Method and Encounter with Magister

Dialectics 1.
Dialogue Within One’s Mind

The method of this blog is finding free inspiration in the technique of dialectics (διαλεκτική ) possibly invented by Socrates and Plato something like 2,400 years ago. As far as we know dialectics is primarily based on thought discussing with itself in an effort to reach constantly better conceptions, such an inner dialogue being though not obvious here since what readers actually get is just a sequence of apparently unrelated writings.

The point is our posts are connected by mental links, and writings and ideas whithin them bounce on one another in quick or lazy succession, thus answering, contradicting, integrating one another and now and then considering previous-post themes from different angles or even entirely diverse views.

What’s more, in the context of one single post, questions and answers or different opinions can at times coexist, this conflict/dialogue of ideas actually being the core of ancient dialectics.

A further layer of complexity – as we have said before – is provided by the delectable game of free associations, which, pleasant or not, is part of our inborn cognitive style.

Risk of Bewitching Chaos

Thought in progress, we believe, is a better self-improvement tool than finished and sedentary conclusions. The risk here is bewitching chaos, better defined as irrationality. We hope though we can attain some consistency:

a. because of the nature of dialectics itself, tending from heterogeneity towards unity (see Dialectics 3);
b. because our ideas are not thrown down at random, links among them being stimulated by inner themes we have been meditating in the years and presumably of biographical origin;
c. because almost all our interests have sprouted (though changing over time) from an astonishing sudden germination. We are referring here to a crucial encounter that took place in Rome, 35 years ago (see Dialectics 3).

Dialectics 2.
Dialogue Among Minds

Now, reason discussing with itself doesn’t exclude any possible dialogue with others. Quite the contrary, since dialectic sees in fertile dialogue among thinking people the highest expression of cognitive exploration. We have conversed (and are still conversing) with people of any cultural level, even a few top brains, their ideas interacting with ours in many ways. Plus we digest tons of TV debates, while mass-media bulk indoctrination we gave it a firm halt, disgusted by its unethical and repellent manipulation of young people especially.

In any case, however we put it, we cannot have what Socrates or Plato had. Being not big shots in thinking, as we said before, we cannot invite to dinner the great intellectuals of our time on a weekly, monthly or even quarterly basis. What an awful stress it would be (we are reserved), although, let’s be frank, it’s not that they wouldn’t accept, they just wouldn’t even notice we are inviting them.

Note. How silly to even think of having what Socrates or Plato had. Today even top think-tank people cannot enjoy those perfect, sublime, holistic symposiums, for the simple reason – truth actually being simple – that knowledge today is too massive and appallingly – though necessarily – specialized.

Virtual Symposium

So, not being able to recreate a circle with real intellectuals this virtual Symposium is what is left to us, which suits us well. It involves a certain number of guests.
Guests? Well, virtual guests. Here is a definition:

A virtual guest is a quotation or just a reference to a book passage. This is exactly what we mean by a virtual guest. The ideas of an author, dead or alive, participate in the discussion thanks to the greatest invention of all time: Writing.
Read how this young (and uncouth) Roman helps me explain this whole “Virtual Symposium & Writing” concept. We locked horns a bit, like males sometimes do, but the fight was worthwhile. Yes, I think it was worthwhile.

Quotes and Text Authority

“What are you talking about – says Arthur Schopenhauer, “quoting is copying other people’s ideas”. Well, it can be, but my quoting is entirely different. Take Braudel: “Great civilisation never die”. Or Augias-Zola: “Was Rome ever Christian?”. These are things that were inside of me since a long time, they were lurking a way out, that is trying to be expressed in clear words. I mean, when I quote an author it is mostly because he/she can express in better words things I’ve always felt and are somewhat linked to my inner themes, though not yet verbally formulated, hence not totally clarified yet (logos, again). It is a verbalization of intuitions I ask others to help me bring out. When I read a book and find an idea like that, I’m kind of struck by lightning. Yes, exactly. Is it cannibalism? Is it autism? I do not really know. No kidding.

One thing I though know is I hate exegesis of texts, a plague in Italian (and foreign) universities. I really hate it so much. In here what they call research is nothing but this totally moronic self-referential game of he-said-she-said, research and exams regarding “only what another earlier authority thought” (quote from John Brockman) . I really do hate exegeses, and most of the time I invoke the authority of nobody. I can invoke the big shots of thought like Goethe, and honour them as virtual guests (see definition above) in my living room, as a guarantee of non superficiality at least, not to say more.

But let us face it, my quotations can be derived from Dante, Plutarch, Dan Brown, Bugs Bunny or Homer (Simpson, lol). No matter their origin, quotes are interesting to me mainly to the extent that they clarify lumpy mind stuff still at an intuition stage (= not translated into logos=reason=words). And this lumpy mind stuff keeps on bugging me and keeps on asking to pls be let out of this irrational, agglomeration status. Cannibalism again?

Thus said, it is definitely high time we introduce this great Roman to you. Since from the day of this crucial encounter our life changed entirely, the present blog is dedicated to him. It is dedicated to dear beloved Magister, writer, philosopher and outstanding educator. Well, maybe some readers are expecting him.

So here he comes. Welcome, Magister!

Dialectics 3. Magister.
The Manifold longing for Unity

My ideas started fermenting from the day I encountered Magister 35 years ago exactly. It was a rainy day. Rome is so smelly when it rains. I went to this place where he delivered lectures, close to the Tiber, the sacred river of Rome. He was already very old, with long white hair and beard, eyes penetrating. Italy was all a huge debate in roaring 1968-1970s years (I am listening to Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon album to relive the feel of those days).

Magister talked softly most of the time, and the silence of the audience was absolute, sometimes even embarrassing. When he though at times got angry his voice became like thunder almost, eyes flashing. I will never forget him. I was an ugly duckling when I met him. He didn’t make a swan out of me, lol, but he taught me much, basically by having me understand I had the means to be a free man just by making use of my mind and will. I do not know if I was a good pupil.

I left family to find my fortune. Unfortunate is the young who never finds magistros.

I won’t reveal his identity. Not that he would mind, he being no more, his ashes scattered somewhere in this eternal city he loved so much. I adored him. I was not the only one to cry over his ashes, and I have some reasons for not revealing his identity. What I can say is just repeating this: to him I really owe a lot. Last but not least this love for knowledge, this curiosity or craving, don’t know how to phrase it – this chilly charming language being so difficult for a non native. I mean, this cultural hedonism which tends to auto-organization and which in defiance of age is constantly growing instead of abandoning my soul.

Plus, of course, I owe him this dialectic method.

Spontaneous philosophy

From that day this process of spontaneous philosophy started going through alternate phases though basically it never stopped (well, almost never). Not such a big deal, after all. Magister was a disciplined intellectual, while I was too whimsical, too eclectic. I (re)turned to music, failing in that economically. Hence I turned to high-school teaching and freelance journalism, which proved one of the best things I ever did in my life (teaching), while journalism being too superficial to my taste it basically turned out to be good training for writing (plus it taught me that success, even a tiny bit, can be a powerful drug).

Ok, journalism, despite this tiny bit of glory, so to say, produced zero money; and teaching, well, teachers in this country are among the worst paid, Italian ruling class caring about keeping power only and not being very interested in instructing the common people (who might understand how mercilessly they are manipulated by all parties, left and right, and by mass-media). This is why I finally turned to computer engineering, which gave me more money but also a bit of a blow to this spontaneous philosophical process. Or maybe not?

“Ok, this story about Magister is moving, your failures a bit less, being pathetic: don’t you finally realise you are a digression maniac not sticking to your point and forgetting about dialectics and its tendency towards unity?”

No, I didn’t forget my point. This encounter with Magister in fact (and the sudden sprouting it created) might hopefully help me fulfil this longing for some unity which after all is the ultimate goal of any dialectics (or dialogue). In other words, dear dear Magister, this unexplained imprinting you produced makes me hope this middle-brow research (and ambition) of mine might somehow be fulfilled.

Dialectics 4.
Life is a comedy, not a tragedy.
Dialogue with readers

We know too well our topics are too heavy for the common reader while too unsophisticated for the happy few. Unfortunately the interests of potential numerous readers are flocking towards futile entertainment, actors, gossip. So how many hits can I hope to have? Only a few. Not that I care so much (well, I do a bit, but not too much). I am basically doing this just for fun, as Linus Torvalds said in his book about Linux. And it’s such great fun, believe me, this philosophical craziness.

Although, do not take me too seriously. Life is a comedy, not a tragedy, it shouldn’t be zu schwer, too grave (well, it is better to see it this way in any case. Watch Benigni’s La vita è bella. Life is beautiful, or at least it could always be such with will and imagination, even if you are in a nazi lager).

Ours (old age starting) is a phase of life in which one should 1) do lots of sports and 2) use brain a lot as well to keep it fit. And here, it is my opinion and personal taste, humanities & holistic thought are better than specialised thought for rewiring one’s synapses. It is my opinion (or my genes), in any case.

Wait, I forgot the completion element of blog dialectics: readers and their comments!! Hits might not be many, but some readers are arriving. First the intriguing Indians, deep and unpredictable (because the Far East is really far). Then one ex student of mine from USA, a great guy, living in Rome, t-o-t-a-l-l-y eccentric, which left one comment on my very first post). Then one Chinese woman. Mighty China! She talked about mysterious things like vowels in Mandarin and Cantonese. Such a sweet person rich in emotions which contradicts what many Romans think of Chinese people, aliens with marble faces. Might she be the pilot fish for a flock of fellow countrymen ready to jump upon my blog lol? We do hope, like we hope that the Indians get more numerous. Finally this first Italian guy (!), Massimo from Viterbo. That area is north of Rome and still in Latium and it is where the Etruscans lived (and met the Romans: seems a lot promising…)

So, finally, this blogging thing mixes up my ideas, authors’ ideas (from books) and readers’ ideas! We are getting into the real thing. Into Plato’s dialectics (revised). And IT IS GETTING SUCH A GREAT GREAT FUN!!

Yes, we are getting to our final point, so please keep being patient and listen to Man of Roma’s conclusion.

Virtual Dinners on a Roman Terrace.
Let us have fun!

Let us have fun, my delectable guests. Life should be fun! Let us imagine we are in early summer when the evening sea breeze, or ponentino, is so delightful. I’m inviting you all from every country, civilization, era, space, location. I am inviting you ALL to this virtual Roman terrace, overlooking the eternal city’s magnificent skyline.

Rome, loose woman and she-wolf, is watching attentive. Is she smiling?

Dinner after dinner, amid flowers perfumed and aromas from dishes exquisite, in front of a breathtaking spectacle of glories and defeats, coming from a civilization of hard & refined conquerors, who always accepted those who were – and are – diverse, and their gods, and their creeds, and philosophies and manners …

… here, sweet guests of mine, let us enjoy our life a bit! Away from all the sorrows, away from all the pains, let us discuss on themes light, silly and severe. Good food will not be missing, together with good music (another virtual guest, of course) and plenty of delicious wine and, naturally, no real objection to a pot of good beer (or cervesia), once in a while.

Playing being simple, playing being easy: all it takes is good food, good music, and good good company, most of all!

Ψ

PS
While I was writing, music and red Montalcino wine were helping me to fly high.

Italian version