Logological development

It is in and through language that man constitutes himself as a subject. Because language alone establishes the concept of ‘ego’ in reality, in its reality which is that of the being. (Emile Benveniste, 1971)

By Ylli Permeti

Whilst the economic crisis is a head in my mind is still the results of the previous analysis: Who gain and who loses, and by which mechanisms of power? As a result of my contemplation (that we are all loser) in the question above, there is certainly space to add a definition: loser is some one who loses some thing (tangible or intangible) that has acquired in his/her life generated by previous generation and by his/her own effort, i.e. economical, spiritual, ethical, traditional even the whole sense of human being. In this sense, ‘we’ are products of a ‘chain’ that it looks to be unbreakable. Out there, is sure, a huge gamma of issues that have to be in the first line of the discursive development that would help us to free our mind and to create a different society. But human being, is still self-chaotic and on this point I would share the Marx’s approach:


[M]en make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living. (in McLellan, ed., 1977:300)


Alas, despite the fact that our brain is rational there is still irrationality. Our families, communities, states or federal states are still competitive, indiscursive, aggressive, warmongers, exploitive, miserable and over all our institutions are based on irrational instruments. These institutions try to establish a conscious unchallengeable, a conscious that derive from the common good instead of accepted by a group of people that play the role of the omnipresent. By nature, omnipresent is the free mind and free mind means free research and by its results changing our conception of our mind. Even today, we can easily understand the ancient tribal who tried to create some thing that Fernand Braudel would call, longue durrée. In his view "Civilization and Capitalism" (1955-79), Braude tried to establish a society that would resist against its enemies i.e. irrationalism. But, how can be changed a society in its institution to become rational? Where we can find the point of departure that would allow us to judge and share equality? Of course, by divine we cannot. The only mean we have is our mind. Then, let’s use it.


Let’s start then from our third question: is this development desirable? We have to think that development is not only economic, i.e. how to make more money but development in all its meaning, and its definition would be like this: Development is that think that gives to our mind making ‘free will’, and free will is the emergence of new qualities based on our mind, weighing our logic in free will. On an Aristotelian axiom this impression would be like this: what is good for my family, society and community etc., and what is bad. Marx would put this free will of ‘mind reproduction’ some think like this:


[T]he act of reproduction itself changes not only the objective conditions - e.g. transforming village into town, the wilderness into agricultural clearings, etc. - but the producers change with it, by the emergence of new qualities, by transforming and developing themselves in production, forming new powers and new conceptions, new modes of intercourse, new needs, new speech. (1964: 93)


How could one then, make free will in a society that is based in suppressed foundations? And what leads this society to be suppressed? Of course its course. Is unavoidable phenomenon being in this society and to be free of will, because this society is inherited by others that were suppressed of will. The past generation created irrational cities -- furthermore unsustainable and the result of this is: maintaining this kind of cities in free will -- is impossible. Cities, are too big to maintain life and keeping the same time the requirement balance between nature and cities. But why cities are so big? Why even today cities are bigger and bigger? There is just one reason: the commercial demand by the power. Imagine for a second a government without a big city or citizens. That government would be just non-existent. Governments need power hence citizens, tax and laws that govern the people. Bigger the city better for them. Is the same thing by driving a motorbike and a lorry. Of course a lorry is easier to drive. But why in the case of a family occurs the opposite? Why the demand for a family is to be smaller and smaller? There is again just one reason: family is governed by natural law whereas society is governed by human law. Imagine, having a big family with forty children and a family with four children. By having forty children, is impossible to show your love to each one in an equal level. But by having four children, you have the possibility to show if not in equal level at least in reasonable level -- your love. This game, goes the same even with your wives. We know that there are religious that foster the idea of having many women. How could one then, support the idea that this religion is based on rational thinking? Of course, she/he cannot. Again, the problem is not the individuals, societies or customs but the constructions of cities. Then, how would be a city for an ideal Aristotelian view? Furthermore, do cities need to be governed?


Aristotle argue that Politics is the characteristic activity of the polis, or City. What then, according to Aristotle, is a City? For Aristotle there is a clear definition:

1) The matter of the City is a particular group of human beings, separate from others, whom we call its citizens.

2) Its form is partnership in a way of life, under the regulation of laws which are directed toward justice.

3) Its power is need, for people first come together in Cities simply to live in mutual security.

4) Its end is the good, or perfection, of its members.


Where Aristotle is wrong and why? Or, why he’s right? Is that definition all we want? Is there anything else that we have to contemplate about? Of course, there is. Imagine, that at the time knowledge was possessed by a few people. Knowledge in the sense of epistemology i.e. how to observe and how to deduce from a study. Methodologies were poor. But there was sure a good eye of observation and a positive competition of mind among prudent people. Aristotle was right and appropriate according the time he lived, but time change and the time change the human being. Then, what is our definition of the city?

1) The family, all ethics that a family create by its nature, is pragmatic knowledge and is variable, context-dependent.

2) Its school, pragmatic knowledge, variable, context-dependent. Oriented toward production.

3) Its society, scientific knowledge. Universal, invariable, context-independent.


What then, cities lack today all around the world? Of course now is simple to see the development of the city: the first foundation is not part of our society. From our families we learn how to feed our selves; how to clean our selves; how to respect the member of the family; how to enjoy our birthdays; our gifts; our love toward our parents and the opposite; how to hear our grandfathers/mothers stories; how to respect the notion of family furthermore how to become this foundation the most Holy creature in the world. The reason is simple: whenever we go we need our family; after work we go there; after a visit to our relatives we go back to our family. Family is the first lesson and the last home we need for our life.


But, how to intertwine this foundation into the last two? Is it possible to create development taking into account our natural laws? Of course, there is. But, how? The way is logologic. Logology appears throughout our inventory of reflection, is that science that we call phronesis. Such a science is reflection of truth, is to show -- how to go from school to society. And the opposite. Today we live in a society that spend more money for the army than for our education (see bellow; worldwide expenditures on education are $741 billion). If the functionality of the polis was based on phronesis there would not be the necessity of creating enemies. Because phronesis is that part of our mind that leads us to weigh the possibilities of what is good and what is bad for our lives. In the next chapter is the most powerful discussion and we will contemplate on the last question of this essay: What, if anything, should we do about it?