshell:
- mathematics is an objective characteristic and the real universe, mathematical truths are universal, absolute and safe, mathematical truths are being discovered;
- beliefs about the mathematics of human beings have no influence on the same mathematics, the mathematics would be the same even if there were no human beings, and possibly other worlds than this;
- mathematicians, scientists are at a higher level, in a hypothetical hierarchy of the sciences, because the truth is discovered valid in any possible universe, not just those accessible to our experience;
- because the logic can be formalized in terms of mathematics, the mathematics itself is the true nature of rationality, furthermore, since the rationality of defining what is uniquely human, mathematicians are the highest expression of rationality;
- the mathematics of nature, and in particular physics lies in same natural phenomena, such as the fact that the planets follow elliptical orbits, which are nested fractals in the shapes of leaves, the shells of snails follow logarithmic spirals, which implies that the book of Nature is written in mathematical language, and that only those who understand math can understand nature;
(by G. Lakoff and RE Nunez, Where Mathematics Comes From Basic Books, Perseus, New York, 2000)

This is what Lakoff and Nunez have called "the romance of mathematics, which is perhaps more appropriate to define" the mythology of mathematics. " As Lakoff and Nunez argue, two cognitive scientists, linguist and psychologist on the first second, the study of cognitive science is often found that the evidence in conflict with the individual mythologies. Our conscious beliefs on subjects like time, causality, morality, politics, are often inconsistent with respect to each of unconscious conceptual systems. It is not unusual for people to get angry when they are shown how their unconscious contradicts their beliefs more expensive and entrenched, especially in sensitive areas such as ethics, religion, or politics. Something similar is also found in mathematics: speaking of professional mathematicians, it is extremely difficult to get across the concept of "mythology of mathematics." The popular idea is that a subject as complex and specialized math can speak advisedly professionals only, and that epistemologists, philosophers, psychologists, behavioral, cognitive scientists, but even the nearly-related as the physical, that can not be piecemeal, schematic and not professional. The "romance of mathematics" is the deep part of their vision of life, their deepest identity. And I doubt, in fact, that a mathematician who read the words I am about to write, share.

fact, affirm and support (in the company of someone else) the radical estrangement of mathematics from natural science. The math is different from all the sciences, it is totally "inside" the human mental space, while the other sciences are "external." The sciences are made from the analysis of natural events, perceived by the human mind through the senses at their disposal, within the ranges of variability of biological sensors supplied for this purpose. Mathematics is the mental system ("language") by which the brain organizes and analyzes the sensory perception of natural events. Mathematics is the natural language for the formalization of the relationship between "inside" the body and "outside" of nature. For other reports, the brain prefers to use other forms of language, such as verbal, musical, and so on.
In this sense, mathematics is a pure product of human beings. It uses the limited resources of the human brain, and these limits, it is formed not only by the physical limits of our bodies. The parts of the human cognitive system that generate the most advanced mathematical skills are the normal adult, common to every human being. How long have shown cognitive science, a very small part of these abilities are innate, hard-wired in the human brain, typically the ability to count up to four or five. The further development of higher mathematics is due to the mechanisms of conceptual metaphors and logical inference embedded in the cognitive mechanisms of the brain.

to these ideas (will?) Support, at its own knowledge or without any fault or strict liability, the ghost of Aristotle Aristotle August, with my / his status boundaries ... I hope ☺

How Long For Temazepam

Return to Aristotle / 3. The biology of the soul back to Aristotle

I realize that the tone of the last contribution was rather theoretical, and then reading boring and inaccessible, even if it contained a number of elements necessary to support what I say. And I also realize that these are my thoughts quite personal, which end up leaving little room for criticism. But I would do the same great pleasure, if at least some of the friends who have so actively participated in the exchange of ideas on mythos and logos , could also come here to donate their valuable contributions, trying to turn the almost-monologue Shop in a more lively dialogue. (However, the small company that has followed me thus far has already given us insightful and appropriate interventions.)

One goal of this reflection, however messy and incomplete, is to propose a theory, not very innovative in hindsight according to which scientific activity is the necessary product of the human brain, specifically the mind.
The activity in question is connected with the use of mathematics, which is not a science, but it is one of the forms of their language in the human brain, that is a pure product of mind and non-existent outside of it, Like the verbal or musical (more suitable for other human activities that scientific development).
The scientific activity is the processing and organization of any feeling to cross the border of our indoor-outdoor living body. We have no choice in this. Whenever we get a visual or auditory stimulus, Every time I cross the road, whenever we compare between the two of them looking for a geometric sphere in an apple, every time we feel the urge to give a kiss to a loved face, they begin to move inside the vital chains of chemical reactions, governed by the brain's response to external stimuli that have crossed the border. Both the stimuli that the responses are processed by the mind according to a code that necessarily elaborante structure of the mind. Besides being process "uses throw-away", some of these stimulus-response chains (also including multiple levels of "round trip" between the interior and exterior) can be formalized the mind, to finish stored in memory. In the system of perceptual organization mental language of choice in which this happens is mathematics, while for other types of processes can be, for example, verbal language or music. In any case, these languages \u200b\u200b carved into the structure of the human brain. The music, speech, science, there are only in our minds.

I hope to clarify this block of concepts in more detail in the next action. In this post I will, however, insist on the contribution of Aristotelian thought provides inspiration to my thesis. In particular, the fact that the scientific ideas of Aristotle - that in the modern world, both inside and outside the academic environment, were considered a relic of a primitive or a "child" of doing science - should be regarded instead as the product of an investigation of extremely fine, and not so much not only about the objects of science itself, as the relationship between human beings and the world around . Showing that science is nothing more than this, or another form of poetic expression.
This sense of Aristotelian thought is that which stimulates many of my thoughts, or that we can not give the study an external reality independent of the activities (will?) The person who observes it. That this continuing game of projection ειδος in the outside world, internal mental images, crossing the boundaries of the body and drawing new boundaries in the geometry of the mind, and that these images, with a mathematical procedure, the mind abstracts organized forms, is the only form of access to the outside world that we are given. It starts from the Thomistic nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu for outcomes that surpass empiricism (avoiding the temptation of walking immateriality of Berkeley) and come with modern neuroscience. Our vision of reality is the result of perception and structural organization of the brain. In short, we must always see the world from behind our eyes. We can never go out of our body to an objective reality. We can never enter the brain behind the eyes of someone else, to have his own perception of his own reality. And this regardless of the value to be assigned to reality, material or ideal. Aristotle was born in

Stagira, northern Greece, the son of Nicomachus who was court physician to the royal family of Macedonia. For this reason his first studies were in medicine, until in 367, seventeen, was sent to Athens to study philosophy with Plato. He remained for twenty years in the Academy but, although it was probably the most brilliant student of all, had over time developed a specific objection to many of the teachings of Plato, so that he was appointed head of the Academy when Plato died. For this reason Aristotle left Athens and traveled for about ten years, mainly in Asia Minor. We can assume that his studies of biology Datin from this period. In 338 he returned to Macedonia, to become tutor to Alexander the Great. When his young disciple conquered Athens, Aristotle returned there and created his own school, known as the Lyceum. Aristotle remained in Athens until shortly after Alexander's death when, as a result of popular uprisings against the Macedonian invaders, his social position became increasingly critical to risk the death penalty. Was forced to retreat on the peninsula Evia island, far from Athens, where he died in 322.

It 'difficult to summarize briefly the contribution of Aristotle to the sciences of antiquity, but I think for some readers Bottega is amazing to discover how and with what skill and depth Aristotle was an empirical scientist, even before a philosopher. And 'one of the great ironies of history that the writings and ideas of Aristotle, based on large part on direct observation and manipulation, were used in the Middle Ages and beyond just to disrupt and prevent the development of formal sciences, after the School Aristotelian thought had amalgamated with Christian doctrine.
Aristotle, the first of empiricists, classified physical objects that he thought were the reality accessible only with experience. All objects, including bodies (it is he who invented the word, both the concept of body as aggregate set of elements to perform a function well-defined ) are composed of potency and act, matter or form. A block of marble has in itself the power to take any form the sculptor to give him, a seed or an embryo has the power to grow into the final shape of an animal or plant. In living creatures he identified the form with the 'soul : plants have a core of generally lower, the animals generally higher and can "feel", humans are the only ones to have a rational soul. I stress again that, in modern terms, the better identification of the soul is the Aristotelian definition of the materialist-functionalist mind that is given in neurophysiology ("can not be a change in mental status without a change in brain state") even if the plants are only partially included in this description, limited to the sensitive sphere. It should be noted that according to Aristotle the soul is a sensitive part (ψυκη) and part intellectual (νους). (An identification of the soul, for example, the genetic code or DNA would be conceptually possible, but the distance between the genotype and phenotype an individual is too large to make it almost plausible.)

The animals were classified by him according to their form of life (modern taxonomy), their actions (ethology) and, more fundamentally, in terms of their parts (anatomy ). Although Aristotle's work in zoology is not error-free compared with modern knowledge, his was the greatest synthesis of his time and was the authority in the field for centuries after his death. His observations on the anatomy of octopus, the cuttlefish, crustaceans and other marine invertebrates are remarkably accurate, and could have been made just downstream of the experiences of anatomical dissection. He described the embryonic development of chickens, distinguished whales and dolphins than fish, described the compartmentalized stomach of ruminants and the social organization of bees, he noticed that some sharks give birth to the children already live. His books on animals are filled with accurate observations, some of which were experimentally confirmed until many centuries later. It is classified in groups
kinds (a term that has a much broader sense than modern) animals with similar characters, and distinguishes between different species within the genus. Divides animals into two types, those with blood and those without blood (at least based on the presence of blood red), a distinction that corresponds closely to that between modern vertebrates and invertebrates. Animals with blood (vertebrates) were classified into five genera: viviparous quadrupeds (ie mammals), birds, oviparous quadrupeds (reptiles and amphibians), fish, whales (including that he not among mammals, including but while dolphins where he discovered the presence of the placenta: it is remarkable that on this point Aristotle was discredited by his successors, and dolphins were properly included among mammals only by modern science, more than two thousand years later). The bloodless animals were instead classified as cephalopods, crustaceans, insects (genus that included spiders, scorpions and earthworms), animals with shells (including molluscs and echinoderms), and zoophytes-plants or animals, cnidarians like that in the eyes of Aristotle resembled plants.
love for the classification and grouping similar kinds inevitably led him to formulate a hierarchy of linked progressive change in the shapes of animals, a kind of embryo of evolutionary theory in which he was joined by other thinkers of the time. Moreover, imagination and intuition led him into dead ends in some cases, such as being attributed to heart the seat of the vital functions whereas only the brain as an organ for cooling the blood. I suppose at least qualitatively to understand brain function, he should be able to perform the dissection experiments on live animals. As discussed
forward, talking about physics, Aristotle was not an investigator in the proper sense, but an acute observer of nature. In fact, he never set in place a real experimental setup is intended to prove or disprove a hypothesis, but pushed his remark as deep as he could.

The Aristotelian science of the earth is found in his treatise on Meteorology , a term in this case much wider than the modern meaning, including "all the phenomena common to air and water, and the kinds and parts of the earth , and the phenomena of its parts. " In this paper he discusses the nature of the land and oceans, and describes Among others, the hydrological cycle in exceptionally modern terms: "Why is the sun in its movement, sets in motion processes of change and becoming and decay, and for its action and pure fresh water every day is brought in dissolved air and steam, and thus increases in the higher regions where it condenses back to the cold, and thus returns to the earth. " In the same text he discusses wind and earthquakes (which he believed caused by winds underground), thunder, lightning, rainbows, meteors, comets and the Milky Way (which groups all under the category of weather phenomena).
Moreover, his vision of the history of the planet also has some very modern ideas: "The various parties Earth has not always been dry or dried, but they change, the changing of the rivers that run and dry. And likewise the relationship between land and sea changes, and where there was dry land comes the sea, and where it has the sea one day you will land. But we must assume that these changes follow a certain order and a certain cycle. The principle and the cause of these changes is that the interior of the earth grows and decays as the body of plants and animals [...] But the whole process of life on earth is happening gradually and in periods of time so huge in comparison the duration of our lives, that these changes may not be observed, and before their course can be documented from the beginning in the end, nations perish and are destroyed. "

Aristotle's observation that the circular nature of celestial motion is evidence of the limited space of the universe is much deeper than it may appear. It contains in fact the intuition a conservation principle (what we call in modern terms angular momentum of the universe) that sounds very modern physics. We must be careful in the discussion of Aristotelian thought, to keep separate his claims based on at least one element of observation, from those based on pure speculation. And even among the observations, his and his contemporaries, we must take into account the limited capabilities experimental era, such as the inability to sufficiently accurately measured intervals of time (not until the eighteenth century, and Christian Huygens for a quantum leap). For example, one of the arguments put forward by Aristotle to prove the eternity of the universe was the constancy of the speed of motion of the stars (in his formulation, the motion of the ether). Today we know that the universe as a whole is slowing , and this is one of the important evidence supporting the Big Bang theory, but this slowdown can not be measured with instruments that ecezionalmente refined.
Aristotle's belief in a universe without beginning or end of law would place him among the forerunners of theory of ' stationary universe, (re) formulated in the '30s by British cosmologists Roger Hoyle and Hermann Bondi, and repudiated the late 60s by the discovery of cosmic background radiation, estimated residual of the Big Bang. Or perhaps better, the theory of 'balance universe of Einstein, the solution of relativistic equations with nonzero cosmological constant, which was essentially put into crisis by the evidence of the universe (Einstein said here that this was the His most serious mistake). This view, though debatable, but certainly original and modern, however, led to an interpretation of Aristotle necessarily cyclical phenomena, to ensure the condition stationary as immutable reality. While this was necessary for Aristotle, on the one hand to avoid the logical paradoxes of the Eleatic school system and to strictly comply with its teleological view of nature, such a request to modern ears is not required to provide a possible solution to the stationary or equilibrium for a model of universe based on general relativity. For us today it is a plausible universe "open" time without end, though in constant evolution and change (for example, you could read the fine article by Freeman J. Dyson popular "Time without end: physics and biology in an open universe ", in Reviews of Modern Physics of 1979). Although the difference fundamental between Aristotle and modern theories of the universe, expanding and "inflationary", and the presence of a singularity, or Big Bang, which emerges from the fabric of space-time relativity, I think I have reason to suspect that If Aristotle were alive today he might have appreciated such a possibility, change in eternity, because the absence of a final time limit ensures that all possibilities are actually co-present between potency and act, and therefore immutable, even if we we perceive as apparent flux.

Personally, aspects of scientific thought of Aristotle that leave me colder it is precisely those who would falsely appear more modern in today's lean times of reductionism in favor of a diverse squad of holistic approaches. Yes, the theory of the organic universe, the dual identification of microcosm and macrocosm, which seem so close to the visions of a certain para-environmentalism that reaches Bateson & C. But sometimes paradoxical conclusions of Aristotelian physics, the non-role of mathematics in his thought (the importance of absences, sometimes), and its vision of the universe as purposeful living organism (here we go again with the 'Gaia Hypothesis of ecologists to Ray Lovelock?) will talk next time ...

Propane Furnace Flame Color

/ 2. The geometry of the mind back to Aristotle

This second episode of the talk on Aristotle tries, and I do not know what happened as possible, to develop further the concept of boundaries statute, starting with the Aristotelian theory of places and moving between mathematics, physics and neurophysiology, in the direction of establishing a basis for analysis of human perception (in general, animal ) of the outside world, properly defined, and then to discuss the activities of scientific investigation in terms of mental operations.

Aristotle did not invent the word place , τóπος, he found existing in the Greek language with its sense of place, physical place. If you look at the modern use of the word place, placed, you realize that they generally require the association to a resident who makes his residence. It 's rare that we use the word site with a genitive inanimate. Examples. The site of a rock? The site of a house? In the philosophical connotation, the word place brings an existential meaning, and to indicate the location of the geometric space is used rather than the word place or site constructs and their derivatives, such as location, inherent located.

Assuming, of course all be discussed, that the word implies a place to stay there, we call this being Lord of the place, be it human or animal. Each animal forge a place for its activities. Every living being is the center of a three-dimensional geometric domain, its τóπος, where he practices his reproductive activities, hunting, etc.. A domain is a volume that has a center of gravity, from which the Lord gives life and family ramifications. It is important to emphasize that such a geometric domain exists only in the mind of the Lord. The raids, or rather the external excursions are limited by boundaries, fixed objects that mark the end , the εσχατα Aristotle (τω δε τι κεξωρισμενον, which is separated ) that the individual for her own choices and cultural life will not exceed (boundaries that are clearly time-varying). In a simplified manner, we can say that Aristotle imagined that every living thing with this is his territory mental, inner projection of outer space in which to be lies. What I would like to discuss is how this is related to the mental territory physical territory in which the animal is submerged.

Initially, we attribute this to be a mobility within this domain (in the mathematics of topology, is called a connected open set) of the ordinary Euclidean space. The need for a place to have the εσχατα is a locally owned, which characterizes the ' be the ουσια. The site is defined by its external border. But what should be surprising is that this local property is actually set up as a double border. In terms of geometry, topology, and a convex hull replacing the place of extremes. This is the very nature of the concept of topological edge, border.

With Parmenides appears for the first time the concept of συνεκησις, usually translated as continuous (referring to the continuity of space). Translation partially misleading, according to René Thom (author of the famous essay on Aristotle as "the first topology of the history of mathematics" that inspired these reflections), which emphasizes that the sunékesis , which flows along , rather evokes the concept of domain continuously connected (without breaks) as tracing a perimeter of an object without lifting the pen from the paper. How would the sailors, who can test the connection geometry to complete the circumnavigation of an island. In fact, at the time of the late Plato and Aristotle, surveyors experienced a certain repugnance to the idea that two points were coincident, the notion that lacked even a proper term. Later, however, the time of Euclid, it will not hesitate before the operation concept of sliding two geometric figures in space, to bring them to match and verify the equivalence, for example by moving a team spirit on one line (the verb Euclid επιαρμωζειν indicates this). Thom noted that an immediate reading of the formula Εν ταυτωι γαρ τα εσχατα του περιεξοντος και του περιεξομενου (for the little 'I remember greek would translate as wholesale are together the edges of the perimeter of the perimeter and above underlying ) Aristotle seems to think of an identity boundaries, where the adverb is used instead in ταυτωι sense of proximity, what today we would call internal identity of two sets.

This discourse leads us to explore the idea of \u200b\u200bcoincidence of two points, as designated in the enigmatic Aristotle says: "The entelechy generates separation." Consider an infinite straight line at both ends. If we place a point source O on this line, the entelechy the cut made by the arbitrary choice of origin, creates two half-half for any segment AB that passes through the origin, and the line itself. The intersection of the two half-segments, X'-AX and B, are distinct, X and X ', although coincident. As in the case of the two geometric figures translated to make it match the perimeter, the boundaries are overlapping but distinct .

This Aristotelian theory of the site has historically suffered from a profound ambiguity, even defined the locus horribilis Aristotelianism, seen as an outdated monolith of more primitive conceptions of the teacher accused Stagira. Ambiguity is a theory of inspiration strictly geometric in the modern sense of the term or, conversely, a theory based sull'etologia, ie employment of space from the living? The second view seems more relevant to the tradition "biologistic" of Aristotle, and would make it the cornerstone of modern ethology of central questions: How does an animal to organize their living space within a certain area? For example, birds have the natural barrier of the nest, which is a key element in the education of children, the subject of many ethological studies. There is an activity in animals
projection on the inner eschata eschata outer boundaries reproduce the map of the territory that borders the soul, which is determined simultaneously, over the movements of the Lord's place within its territory. Build a continuum of mental spaces involved in moving the physical places that are a match while remaining distinct, which is also an external mapping 's own inner world. The structure ενταυτα, coincident, the εσχατα εσχατα on external affairs. A double edge, empty, which again according to Thom, an analogy in the mathematical formulation of topological edge for two sets overlap, d ⊗ d '= 0, a non-place-place, a no coincidence size.

E 'need for this identification of bidirectional coincidence without identity between external and internal borders, or just a new artificial language devoid of any substance? We
to a body that atraverso the border of the body contact the outside world (the representation that makes the brain) and the inner world projected in imagery, such as the eye. The vision of an external object is to construct a virtual image on the retina, a form enclosed by a boundary. This boundary is projected in the mind as a real board , not at all virtual, some receptors of the retina receive the full, others vacuum, and the brain identifies the transition region between solid and void with a sequence of signals on / off the receptors. This board is propagated backwards in sequence, until the visual cortex, where it is mapped topologically unchanged (with geometric distortion, no doubt, but keeping the connection properties and dimensional relationships) in the neurons of the nucleus visual perception. This seems a plausible modern interpretation of Aristotle's description of the perceptual process, with the union of form and feeling in the generation dell'ειδος, the image imprinted in the soul, which in modern terms is obviously to be identified with the definition of mind that occurs in neuroscience.
The perception is the result of a process of mental impression of forms drawn from outside through the interaction with the boundaries of the body and, conversely, the projection of mental borders on external objects by recognizing the elements of τóπος, scope vital place.

The rejection of the Aristotelian theory of Platonic forms, presented in the "Nicomachean Ethics" is explained in this sophisticated analysis of the perceptual process, so much next to the conceptions of modern neurophysiology. According to Aristotle, Plato's error was the assumption that, since the mind can separate an object and its abstract form, both have exist separately (and as we know, Plato arrives then to attribute reality only to the abstract forms). Aristotle says the other hand, with a very modern look, that the human mind is naturally capable of doing the abstract thought, and the fact that a person is able to abstract the mental image the shape object that generates it, does not necessarily mean that the form has a life of its own. The form, in conclusion, it is purely a mental image, their perception of the process of every being, human or animal, not intrinsic to the object.

This analysis, as only the beginning, still primitive and sketchy, incomplete and totally reprehensible, and all you want, make out, in my opinion, Aristotle's theory places its state of locus horribilis philosophiae the function of a statute boundaries.
That is, the definition of perceptual sensitivity by specifying the boundaries: first, the boundary between inside and outside of the body, what happens inside the life and what happens outside it, and secondly, the boundary that demarcates and sets out the substance of the external world, expressed geometrically as perimeter or area, and temporally as the interval between the beginning and end, and thirdly, the boundary that represents the mental images of external substances, ideally comparable to the real substance in the process of formal recognition, possibly coincident with those, but still distinct, the author of "double border" vanishing zero length that characterizes the methodology of representation.

One might argue that Aristotle in these my speculations longer seems to be used as an excuse methodology, not as a true subject of philosophical reflection. Maybe. But I said from the beginning. And nevertheless, the status of the borders will be used to correlate the activity of mental representation with the scientific activities ... but also linguistic or musical.

How To Get Rid Of Dowagers Hump

/ 1. The status of borders

A little 'a surprise even to myself, I began to write more frequently in these pages. Surprise, because for a while 'I devote myself more to photography than to write an outlet for my creative ambitions misplaced (for those who want to take a look, this link gives you access to my pages on www.flickr.com).

A little 'a surprise even to myself, from my allotment last wrote a few days ago who spoke in the broad sense, the fear of science, to begin a reflection on my mind for a long time. And perhaps it is time to begin to pull out and put in black and white. The time has come around because they are also stimulating discussions , whose role ends up being not so much and not only the exchange of ideas, but rather the impulse to reflect, review and research the ideas themselves.

I know it will be a long job, because I'll summarize and give a completed form to the boiling for some time in the empty box that I have a head, and said the project is not me succeed and, if they can at least in part, the result of something coherent and complete. For this reason, and also to avoid the usual density of plutonic my writing, inspiring example of the discussions referred to above will try to develop a speech series. And I'm sorry about before you start, but I know that I'll be mythopoeic compelling as the author of the example that precedes me and inspires me. My speech will be much little logos and mythos . I do not think that poets and singers will stop leaving their contributions:)), because I like the background music ' Art of Fugue by Bach, and I doubt that the good young Sebastian could only return from the dead to comment on my blog. So I hope to be, if not compelling, at least convincing.

The target is the fear of science, and symbolizes that hides all the fears of men, ancient and modern (the latter with a number of aggravating and text to load). The excuse is the old Aristotle, to use as a metaphor for speech and at the same time, as practice for the argument against Platonism. Seeing in the latter a current, underground or surface depending on the cultural and historical moments, which periodically comes to suggesting solutions otherworldly, and extracorporeal iperuranee, read incorporeal, for trees and distresses the daily whims of being human.

I feel moved to this location for several reasons, professional, cultural, personal and even sentimental, the latter being, as always, if not the most important, at least the most stringent. But the fear of science in the sense of cognitive activity (which is that at that fraction of people in spite of little or poorly educated) is so biblically rooted, to force even the minds of philosophers established operations to counter denial and comparable from one side to the historical revisionism and political propaganda to the other. I am sure that many, at this point, evoking both came across as an example artificial opposition between Darwinism and creationism. But I think the more obvious cases, though less known, such as the controversy started by Koyré and supported by Feyerabend against Galileo's experiments. In brief summary, the choice antiempirista of these philosophers of science came to the forcing of wanting to make a Galilean platonic idealism strongly influenced (in the words of Koyré, a Platonism "deep and conscious that they had recognized those who had previously spoke of a Galilean platonic "). Because the Vulgate has it that the new science was incompatible with Aristotle, Galileo and would therefore opposed to the world of substances and accidents of Aristotle, the mathematical universe of Plato. This transformation of Galileo empirical idealist has come to deny that Galileo ever really done the experiments recounted in his works. PK Feyerabend has come to present Galileo as an unscrupulous scientist, who did not hesitate to use in the sense of observational data filocopernicano questionable, hiding with skillful maneuvers weak aspects of the theory. For pure

the record will serve to recall that after the criticism motivated by a clear project "political" scientists a bit 'all over the world have tried to reproduce the experiments and even to reconstruct the Galilean instruments, demonstrating the perfect plausibility historiography of the experiments and results. What question would then remain the intellectual attitude of Galileo, or if his work experience has really had the primary role, or whether there are overridden by the mathematical aspect than empirical, as the experiment conducted as verification of assumptions made with theoretical arguments. It 'a controversy of this long term and not a little time in the epistemological debate, but not essential for what I want to talk. Because the written word - that something finally will count - Galileo has never ceased to stress that his Aristotle, had he been alive, he would come to his aid to defend the new astronomical discoveries of the seventeenth century (see the edition of "Heaven" of Aristotle edited by Alberto Jori).

The controversy between the theory or del'esperienza priority goes to the very heart of science, and goes even deeper to the heart, or mind, the relationship between man and cosmos. To start this in my own speech from the limits of human perception, and for this I need first to establish the boundaries of the statute .

First, my view is anthropocentric , and could not be otherwise. Not in the classic sense and potentially negative that has come to give this term, but in a way that, in contrast, conveys all the limitations of animal nature of human beings. Let me explain.
We have experience in the world exclusively through the external border of our body, our border. The border of our body is in constant interaction with the universe, which, when assembled in its portion accessible to us for convenience define reality (bypassing for the moment, any discussion about the reality of reality). We homo sapiens perceive changes in temperature and pressure through the skin, light radiation through the cornea, we recognize various types of molecules through the nasal mucosa and lips, transform sound pressure air through the tympanic membrane, our life cycles are based on the alternation of day and night land rate from which the only intervals that we can understand and handle. This combination of sensitivity intervals (where a competent neuroanatomy easy to recognize the dynamic range of neurons in each nucleus of the central nervous system) is the domain of our interaction with reality, beyond this we can not go. Even the largest and most sophisticated instruments of measurement and observation of the modern era, to fathom interstellar distances, or subatomic distances, and penetrate at times dozens of orders of magnitude shorter or longer periods of our day, in the end require a translation that makes them readable and manipulable by the hands, eyes and human ears.

Thus, our perception of reality is anthropocentric. So what is the meaning of a question like "what is reality?" We, that is, no chance to get an idea of \u200b\u200bwhat may exist outside the border of our body? The response through the development of culture, namely through the logos, that is, through Aristotle Stagira.

Slanted Walk In Closet

Do not touch the infinite

A recent episode of "Men and Prophets," beautiful series of Radio 3 devoted to the history of religions and the relationship between religion and today's world, introduced me to a very singular character, whose knowledge has resulted in some internal and external reflections. Fri blogging the weighting of your summer readers distracted by umbrella, so you learn to complain that place too infrequently (enough to make you see:). And I just want to see who has the courage to leggerselo everything inside ....

Semerano The character is John, who died a year ago at the ripe old age of 92 years. A figure of intellectual awkward, long-lived in the shadows and only partially erupted in the light thanks to some "friends" of the likes of Umberto Galimberti, Emanuele Severino and Massimo Cacciari, who took off from exile in which he was confined because of his unorthodox positions. (For indisputable evidence of isolation, we think that Rai has been unable to find anything better to illustrate that the photograph of the tombstone, I reproduce here as an act vaguely necrophiliac pulp.)

better than I can do, I just described Umberto Galimberti in "La Repubblica" on 14.6.2001, on the occasion of the publication of the last essay Semerano hard at Mondadori

"The author of which I speak is John Semerano that ninety wrote: Infinity: a millennial misunderstanding. A student of Giorgio Pasquali and Giuseppe Forlani semiologist, Giacomo Devoto and Bruno Migliorini, Semerano John began his career in Florence as a professor of Latin and greek in high school, but his real passion is the etymology of words, whose research is disappointed too many times when referring to the etymological dictionaries who espouse the theory of the origin of our Indo-European languages, is opposite to the expressions: etymology 'unknown', 'inconnue', 'ignorée', 'unbekannt', 'unknown'. He was then suspected that, taking as a framework for the Akkadian language spoken in the third millennium BC in Anatolia, Syria, Mesopotamia by the merchants and rulers in their correspondence with the Egyptian pharaohs, those etymologies 'unknown' yield their secrets, and especially the etymologies of English words and German have always placed a heavy test the Indo-European framework. To pursue this hypothesis Semerano John left the chair in high school and moved as the first director of the Laurentian Library in Florence and then to the National Library where he remained for thirty years to build his masterpiece The origins of European culture, in four volumes published by Leo Olschki. [...] About the Etruscans, we know that [...] John Semerano starting from happening, he deciphered the writing, but his discovery, on the authority of Massimo Pallottino, had no follow-up and Etruscan writing was unnecessarily wrapped in her puzzle. In 1985, the celebration of the Etruscans held an international conference in Florence, where he was granted to John Semerano intervention of three minutes was not possible to prove anything. [...] The left Italy in the British newspaper The Guardian became curious about the person and, through the good offices of Neppi Modona, joined him in Florence and then interviewed him out with a full-page title "An italian Professor Finds Accadian linguistic roots under the tree. " The news shocked the world Anglo-Saxon culture and the Italian left unspecified, except that a few years after Indro Montanelli became curious about that and John Semerano invited to write some articles on the subject in his paper. This little recognition that annoyed Salvatore Settis 23 February 85 [ slip?, NDB ] discredited on Tuttolibri La Stampa John Semerano guilty to him to consider the Galileo claimed that a Copernican revolution about the origin of languages. But in those years Vittorio Mathieu [ slip giant Galimberti, this is actually Paul Matthiae, NDB ], head of the Italian expedition to Syria, which was found [...] twenty thousand Library of the Ebla tablets that Assyriologist Giovanni Pettinato began to translate and disseminate the discovery in his good books, that comforts the hypothesis of John Semerano. [...] In the same year [1994] noticed him and turned their attention to his research and Massimo Cacciari Emanuele Severino said earlier referred. The rest is history. In 1999, during the international congress held in Milan on "The first roots of Europe", L'Espresso had a long article on the report of John Semerano, and in April 2000 on Sergio Frau's Republic devoted two full pages of culture with a very good article: "As the land began to speak."

Fin Galimberti here. But the transmission of Radio 3 (which was the re-release of an interview in 2001) has allowed me to get in touch with the voice of this old young man who, despite his ninety next seemed little more than a middle-aged spirit and presence. Semerano had a way of stroking the concepts, typical of the man who lived far from the clamor and the envy of the academic self. His work definitions are, at times of intense poetry, like this:
"The words might be called spiritual gathering of media messages away, and make us partakers of time spent in the distant universe, civilizations and peoples of which up to several hundred years ago we knew nothing.
Words are the most tenacious of the stones. We need to auscultate their secret as the echo of a shell in the abyssal oceans. These are voices of people off, but as lights turned off are continuing to send their message of light.
For example, the word hand. From Latin manus . In etymological dictionaries the word is unbekannt elucidated. But the word has a transparency manus extraordinary, for maintenance in Akkadian means "compute." The hand or instrument so as to calculate. The Akkadian language is the mother of Assyria and Babylon. Semitic language that feels a lot of the most ancient Sumerian language. Going back again, Semitic languages \u200b\u200bare the Mediterranean, like the Canaanite, Aramaic, the origin of the Etruscan language among others. Languages \u200b\u200band European civilizations have their roots in this language, in this koine in the Akkadian is the most important.
Words such as Europe, Italy, Atlas do not result Indo. The concept of "Indo-European language" is a myth specially formulated by grammarians of German nineteenth-century myth that has had disastrous consequences on the political and historical. The racial laws were born in this cultural environment addiritura when he was forbidden to speak of the Semitic languages. It was preferred to move the origin Europe farther east, rather than accept a source-Semitic Mediterranean. "

It is the latter concepts include the" sin "of Semerano. Far from being a harmless discovery of an obscure discipline as paleolinguistica, having put the Akkadian and Semitic languages \u200b\u200bat the heart of the game, describing the building as a mythical Indo-European is not supported by any objective evidence, it would be a second revolution Copernican, when accepted.
Yeah, when accepted. The myth of the Indo-European civilization. Semerano not consider plausible dell'indoeuropeo says be a conjectural language reconstructed by linguists with a purely technical process, but completely out of touch. There is no need to say that such an argument has been rejected by linguists in the trunk classics. According to his critics, he disputed the theory dell'indoeuropeo thinking only of the early nineteenth century German linguists, regardless of the subsequent evolution of the studies that led to several corrections and refinements of the hypotheses late-Romantic. The claim that the existence of Semerano dell'indoeuropeo would be a "fairy tale" is contradicted by archaeological discoveries such as the decipherment of Hittite tablets, made just on the basis that it was an Indo-European language written in characters of writing cuneiform.
There are heavy, scientific linguists against the poor (but Unbreakable) Semerano. His methods appear to them to completely amateurish. For example, he has under the Latin res ("thing") from happening Resu , "head", completely ignoring the fact that the final-s of the Latin is the ending of the name. Perhaps if he got the moves by the prosecution rem, it may be moved up the incident REMU "belly"? Similarly, in all his work Semerano would simply served, without scruples methodological, dictionaries of various languages, which often ignores. His whole theory is based on heterogeneous combinations of terms, without being offered an alternative model to that developed by the traditional linguistic and without it are explained and defined the language laws that have guided the derivation of the various languages \u200b\u200bexamined by the ancient Mesopotamian languages.

not know about you, personally, I find this terrible problem (and "safely" in the sense of something designed for detailed and calmly) interesting. The Indo-Europeans, those notorious "sea peoples" who by their invasion of the Aegean Sea around 2000 BC would be the origin of Greek civilization, are a big problem, far that high school, anything but academic. Scholars of the nineteenth century, Greece was presented as a dilemma, since the scientific breakthrough of archeology, passed during archaeological excavations at the end of 700 (at least we should remember the tutelary deity of Winckelmann, Gedanken über die Nachahmung der griechischen Werke in der Malerei und Bildhauerkunst of 1755, and Geschichte der Kunst des Altertums del1764) from the state of discipline purely philological and antiquarian, progressive condition of the real observational and experimental science. The white statues of Greece kouroi and athletes (who now know to be rather were stained in origin, and so also a bit ' tacky), the Apollo "with no veins or tendons," the Olympian serenity and harmony that emanates from all higher quell'impressionante building intellectual, artistic, but also philosophical, scientific, social, democratic (despite slavery), seemed to be originated with the suddenness of lightning to illuminate the darkness, or at least the greyness of the Mediterranean world of the first millennium BC Of course, the neoclassical view that was created at Jena and Heidelberg, as the kingdom of the world greek timeless (and essentially in- space) of Supreme Harmony was largely lacking. To complete the picture with the vision of the world greek tragic and existential (Delphi, Eleusis) Man that still leaves us speechless, Nietzsche had to wait at least and its tragic pages of Die Geburt der Tragoedie of 1871 (hereinafter, a few years later, the excavations of Schliemann's Mycenaean and Phrygians, confirming the detailed reality of Greece primitive of Homer). Despite the undoubted incompleteness, nevertheless, at the beginning of the 800 Greek civilization loomed like a giant white Parian marble horizon gibbering superstition Mesopotamia. How could such a complex, articulated wonder had come out of nowhere?

To try to find the clue of this mess, the Europe of the late eighteenth creates the concept of "matrix Indo-European. " According to this model, the Greek civilization, created after the invasion of Indo-European peoples, is a native European civilization arose in opposition to an East African and Asian property seen as decadent. The latest version of the theory we need to Marija Gimbutas ( LINK), the author, inter alia, a wonderful book entitled The the Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe . This version of the Indo-European theory, completely unchallenged until the late '80s, the Indo-Europeans identified with a nation of warriors on horseback that pastors should reflect the culture of the fourth millennium, the Copper Age or Chalcolithic, that kurgan of (from a Russian word of turkish-Tatar origin meaning 'burial mound')

these shepherds from the steppes of Ukraine warriors, then taken the form of so-called culture of the battle-ax , would invade Europe in several waves, wiping out native populations, or by making the European continent, and substituting its own language to any language background. A doomsday scenario that also implies the idea of \u200b\u200bthe absolute superiority (military but also cultural) of the immigrant population on indigenous peoples, given the high level of pre-existing European civilizations. Not in this case scenario, which we call the Great Invasion, dates back to the nineteenth century, and the context in which the ideology was also born "Aryan." The books of the founding fathers dell'indoeuropeistica are full of references to the Aryan race destined to conquer the world. This kind of criticism (along with a reassessment of the basic Semitic or even North African of Greek culture) have made a fortune, for example, Martin Bernal and his famous book Black Athena . Bernal says that the "Aryan model" would triumph not because of its greater scientific plausibility, but for a variety of external causes: firstly the rise of Romanticism, then the rise of racism related to European colonialism and, in the racism, the rise of anti-Semitism, and finally a misunderstanding on the part of the historical sciences, the concept of "objectivity."

I take the following considerations from Origins of the languages \u200b\u200bof Europe: the problem of continuity , M. Alinei (Bologna, Il Mulino 1996). Over the past thirty years, while the experts of Indo-European language (the "favolieri" of the unrecognized Semerano) continued to work based on the classical model of Gimbutas, the archaeological science has made enormous strides, first with the discovery of more and more methods of dating precise, which have imposed a radical change of all the dates of European prehistory, making them much more old traditional ones, then with the development of methods for analysis and interpretation of increasingly sophisticated, leading to a gradual revision of traditional views on European prehistory, by eliminating or minimizing the role of invasions, and instead emphasizing the aspects of continuity and the role of internal development, economic and social. And in the context of this radical revision of European prehistory has increasingly begun to doubt the sustainability of the traditional theory of "the great invasion."

The book has focused on the "problem" in Indo-European has been explicitly Archaeology and Language: the Puzzle Indoeuropean Colin Renfrew (1987). Renfrew warrior replaces the invasion of Europe with an invasion of the Chalcolithic peaceful beginning of the Neolithic, by the early farmers, and goes on to match the process of diffusion of agriculture (the only real cultural gap documented by archeology new) with the process of diffusion of Indo-European languages.

In the '90s, however, another theory has been proposed as an alternative to that of Renfrew. The idea of \u200b\u200ban invasion Neolithic large, in fact, was immediately criticized by archaeologists, including specialists in the study of the transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic. These could easily be shown neolithization that Europe did not occur as a result of a major invasion that would have invested the entire continent, but due to a complex process of diffusion of products and techniques dell'agropastorizia, which has been accompanied by modest contributions that immigrant are interested only in the Balkans, Germany, and to a lesser extent the central-western Mediterranean area, and not at all the rest of Europe. On this basis, the most recent theoretical proposal states that the origins of the Indo-Europeans would not have come as warriors or Ukraine, either as farmers from the Middle East, but would be the natural heirs of the people who are always in Europe, that is, since Homo sapiens sapiens has spread across the continents of the Old World, in the Paleolithic, coming from Africa. The Indo-Europeans would then always been in Europe and Asia, as it admits that Africans have always been in Africa, the Chinese in China and the Australian Aborigines in Australia, and so on.

seems to me that the latter theory (which is very good Alinei co-author) is really fascinating. Our languages \u200b\u200b"Indo-European" date back no less than the primitive language of 'Homo sapiens . In our brain, already headed for his instincts by the amygdala, a remnant of the age of the caves, the linguistic forms moving along the meandering paths that follow ancient carved by a river that flows from the African highlands far one hundred thousand years ago. Never heard anything more beautiful, really, since the days when Don Giulio Torri taught us the catechism of the Salesian Oratory (okay, let me demystify a little bit:)

This whole situation does not clash too much even then with the evolution of Proto-Greek civilization in the Aegean. Modern archeology is now confirmation of the development a bit 'anywhere in the Europe of the Bronze Age (about 1500 years before him), highly stratified social structures and the emergence of powerful elites, accompanied by the culture of the tombs for burial. These would, in short, the great-uncles of the Homeric king of Argos and Mycenae, Agamemnon and fortissimum Mirmidonum rex. Only, just, merely shift the problem.

In fact, you may be pleased to have begun to understand a bit 'better the origin of European languages \u200b\u200band the connection with the previous cultural traditions, but the problem is still all there, intact. How did - really! - To come out something like the classical Greek culture, starting from the subsurface to the whole rest of Mediterranean Europe? Why did not develop similar civilization on the coast of Iberia or North Africa, or in the northern Adriatic? Because the plateau Iran is not one that came out as Phidias carved or one that measured the circumference of the Earth as Eratosthenes? Why the Semitic peoples were immersed in their rambling mumble (unfortunately come to this day) of their unspeakable Jaweh or Allah, only gods, vengeful and terribly upset in their loneliness, while the Greek philosophers gave birth to concepts and reasoning of stunning modern and invented mathematics and geometry? (Oh, now do not give me the pro-Nazi Aryan, eh ?...)

And towards the end of this (ahem ... ahem ...) post summer, I close it on myself and go back to the top and good John Semerano, who has sought throughout his life to fighting the "fairy tale" Indo-European invasion against his most tenacious supporters, or linguists. I go back to GS, because if it is true that Indo-European hypothesis has now been put into crisis by more than one party, he is now in good company (who knows that he will be chatting and Marija Gimbutas sitting side by side on a cloud of some paradise, a choice among several proposed by the diverse religions of the many Olympians who have studied). But as I tried to point out, the "knot" of the Greek question remains. Also because I suspect there is some "rage" ideological, in wanting to show all the costs that the Greeks were linked in some fashion to the proto-Semitic culture (and to some extent, even the Bible). As demonstrated by the last book Semerano he spoke at the opening of post, good Umberto Galimberti.
This volume is (see above) Infinity: an age-old misunderstanding. The ancient civilizations of the Near East and the origins of greek thought (Mondadori, 2001). Starting from the well known hypothesis of a derivation of all languages \u200b\u200bfrom a common matrix Akkadian-Sumerian, GS goes up to a radical overhaul of the entire story of the archaic and classical Greece, no more miraculous island of rationality, but an integral part of one community that stretches from Anatolia, Mesopotamia, to Egypt.
entire construction of this book is based on a new interpretation of the term apeiron , central to the philosophy of Anaximander. Of this there is just a pre-Socratic fragments, handed down by Simplicius in his Commentary on Aristotle's Physics , few words were enough to establish a full, powerful thought pattern:

principle of things is infinite. .. birth and death of things happen as needed, since they pay the penalty and reinstated the wrong that they commit to each other in the order of the time ...

Anaximander defines the element from which all things have their origin the term Apeiron, which is usually considered consists of a-privative ("without") and Peras ("assessment", "end") and therefore translated as "indeterminate" or "(un) done." According Semerano instead (you do the short) the term would be attached to the Semitic ' APAR corresponding to the biblical ' Afar and the incident eperu , all terms that mean "earth". The fragment of Anaximander no longer refers, therefore, a philosophical concept of infinity, but to a conception of "belonging to the land" that is found throughout sapienzale an earlier tradition of Asian origin and is also in the biblical text dust you are and dust you shall return. Here, in my opinion, check the ideological fury.
admit they have not succeeded (yet) find the book of Semerano to read it with due care, and I'm writing my impressions based solely on what the author said in his interview. I admit that even I do not mind the whole idea of \u200b\u200bbringing Anaximander (and perhaps other pre-Socratic) in a less metaphysical and more "materialistic", along with Thales and Democritus. I admit also that could be resolved with a smile that the main objection was made that argument, citing the alternation of the diphthong in the language that ionic found so often in Homer (for example, a Homeric "pontos apèiritos" would be translated, following Semerano, with a questionable "earthy sea" instead of "endless sea").

But what they do not admit is that I take off to infinity. I you want to drive back on Earth and in the ground, his head covered with ashes and his lip quivering, in worship of an ancient god invented by fear. I want you to cut the wings of thought that Greece has instilled in the depths of the brain Europe to return them to the darkness of the barren hills Canaanite superstitious. No, not touch the infinite. Let me wander, boring apologists of Christianity, for endless ocean of knowledge.

And happy holidays:)