Balkan war
It should be possible, after all, to get a clear notion of the main hypothesis provoking the fundamental crashes.
Let us point out two of them:1.) the problem of direct execution of justice through banks2.) the problem of the use of the principle of identity as sole vector of rationality(1992)
The first has nothing to do, directly, with my subjects of study; it could be thus be considered a personal engagement. The second though, is. In 1992 there are three main theories which do occupy people’s minds:- the theory of the “bleu/vert.” Or the thought that it should be possible to consider the change in time of what could be said an adjective. (Which implies that philosophy has already lost the difference between the noun and the adjective, between essence and accident: logically you consider the change of color of a leave, for example, as being part of the characteristics of the noun, as an accident. The question whether an adjective may change in time is as absurd as wanting to consider that a number may change it’s nature in time.)- The theory of knowledge depending on reference: there is no possible link that could be established between the noun (concept) and the object, except by pointing at it with the finger (consequence of radical empiricism).- Rational truth is the result of logical consequence in symbolic logic, which can though not imply universal results (in two), but only general results, and if embedded in one, only formal results.
Complete loss of the rational use of the principle of identity is already observable in 1992.
The principle of identity does need in order to be effective outside of formal sciences (logic, mathematics) of another concept, ‘the faculty of judgment’, which is the subjective ability to order a series of impressions under a concept, which does necessarily need of proper definition in order to obtain a validity. The faculty of judgment, still main concept during the XVII Century and widely developed by Kant, does progressively loose importance in favor of empirical psychological concepts, which do not allow in any case, to substitute this one, thus having as consequence the loss in the effort to promote the ability in question.
The concepts as defined by main streams of the philosophical world, und thus underlying as metaphysics the whole scientific world, do neither allow rational activity nor the development of fundamental theories assembling complex phenomena.
It could be possible to establish a relationship between this problem and the power obtained by banks, which is to say, between a certain number of deviations in thought and a social effect involving finances, commerce, aso. Who could be finally interested in obscurantism? And why?
It is obvious that the strangling of thought, which can only grow inside of the principle of identity, does forbid the possibility of the maintenance of rationality in politics, education, science, finance. The loss of rationality does always work in favor of irrational instinctive logics of prevalence of some on the whole, or on others if foreigners, which is to say, it is a logic of war and of dictatorship.
The very imposition of irrational theory at highest levels of structures of education do implicitly imply the political and social logic governing the whole, and in a certain way also, the very way of functioning of the logic as synthesized in a determined irrational compound and not another. Consequently, the holes allowing counterattack on different basis.
Why does it seem that an attack on banks could be the most fruitful one? Because their logic is ill on a territory which is not there own. It is never easier than to attack a judge on basis of commerce, because it is not his field, and he will certainly make mistakes, while he will not as a judge (he will certainly, too, but he will protect himself through hundreds of mechanisms developed in order to cover mistakes in a determined logic he doesn’t have in other fields). The very attribution of the function of fiscal and judge by being ‘part’, is a mistake that does blind awareness in a certain number of areas, mainly the credit area. (You can make a parallel between the credit given to a person, and a credit of money: the misuse of power does lower the faculty of judgment, and this does destroy the possibility of evaluation whether someone is reliable or not.)
A logic of war and dictatorship can only be destroyed by provoking a financial crash. This can only be obtained by attacking softly, in order not to awake awareness, the obvious error in appreciation deriving from a general logic. You need 10 years in order to provoke a financial break down: exactly the time of your ‘punishment’.
It is an evidence that you should always think twice about saying to philosophical results that they are ‘subjective opinions’.