23rd November 2017


Index

Que é Espanha?
Concept of University
alle wörter sind gleich.
Is the Internet free and open?
Epistula ad Emmanuel Macron
Updates.


Carolingius libellus in-linea compluribus sermonibus editur et libenter accipit litteras et tractationes, praecipue de aesthetica et litteratura. Litteras Latine scriptas praefert, sed eduntur scripta cuiuscumque sermonis.




Que é Espanha?

As paixões se avigoram quando se fala em povos, nações e fronteiras. são noções de que agitadas turbas usam para criar do nada identidades, na falta de causa melhor. digo melhor porque a vida, quando é íntegra e cônscia de sua brevidade, busca sempre o sublime. nada porém é mais sublime que uma causa inabalável, ela cuja bandeira se pode erguer sem medo de engano. mas o que se vê de fronteiras e povos é que em toda parte vão e vêm e que não há constância no seu valor. são grandezas efêmeras. é por isto que a vida nobre põe sua confiança em causas que não passam e sempre elevam. elege o amor à filosofia em busca da verdade, a perfeição da conduta ilibada e desejosa de apreço verdadeiro por outrem. elege a causa da arte na transcendência intocável do que é belo. assim se planta e vai se cultivando o ser na tranquilidade dos anos e dos ânimos. é cultura de vida que não se impressiona com a perturbação de quem vive em função de paixões e frívolas causas.

Contudo me atristo e vou balançando a cabeça ao ver a inquietação que invade Espanha. muitas vezes foi privilégio de quem viu de fora o ver o que ninguém de dentro viu. é trunfo dos observadores externos o olhar desapaixonado. de longe se vê melhor a origem dos conflitos e de suas palavras, visto que a fonte e berço de tudo que se chamou conflito foram palavras. ora, os conflitos carecem de nome e no nome das palavras se fazem o que são. um desses e causa de muitos outros é o nome Espanha e saber a que se refere e cujo nome é. eu, em minha ingenuidade, busco a verdade das palavras em seu conceito original e primeira acepção que lhe deram. assim aprendi, e também aprendi que o nome Espanha quando foi dado por Roma foi dado não a país ou povo em particular que amiúde sai andando pelo mundo e levando sigo seu país e fronteiras e al. foi dado a um território, independente dos homens e suas paixões nacionais. Espanha é o nome da península ibérica, dado não por mim mas por Roma, e dado não a Estado mas a território. Espanha é fato geográfico.

Há problema quando Estados adotam nome dado a território. é como se, no imenso continente asiático, um país se intitulasse Império da Ásia, ou tivéssemos em Europa uma pequena República da Europa. dá a entender que os títulos Ásia e Europa são prerrogativa exclusiva de um Estado, qual se fora do Império da Ásia e da República da Europa não existisse Ásia nem Europa. é o que ocorre com Espanha. embora seja patrimônio de todo um território é usado como título de um Estado ocupando apenas parte do território. deixa de ser termo geográfico para ser termo jurídico. deveria ser um princípio em direito internacional: quando convivem Estados numa unidade geográfica, um Estado em particular não pode se arrogar o nome da unidade inteira. ora, se Espanha é apenas o Estado presidido em Madrid, Portugal é o quê? Portugal é Espanha. é a Espanha cujo território Roma em grande parte intitulou Espanha Lusitana.

Espanha não deveria ser nome de Estado, pois em Espanha há mais de um Estado. a usurpação de nomes geográficos gera desgastes. o Estado que ocupasse todo o território de Espanha, como fez Felipe II, seria sim Estado de Espanha, mas ocupar somente parte não é razão para chamar-se como o todo. mesmo o Estado que ocupe toda Espanha fará melhor em evitar o nome, e digo por quê: a história assiste a sucessão fortuita de separações e fusões de fronteiras. a história confirma: a única Espanha eterna e imutável é Espanha como fato geográfico. Estados são transitórios. ora ganham, ora perdem territórios. daí a fragilidade de um nome que só se aplica a um Estado enquanto mantém a totalidade de um território.



A preposição De: Etimologia de um problema

Nenhum dos pequenos reinos cristãos da Ibéria se houve arrogado o termo Espanha. ora pergunto: quando se uniram por união pessoal Castela e Aragão, invadindo Navarra e expulsando os mouros, chamaram Espanha o novo reino? foi uma precipitação. fundaram sim um novo reino Em Espanha, não De Espanha. a preposição De tem vários usos e amiúde confunde. em nome de país, é preciso saber se é aposto, sinal de proveniência ou caso genitivo. é aposto na expressão A Cidade De Roma, onde De indica A Cidade Chamada Roma: Urbs Roma. é sinal de proveniência quando indica proveniência, como seria em latim um suposto Regnum de Hispania, ou seja, Reino Proveniente De Espanha. contudo, os usos de De como aposto ou sinal de proveniência não ocorrem na tradição da intitulação de Estados românicos. em latim, o nome de Estados contendo a preposição De traduz-se sempre por genitivo (ou adjetivo). o Reino De Espanha não será Regnum Hispania (aposto) nem Regnum De Hispania (proveniência), mas Regnum Hispaniae (genitivo). o aposto é usado em línguas como o alemão, como se infere de Bundesrepublik Deutschland sem preposição, ou seja, República Federativa Chamada Alemenha. traduz-se porém com genitivo: Respublica Foederata Germaniae. é portanto o sentido genitivo que se aplica à preposição De nas traduções românicas.

Logo, De em nome de país tem função de genitivo. é o sentido que se vê em Reino de Espanha. mas o genitivo indica posse e propriedade. evoca um reino que pertence a toda a Espanha, ou, implicitamente, reino que ocupa ou reclama para si todo o território de Espanha. a preposição aqui confere um caráter impreciso, se não ilegítimo, ao título do Estado. a mera união pessoal de dois reinos em Espanha não confere ao novo reino o direito de se reclamar para si o nome do território inteiro, nem o direito de reclamar a totalidade do território.

Também é impreciso o uso do adjetivo em nomes de país, como em Regnum Hispanicum. o adjetivo indica uma qualidade universal. o atributo Verde não é exclusivo a um elemento. vários outros podem ser verdes. seria vago o título Reino Verde ou Reino dos Verdes em um mundo em que a cor verde ocorre em qualquer parte. ora, a definição de um elemento deve expressar o que o distingue dos outros. o que se espera de um nome de país é algo semelhante. mas um Reino Espanhol na península ibérica expressaria algo obscuro. na península ibérica qualquer reino será reino espanhol. pode haver cinquenta Estados e serão todos Espanha. Portugal é um Estado espanhol. é uma Espanha Atlântica ou Espanha Ocidental, ou Espanha Lusitana. talvez objetem que a República Portuguesa em Espanha não reclama o nome Espanha. mas o que cabe saber não é se uma entidade jurídica faz uso de um direito. cabe saber se o direito existe independente de seu uso. e o direito existe, já que não se pode impedir um Estado situado em Espanha de ser espanhol.


Metamorfose centralizadora

Faz-se mister um título mais cuidadoso que Império da Ásia, o qual descreva com justeza o Estado de Madrid. não é erro incluir no título o nome Espanha, visto que o território desse Estado engloba a maior parte da Espanha. mas o nome precisa de deixar claro que o Estado de Madrid como entidade jurídica e Espanha como grandeza geográfica, apesar de sua interseção, são duas coisas diferentes. para entender, perguntemos: que é o Estado de Madrid? em primeiro lugar, é Estado cuja autoridade se origina atualmente em Madrid. o De em Estado de Madrid indica proveniência, não do Estado mas da autoridade que o governa. em segundo lugar, é Estado proveniente de Espanha e existente tanto em Espanha quanto fora. as ilhas Baleares por exemplo não fazem parte de Espanha. em terceiro lugar, o Estado de Madrid se formou por união de Estados independentes. desses três fatos se infere informação suficiente para uma intitulação mais precisa. em princípio, o nome correto desse Estado é Reinos Unidos de Leão e Castela, Aragão e Navarra [etc.] em Espanha.

Ocorre que os reinos constituintes perderam sua legítima autonomia e sua identidade jurídica. houve uma centralização que não reflete o espírito confederativo que deu origem ao Estado de Madrid. a união das coroas de Castela e Aragão não resultou de uma anexação e aniquilição jurídica de uma coroa por outra. resultou de iniciativa entre iguais, forjada sob a condição de que a identidade jurídica dessas coroas fosse conservada em perpetuidade, sem o que o Estado perderia legitimidade. nem por isto foi poupada a Coroa de Aragão: em dado momento a coroa de Castela se anulou dentro do Estado de Madrid e anexou-lhe a coroa de Aragão. não houve consentimento. nesse e noutros atos revela-se uma certa falta de tato no Estado de Madrid. paira uma sombra de ilegitimidade sobre suas instituições.

Mas irregularidades podem ser corrigidas. a coroa de Aragão deve ser reestabelecida em sua plena identidade jurídica. num momento em que regiões do Estado de Madrid contemplam a independência, caberia a Aragão coordenar o destino de suas províncias. dirão talvez que as instituições do Estado evoluíram e se modernizaram. mas evoluíram na opinião de quem? um anseio independentista não vem do nada. decorre de uma insatisfação, cuja causa neste caso é patente e de mui longa data. o anseio centralizador de Madrid é um elemento que, desde a fundação, tem traído o verdadeiro espírito em que o Estado se constituiu: o espírito de união entre iguais, sem o qual a fusão original das coroas teria sido impensável, e sem o qual jamais haverá tranquilidade no Estado de Madrid.


Não há mais lugar para fatos consumados

A legitimidade das instituições não se baseia em fatos consumados. fato consumado (fait accompli) é uma que ação que se completa sem que as partes afetadas possam reagir ou revertê-la. é geralmente fruto da violência onde se impõe a lei do mais forte. o primeiro a daí sofrer com gravidade foram os Estados Papais no século XIX. o reino de Piemonte-Sardenha de repente invadiu todo o Estado Pontifício, ferindo acordos internacionais e sem que houvesse agressão prévia da parte do Estado Pontifício. apesar de protestos do Papa, não houve nenhuma defesa na comunidade internacional, nem mesmo da parte de Madrid e seus "Reis Católicos", título oficial do monarca. a Europa aplaudiu, num momento de entusiasmo anti-clerical, um gesto em nome da modernidade, do progresso e da liberdade. mas isto abriu um precedente. aos poucos se impôs o entendimento de que fatos consumados têm força de lei e dão legitimidade às situações que deles decorrem, ou seja: se invadiu pode anexar mesmo, política é assim que se faz. deste modo foi alimentada toda a geração de políticos que protagonizou, a seu tempo, as práticas do imperialismo e do fascismo. dentro e fora do Estado, o mais forte se apodera do fraco. é uma visão de mundo e de direito que ocasionou genocídios, guerras civis e duas guerras mundiais. foi desses traumas que nasceu o intuito de unir as nações numa organização mundial, para impedir que a cada vinte anos um novo Hitler tentasse impor ao mundo a impostura de seus fatos consumados.

As instutuições do Estado de Madrid se baseiam numa sequência de fatos consumados, perpetrados após uma guerra civil por um regime totalitário. a monarquia desgastara-se com a ditadura de Primo de Rivera sancionada pelo rei. a república foi proclamada sem derramamento de sangue e o rei deixou o país. seguia o novo regime quando uma insurreição militar provocou uma guerra civil da qual Francisco Franco saiu vitorioso. agrediu uma instituição legítima e venceu pela força das armas. instituiu um regime que alienou de seu Estado a aceitação da comunidade internacional. morreu enfim, mas legou ao Estado seu próprio sucessor e fê-lo rei.

Quando a legitimidade das instituições é questionável, o Estado se fragiliza. pior porém é quando a legitimidade do chefe de Estado é questionável. ora, que é um chefe de Estado legítimo? é legítimo o chefe que deve seu cargo à vontade do povo expressa de maneira clara em procedimento adequado. gera-se assim não um mero fato consumado, mas fato consagradado pelo diálogo e aclamação popular, corroborada por reconhecimento internacional. daí se infere, na ordem internacional, o Princípio da Legitimidade dos chefes de Estado e dos próprios Estados. O chefe é legítimo quando seu cargo se origina de quatro condições na seguinte ordem:

1) o povo dialoga em busca de seu chefe. é nesse momento que os cidadãos e suas visões políticas, por exemplo pelo intermédio de partidos, se encontram para debater a quem, de que modo e por quanto tempo confiar o futuro do Estado. o debate dar-se-á sem coerção, com tempo e espaço suficiente para a voz de todos. é aqui que se pode decidir que o chefe de Estado será um monarca com cargo hereditário, enquanto um outro será chefe de governo, ou que o chefe será presidente eleito por voto direto.

2) o diálogo respeita o princípio da dignidade humana. o fato de que o ser humano tem dignidade inata e direitos inalienáveis não está aberto a debate. o debate em que prevaleça a negação desses direitos não será reconhecido como fonte de um chefe de Estado legítimo. não se assentirá, sob o pretexto de refletir a vontade do povo, um desejo de agressão a direitos humanos (notadamente aos anotados na Declaração de 1948) nem se reconhecerá uma tal vontade do povo como legítima. aqueles que incitarem o povo a tal vontade responderão por abuso do diálogo político.

3) o povo aclama seu novo chefe de Estado. esta aclamação dar-se-á por instrumento da voz da maioria ao fim do período de debate, expressa idealmente em eleições diretas. é neste momento que se confirma, dentro do Estado, a legitimidade do processo.

4) a comunidade internacional reconhece a aclamação popular. tem o dever de observar o procedimento. se as três primeiras condições se cumprem de forma correta, terá o dever de reconhecê-lo como legítimo, inclusive, se preciso for, por votação na assembleia geral das Nações Unidas. mas não se deve reconhecer a aclamação popular: se esta não for o fruto de suficiente debate; se o debate desrespeitar o princípio da dignidade humana; se houver debate e respeito mas nenhuma aclamação. tampouco será legítimo o chefe reconhecido pela comunidade internacional sem o cumprimento das outras condições, ou antes de tal cumprimento. o reconhecimento internacional será o último passo, sem o que não será legítimo. se não prevalecer o reconhecimento internacional, as Nações Unidas devem contestar a eleição e exigir que o novo chefe de Estado deixe seu cargo, sem o que poderão aplicar sanções.


Os reis são mesmo católicos?

No Estado de Madrid, a única condição cumprida foi a quarta. Franco morreu, impôs seu rei sucessor, o rei prometeu um novo regime, os Estados Unidos o reconheceram e o resto da comunidade internacional seguiu em coro. mas não houve aclamação popular e não houve diálogo nem suficiente nem que provasse respeito à dignidade humana. logo, não se satisfez o princípio da legitimidade, pelo qual um rei não pode ser rei por graça de Franco e por sanção dos Estados Unidos. a constituição que se seguiu em 1978 instituiu o novo chefe (apontado por Franco) sem aclamação popular. mas fora proclamada a república em consequência de voto popular em 1931. logo, apenas o voto popular, desta vez oficial, poderá sancionar a reinstituição da monarquia de forma legítima, seguindo as quatro condições acima. a inscrição constitucional não basta para conferir legitimidade ao cargo, antes acaba por fragilizar a própria constituição.

O caso do rei tem um agravante no título de "rei católico". ora, a máxima instância capaz de reconhecer o que é ou não católico é o papa. o título foi concedido por uma bula papal do século XVI. mas foi concedido a reis legítimos, ou legítimos em seu contexto histórico. foi transferido a uma sucessão linear ou quase linear de reis. mas houve um hiato durante a república, a guerra civil e o Estado de Franco. a continuidade quebrou-se e a legitimidade dos novos reis é questionável, tanto que em termos políticos foi necessária uma nova constituição para tentar justificar uma instituição decorrente, a princípio, de meros fatos consumados. da mesma maneira, pela proporcionalidade de procedimentos, a conduta mais legítima seria recorrer oficialmente à Santa Sé e requerer, por instrumento de uma nova bula condizente às novas circunstâncias, o privilégio do antigo título. é a deferência que se espera de um rei veramente católico para com o líder de todos os católicos, segundo a lógica do catolicismo. em meu entendimento esta consulta ao papa não ocorreu, e em momento algum nenhum papa desde Paulo VI deu oficial aval ao novo uso do título. é certo que o Vaticano, ao reconhecer o novo Estado de Madrid, não apontará a este detalhe, por espírito de cortesia. mas daí se não pode inferir que o uso do título seja pertinente. cabe ao rei deferente consultar o papa. doutro modo, coloca-se o papa frente a um fato consumado, e fatos consumados certamente não evocam boa memória no Vaticano.

O rei do Estado de Madrid requer o reconhecimento do papa, do povo e dos povos. conseguiu reconhecimento dos povos, mas ainda lhe falta o reconhecimento do papa e do próprio povo. a crise atual estava programada pela fragilidade da constituição e pela falta de aclamação popular ao rei. cedo ou tarde, será necessário um plebiscito para confirmar, além de toda dúvida, a legitimidade da monarquia. solucionado este primeiro problema, é preciso reformar a constituição levando em conta o verdadeiro espírito em que o Estado de Madrid foi fundado e que ora repito: o espírito de união entre iguais, chave da antiga monarquia hispânica. não, nenhuma união entre iguais é indissolúvel, e a constituição do Estado de Madrid deve ter a maturidade de reconhecê-lo, por exemplo em reinstituindo a Coroa de Aragão apagada pela Nova Planta. talvez não seja coincidencia o fato de que, desde a Guerra da Sucessão e o centralismo que a sucedeu, o Estado de Madrid perdeu sua projeção internacional e passou os séculos seguintes em decadência. o anseio independentista de Catalunha remonta à Nova Planta. é sinal de que a constituição atual não é a mais adequada. não está à altura de uma união entre iguais.


É preciso um mecanismo formal de secessão

A comunidade internacional precisa de um Princípio Universal da Fusão e Secessão de Estados, reconhecido por todos os países. é dever das nações debater como este princípio deve funcionar, pois apenas o consenso e convênio geral entre nações, decorrente do debate, é fonte de legitimidade. deste modo era legítima, por exemplo, a ordem advinda do Congresso de Viena. decorreu de debate e consenso entre os membros do congresso, reventendo a força de passados fatos consumados e buscando evitar futuros. é verdade que os chefes ali representados não foram aclamados pelo povo, mas o seu anseio por diálogo e consenso revela a busca pela paz e pela tranquilidade das instituições. ora, a tranquilidade das instituições pressupõe que sejam justas. a paz que decorre da opressão não é tranquilidade, é medo. mas foi a paz que o Congresso de Viena trouxe que proporcionou um maior debate dentro das sociedades e a busca por maior participação política, o que resultaria em regimes menos autoritários.

Durante a paz que seguiu ao Congresso de Viena forjou-se o Princípio das Nacionalidades: cada nação tem direito a tornar-se Estado. os povos têm o direito de seguir seu próprio destino. em princípio, é verdade. mas no debate apaixonado que se deu, grande parte de agitadores entendeu que as nações têm o direito de usar sua auto-determinação a qualquer custo, inclusive pela força de fatos consumados. foi o apogeu do nacionalismo, que destruiria a ordem estabelecida em Viena. a partir de então, bastava uma província dar-se ares de nação e já se via no direito de tomar armas contra o poder central. o amor à pátria justifica qualquer ato e qualquer crime. foi assim que Piemonte-Sardenha invadiu, do nada, os Estados Papais em nome do amor a uma suposta nação italiana que pretendia unificar. a Prússia destruiu a Confederação Germânica pela força das armas para unificar uma nação alemã que, ironicamente, excluía os nove milhões de alemães habitantes da Áustria. anos depois, um estudante sérvio assassinou o príncipe herdeiro da Áustria sob pretexto de amor à pátria. nenhum desses atos foi nem é legítimo em qualquer mundo possível, e no entanto o princípio das nacionalidades originou, além desses traumas, duas guerras mundiais. foi aí que se teve saudade do Congresso de Viena e duma ordem internacional advinda do consenso entre as nações e não da vontade da nação mais forte e seus fatos consumados. surgiu enfim a Organização das Nações Unidas.

É pois por intermédio das Nações Unidas que se pode convir a um Princípio Universal da Fusão e Secessão de Estados, para que não ocorram a torto e a direito. sob quais circunstâncias a secessão é legítima? direi que a comunidade internacional deve se orientar por três condições básicas:

a) pertinência histórica: a região em questão já existiu como Estado independente por um longo período do qual evolveram uma língua, cultura e instituições próprias.

b) viabilidade econômica: a região se sustenta economicamente sem nenhuma assistência internacional. sua economia é sólida e capaz de nutrir toda a sociedade.

c) compromisso com a paz: a região dá suficientes provas de que contribuirá ativamente para a paz e solução de conflitos na comunidade internacional.



Quando a secessão é legítima?

Por estes três princípios a comunidade julgará se deve ou não reconhecer a região como Estado. mas este é o último passo. o primeiro é semelhante ao Princípio da Legitimidade exposto anteriormente, o qual se altera em poucos detalhes:

1) a região debate a possibilidade de secessão. os cidadãos se encontram para discutir se é pertinente o anseio independentista e se estão cumpridas as três condições básicas. o debate dar-se-á sem coerção, com tempo e espaço suficiente para a voz de todos. o poder central do Estado não tem autoridade para impedir o debate.

2) o diálogo respeita o princípio da dignidade humana. o debate não pode dar vazão a discursos de ódio contra o Estado, visto que isto fere, entre outros princípios, a condição do compromisso com a paz. não se assentirá, sob o pretexto de refletir a vontade do povo, um desejo de se perpetrar fatos consumados nem se reconhecerá tais atos do povo como legítimos.

3) a região informa ao Estado seu desejo de independência. isto se dará por exemplo após um plebiscito consultativo. a região não precisa do aval do Estado para organizar um plebiscito consultativo. uma vez notificado, o Estado consulturá o restante de suas regiões em plebiscito. a região seperatista terá amplo espaço para expor suas razões no debate subsequente. se o plebiscito geral não assentir a independência, a região separatista não poderá repetir a consulta por dez anos. se o plebiscito geral assentir a independência, o Estado refere a questão às Nações Unidas. se o plebiscito geral não assentir a independência por três vezes ou mais, também a região poderá apelar diretamente às Nações Unidas.

4) as Nações Unidas debatem a pertinência de secessão. a análise estudará se se cumprem as condições de pertinência histórica, viabilidade econômica e compromisso com a paz. haverá então votação na assembleia geral. se a independência for rejeitada, as Nações Unidas não poderão ser reconsultadas por vinte anos. se for acatada, passa-se ao Período Probatório.

5) a região torna-se semi-independente num Período Probatório de vinte anos. terá chefe de governo mas não de Estado. manterá suas próprias relações diplomáticas, mas não terá forças armadas. não terá nenhuma assistência do Estado original. deverá provar sua viabilidade econômica e compromisso com a paz. ao final desse período, as Nações Unidas avaliam o progresso econômico e compromisso com a paz na região, procedendo enfim à votação em plenário. se a avaliação for negativa, a região volta a fazer parte do Estado orginal, conservando sua autonomia exceto nas relações diplomáticas. as Nações Unidas não poderão ser reconsultadas por sessenta anos. se a avaliação for positiva, a região torna-se independente após indenização.

6) a região aprovada para independência paga indenização ao Estado original. O Estado original e as Nações Unidas calcularão uma quantia que cubra o prejuízo econômico advindo da perda da região, mas levando em consideração o que a região pode pagar. efetuada a indenização, a região torna-se Estado independente.


Nada é legítimo sem diálogo internacional

O papel das Nações Unidas deve ser ativo. devem ter o poder de mediar e impor a paz a todos por seus próprios meios. precisam de forças armadas próprias. deve ser a ONU a instituição de maior poder militar no mundo. nenhum país pode ter mais de dois terços dos homens e das armas da ONU. todo país deve dispor um quinto de seus homens armados como reserva para as Nações Unidas, passíveis de ser convocados a todo instante. de tal modo, as Nações Unidas podem intervir em qualquer país que ponha risco à paz internacional e ninguém desafiará sua autoridade. doutro modo, os países só seguem o que lhes agrada. quando o desastre de fatos consumados causa traumas incalculáveis, vêm então como crianças chorando cheios de emoção, buscando a saia da mamãe, prometendo que doravante o mundo será melhor. foi o que fizeram depois da Segunda Guerra. mas esses homens e países raro mudam, pois apenas o poderio militar, capaz de pôr cada qual em seu lugar, apenas isto lhes impõe respeito ao consenso internacional.

A secessão de Estados não deve ser um processo fácil para não encorajar iniciativas frívolas. nenhuma secessão que não obedeça o princípio de legitimidade acima deve ser reconhecida pela comunidade internacional. mas é preciso que todo Estado engrave em sua constituição a possibilidade de dissolução de uniões e secessão de regiões. as fronteiras e mesmo os Estados passam, e por isto é importante criar mecanismos que possibilitem secessões ordenadas e sem traumas.

A fusão de Estados dar-se-á por sequência mais simples. povos de dois ou mais Estados debatem a possibilidade de fusão e o diálogo respeita o princípio da dignidade humana. os povos envolvidos aclamam a fusão após plebiscitos regionais e gerais. a comunidade internacional reconhece a fusão sob a condição de que cada Estado possa reganhar sua independência após notificação e dois anos de período de transição. Estados que deixem a fusão deverão arcar com compromissos financeiros anteriormente assumidos. os Estados originais da fusão manterão ampla autonomia e não poderão ser dissolvidos num governo central. as capitais poderão ser rotativas. nenhuma fusão por anexação ou por qualquer forma de coerção será reconhecida.


A constituição é frágil

Sob todas estas premissas, concluo que o Estado de Madrid, entre muitos outros mas mais urgentemente, precisa de alterar sua constituição para acomodar melhor o princípio universal da fusão e secessão de Estados. é preciso reestabelecer a legitimidade do Estado, processo ainda não terminado. as consequências de muitos fatos consumados ainda perduram. é verdade que o fim dos Estados Papais e a existência de Estados como o italiano e o alemão baseiam-se em fatos e procedimentos profundamente ilegítimos. mas os traumas causados por tais fatos foram já superados, e fica difícil, em 2017, contestar fatos de 1859, 1860, 1866 e 1870. parto do princípio de que fatos consumados antes de 1945 já não podem ser impugnados com grande eficácia. impugnamos fatos consumados depois de 1945 e da criação da ONU como congresso permanente de convergência da comunidade internacional. os problemas de legitimidade que o Estado de Madrid enfrenta remontam a fatos consumados não em 1860 mas em 1975 e cujo trauma não foi superado. a transição de regimes entre 1975 e 1978 não se deu de forma legítima.

Enquanto não for reestabelecida ao todo a legitimidade do Estado, sua intitulação continuará problemática. Sugeri o título Reinos Unidos de Leão e Castela, Navarra e Aragão em Espanha, condizente à monarquia hispânica, mas com a Nova Planta esses reinos foram dissolvidos, e depois do Estado de Franco a nova constituição perdeu a oportunidade de restitui-los. sim, a Nova Planta ocorreu em 1716, mas o seu trauma ainda não foi superado, e a quem duvida rogo observar a realidade em Catalunha. em sua versão atual, o Estado de Madrid pode ao menos usar, fazendo jus à sua origem jurídica, o título Reinos Unidos em Espanha, sem enumerar os antigos reinos que ora existem num estado de limbo, indicando porém que os reinos se uniram não apenas em um Estado central, mas também em um ideal simbolizado pelo conceito de Espanha que abraçam. são portanto antigos Reinos ora ausentes mas Unidos em um ideal de Espanha. se acaso o Estado tornar-se república, o Estado e suas regiões autônomas serão Estados Unidos em Espanha. mas não se diga Reino de Espanha nem Reino em Espanha, nem Reino Unido em Espanha. são intulações imprecisas. a preposição Em, a propósito, não é inédita em tal contexto. o rei da Prússia, por exemplo, para evitar conflito com a coroa da Áustria e do Sacro Império, adotou a princípio o título Rei em Prússia e não Rei de Prússia. em Estados Unidos da América também é mais pertinente o uso Estados Unidos na América, visto que a preposição De, como genitivo, pressupõe posse total do continente americano.

O chefe de Estado dos Reinos Unidos em Espanha não pode ser Rei de Espanha, visto que Portugal é parte de Espanha mas não do Estado de Madrid, e que o Estado de Madrid possui territórios fora de Espanha. conquanto seja rei e rei de reinos que estão fundidos num só reino que nem por isto é Reino de Espanha, a prática mais precisa e perfeita seria usar apenas o título geral e genérico do Estado ou apenas o título de seu reino original. seja portanto Rei dos Reinos Unidos, ou simplesmente Rei de Castela.


Concept of University
---------------------------------------

Recipients in alphabetical order:

University of Cambridge
Harvard University
Universität Heidelberg
University of Oxford
Université de Paris Sorbonne
Stanford University
Yale University

[ http://greg-ory.org/letter12.html ]


Gregorius rectores salutat.

For a long time, it went without saying that the purpose of universities was to serve the cause of knowledge by means of uncompromising research and free debate. As you probably know, the first universities were founded by the Church in the Middle Ages, at a time that predates the economy of free market and capitalism as we know it. Those universities were not free to challenge church teachings, but they were free to operate with no regard to business interests. After the Reformation and the Enlightenment, research and debate became more and more emancipated.

In the 19th century, uncompromising research achieved a zenith of unparalleled excellence in Europe. Yet in more recent decades there has been a decline in the quality of research and academic standards. One of its symptoms is the understanding that universities must serve the interests of technology and business. Knowledge that is not perceived as a benefit to these interests is neglected.

Yet I want to assume that true universities want to remain independent from commercial, religious and political constraints, creating a place where love of knowledge and freedom of research take precedence over everything else. If it not be so, knowledge no longer expresses self-cultivation, but rather alienation. Only through self-cultivation, however, can we make the best contribution to a world where democracy, the rule of law and human rights are under threat.

My criticism is probably known, and I gladly join the voices that have uttered it before me. Yet perhaps I may offer a way out of this scenario. While it is acceptable that many go to university with a view to entering the job market afterwards, universities should put more effort into supporting those who seek knowledge for the sake of knowledge. I mean people whose motivation is greater than just embellishing a curriculum vitae.

Sadly, those who are most committed to knowledge are the most fragile in the job market. What is reasonable to expect from a university worth its name is this: a setting where alumni may live, work and study together in a self-sufficient livelihood and in life-long commitment to research.

This would be a permanent cell of research set up by universities and providing the most committed alumni with enough resources for independent research, maintained by a sustainable and self-sufficient way of living. This is in fact a very old approach. It is not too different from the economy of a monastery, a religious cell where activities of work and study are alternated. This provides all members with an opportunity to exert both their bodies and their minds in a healthy and constructive way.

The main difference that such a cell can make is the ability of maintaining itself independently through the work of its members. I am suggesting a different economic model for these cells, devised in a bespoke way to assist commitment for knowledge and talent that cannot be wasted in a technocratic job market.

Whether we like it or not, the concept of universities is a medieval concept of education and cultivation of the mind, and we need a medieval concept of economy and livelihood to assist those who approach a University in a spirit of sacrifice and commitment for knowledge. It is irresponsible to provide students with education and erudition just to leave them at the mercy of free-market and profit-led interests eventually. I affirm that it is the duty of a true university to provide not only the best possible knowledge, but also the livelihood that is most appropriate for those who chose to sacrifice their lives for such knowledge.

It is true that many have the opportunity to pursue a career at the university from which they graduate. But this is not enough to accommodate commitment for knowledge in its full expression. It would be unreasonable to assume that the only way of pursuing meaningful or legitimate research is by joining the paid staff of an university. Besides the formal academic world, there has to be an opportunity for those who wish to research in a more independent setting, maybe associated to an university as life-long members of an autonomous and self-sufficient research cell, yet not in the capacity of paid academic staff.

The role of the mother university of such academic cells of alumni would not be to finance it in the long term, but to lay the foundations and finance the setting-up of the cells. Its members would be responsible, then, for earning their livelihood out of the given resources. The mother university will provide, for instance, the land and the buildings. The members of the cell, in their turn, will grow their own food and perhaps produce their own clothes. They will build an independent supply of water, electricity and other forms of energy so as not to incur in any fixed costs. The mother university, in its turn, will provide technical advice to enable, among other things, the development of such independent forms of supply. It will also provide regular, or at least occasional, contact with academic staff to enrich research on both sides.

This first outline of an academic monastery, if you will, is the outline of a third way. It is a way out of the dichotomy between the constraints of a technocratic free market and the doubtful limitations of an academic career. In the 1990s, the world had more understanding for the concept of a third way, which now appears lost in intellectual resignation and cynicism. Yet you do not approach a true university and the cause of knowledge in order just to surrender to intellectual resignation and cynicism after many years of study and critical education. This is why I hope the suggestions I am outlining will be taken seriously.

Taking others seriously is not always the forte of the academic world. What concerns me most is a degree of indifference towards society, endemic among professors. This is the result of an academic life where the main focus is to embellish one's curriculum and climb on narrow career ladders that only lead to accumulation of titles and social alienation. We see this in many so-called elite universities where formalities count more than knowledge, and where everything is about manners. And money. Yet behind the manners there is always an environment of destructive competition. Any true erudite can easily see through it. This careerism cannot lead to anything good, and the last thing it will serve is the cause of knowledge.

This is an alarming reality in the world in which we live, where freedoms are threatened and where professors should be engaging in a broad and critical debate with society. To close your eyes, to think only of your career, to listen only to those who make a cult of your personality is not the way forward. Byzantinism is not the answer. If I may paraphrase Sartre, an academic who only goes quietly about his business may be an expert, a technical authority in his area. But it takes more to be an intellectual. You become an intellectual when you meddle with things people tell you not to meddle with. It is only when you leave your comfort zone that you become a true erudite and prove the depth of your commitment. For knowledge is not only knowledge that profits yourself, but also knowledge about others.

The careerism, the professional cynicism, the byzantinism of social lethargy, all this has to stop if universities want to continue to be worthy of credibility. It is time to think beyond titles, formalities, appearances. It is time to care about what people really have to say, and what I have to say is this: Clinging to narrow ladders only leads to disaster. This is why I am outlining a third way, a concept you are most welcome to work on, for the benefit of academics and societies alike. This initiative has to come from universities if it is to come from anywhere. Technocracy and business interests will never care, for not theirs is the cause of knowledge. It is now up to the strength of your character and the depth of your commitment to show that universities are more than money-making machines. It is time to prove that your institutions truly deserve a name that predates the rise of mercantilism and capitalism. It is the duty of the University, as a principle of education and livelihood, to raise itself not against capitalism, but above capitalism. There are grave doubts as to whether universities are still able to do so. Yet there is no way around it, you will have to make it work. For the sake of knowledge.


Random Extracts
------------------------------

I.

Ô Poeta, vem cá, chega aí! Me diz uma coisa:
Cê escreve pra quê, pra quê que cê escreve?
"Pra ficar rico!" Então cê é empresário?
"Eu hem? Escrevo só pra ficar famoso!"
Então tu paga pau? "Que pau? Escrevo
O que vem do fundo do coração, entende?
Escrevo só pra mim, só pra mim mesmo!"
Mas então pra quê escrever? Basta pensar!

"Peraí que cê não entendeu, é pros-ôto
Também!" E é pra agradar ou desagradar?
"É pra agradar!" Então tá pagando pau!
"Eu não! Se não agradar, tô nem aí."
Querido, pra que escrever então?
Cê não tá nem aí pa opinião dos-ôto!

"Mas pode ser que alguém goste, caralho!"
Ah, paga pau mesmo! "Porra de pau! Escrevo
Pra dizer quem eu sou, e vem do fundo!"
É só você que tem fundo? "Todo mundo tem!"
Então todo mundo é poeta! "Não é, rapaz,
Nem todo mundo sabe escrever que nem eu!"

Tá, mas cê quer o quê? Mostrar quem tu é
Ou como você escreve? "Como eu escrevo!"
Então bajula! "Só pra mostrar quem eu sou!"
Querido, quem precisa saber quem você é?
E pra quê? "Ninguém precisa saber nada,
Mas talvez alguém aprenda algo pra vida."

Cê é filósofo, é isso? "Tipo assim!" Então
Pra quê metáfora? Escreve um tratado!
"Eu sei, mas o bonito é poema!" E é verdade
Ou mentira o que tu quer escrever? "Verdade!"
Poeta mesmo é quem diz a verdade? "É!"

Então, mané, cê pode escrever de qualquer jeito!
Quer dizer, quem escreve feio mas diz a verdade
É poeta, não é? "É poeta!" E quem escreve pra
Ser bonito, é o quê? "Ah, isso aí te digo depois."

extraído de
© Lira menor: [ http://greg-ory.org/liramenor.html ]


II.

– Jahre, bevor Kain seinen Bruder zum Spaziergang einlud, um ihn mit der Schaufel zu töten, noch als Kind war seine erste materielle Erfahrung die Erfahrung seines Leibes, der ihm ständig Durst und Hunger meldete. Der kluge Adamssohn begriff schnell, dass der Bedarf seines körperlichen Elements zu stillen war, wenn er überleben wollte. Diese unausweichliche Tatsache, die Kain so unpoetisch von der biologischen Selbstständigkeit der Bäume trennte, zwang ein noch zartes Gemüt zur Berührung mit seiner Umwelt, und Kains Umwelt war natürlich die Gesamtheit dessen, was er sinnlich erfahren konnte.

Aber nachdem Kain mehr oder weniger seines Leibes Herr geworden war, dämmerte ihm sozusagen eine andere Erfahrung, eine ästhetische, eine Wahrnehmung der ἐσθής, der Kleidung seiner Umwelt. Sie war im engeren Sinne die Empfindung, die aus der Wahrnehmung entstand und sein Gemüt berührte, wie wenn er zwei Schafe seines Bruders am Schatten ruhen sah und dabei Gefallen fand. Im Rausche dieser Erfahrung empfand Kain das Bedürfnis, diese Umwelt zu besitzen, weil sie schön war. Seine Bedürfnisse, wie wir sehen, werden anspruchsvoller. Nur mit Durst-und-Hunger-Stillen ist ihm schlecht gedient. Ein geistiges Sehnen wird jetzt (man verzeihe mir den Tempuswechsel) an den Tag gelegt, gleich ein schönes und eben unmögliches, denn die ganze Umwelt kann er nicht besitzen und dies beunruhigt ihn. Kain begann also allmählich, Teile der Umwelt zu verarbeiten, etwa in seiner Farm, und eigen zu nennen. Der Adamssohn wurde damit zum Vater einer besonderen Art des Eigentums, einer Art, die rein geistige Bedürfnisse erfüllen sollte. Die Viecher, die er bis dahin gejagt hatte, und das Gemüse, das er fand, waren ein vorübergehendes Eigentum für den Leib. Kain erschuf etwas Eleganteres, und von dieser ersten Offenbarung der Eleganz bis zur ungeheuren Anhäufung von Ware und Kapital unserer Zeit gibt es im Grunde keinen großen Schritt. Es wäre nicht dazu gekommen, wenn Kain sich auf die Rinderjagd beschränkt hätte. Die Bedürfnisse seines Geistes, das Vermögen zur Empfindung des Schönen, ästhetische Erfahrung machte aus ihm den Begründer des Eigentums.

Wer kann es Kain verdenken, dass er alle schönen Empfindungen genießen wollte, dass der Ackermann auf seinen Willen zu genießen nicht verzichten mochte? Natürlich erwuchs in seinem Fall aus dem Drang zu genießen der Drang zu besitzen. Es ist zwar bitte schön nicht so, dass man nur genießen kann, was man besitzt. Kain aber sah es anders und hatte dies mit den meisten seiner Kinder gemeinsam, dass ihm am meisten das Unerreichbare gefiel, am allerersten seine gesamte Umwelt. Von jeher beanspruchen die Kinder dieses Adamssohnes so viel wie möglich für sich. Kain wurde also früh dazu gezwungen, mit der Unerfüllbarkeit seiner Bedürfnisse umzugehen, genauer gesagt, der arme Mann musste ja Bedürfnisse aufgeben, was ihm nicht immer leicht fiel. So erreichte er das erwachsene Alter in dem Zustand einer ungeheuren inneren Spannung, wie ein frustrierter Ackermann, denn dieses war das Höchste, was er sich leisten konnte. Die Steuerung seiner eigenen Bedürfnisse angesichts der Unmöglichkeit, alles zu besitzen, verkörperte in Kain die Geburt der Wirtschaft. Die Geschichte dieses Menschen ist ein Sündenfall von einem Zustand ästhetischer Naivität in die wirtschaftliche Bewusstwerdung der eigenen Existenz. Das unruhige Bewusstsein, dass ein Mensch in sich selbst nicht passt, ist die Wirtschaft, wie Kain sie entdeckte.

Indem der Ackermann die Wirtschaft entdeckte, erkannte er in seiner geistigen Verbitterung auch die Gesellschaft, die gemeinsame Bewirtschaftung der Umwelt durch Menschen, die sich gegenseitig beeinflussten. Da ward er seines Bruders gewahr, des Schäfers, denn gerade die Schafe seines Bruders, gerade Abels Bedürfnisse hinderten seine, schafften Spannung. Wie denn nicht? Abel wollte auch etwas besitzen, am besten so viel wie möglich. So musste Kain feststellen, dass seine geistigen Bedürfnisse, ja selbst die Stillung seines leiblichen Bedarfs ohne Berührung mit seinem Bruder unmöglich war. Wenn immer Kain sich eine Gegend aussuchte, um seine Körner zu säen, musste er hoffen, dass Abel und seine Herde sich woanders aufhielten. Da dies aber immer seltener der Fall war, musste Verhandlung entscheiden, wer was besaß, aber diese Brüder waren nicht sehr bekannt für Diplomatie. Die Rechtfertigung ihres Eigentums voreinander war eine ständige Quelle von Konflikten und von Anfang an wohnte dem Wesen ihres gemeinsamen Lebens Zwietracht inne. Die Feindschaft, die aus gemeinsamen Begierden entstand, machte Abel und Kain um so unversöhnlicher. Kain aber hielt sich nie gern in Gesellschaft auf, er erwartete nichts Gutes aus ihrem Schoß und wollte ihr nichts Gutes geben. Er sah sich im Gegenteil gezwungen, teilweise durch die Autorität des Vaters, sein Milieu zu ertragen, um zu überleben.

Adam, der Vater und Herrscher, war noch in der Lage, durch Vertrag und Gewalten den Schein einer Ordnung herzustellen und Eigentumsverhältnisse zu regeln. Aber seine Herrschaft war mitnichten das Ende der Konkurrenz und der Gewaltbereitschaft seiner Söhne und jeweiliger Parteien, gleichgültig, in welcher politischen Form der Patriarch versuchte, seine Macht auszuüben. Unter allen Umständen blieb jene Gesellschaft ein Schauplatz menschlichen Versagens, umso schlimmer angesichts ihrer Unausweichlichkeit. Denn selbst in einer Zeit, da die Welt so groß erschien, war es nicht mehr möglich, in die Freiheit der eigenen Einsamkeit zu fliehen. Auch dort musste schon jeder mit Gesellschaft umgehen. Adam, dem alten Herrscher, war die Einstellung seiner Kinder natürlich zuwider, weil der ehrwürdige Begründer jener Gesellschaft sie wie Aristoteles als einen Ort der Freundschaft betrachtete, in dem Menschen gemeinsame Ziele erreichen, in Frieden, Recht und Sitte miteinander leben mögen. Adam hatte ja viel von seinen Fehlern gelernt. Aber seine Hoffnung sollte sich als frommen Wunsch erweisen.

Auf Mord und Blut, Gewalt und Totschlag sann Kain in seinem paradoxen Drang zu besitzen und zugleich frei zu sein, während der Vater noch Vertrag und Recht, der Bruder Betrug und List für die Verhandlung mit dem Außenseiter suchte. Solchen Zustand erreichte jene Gesellschaft. Wenn einem alles gehört hätte, so hätte er Feinde gehabt. Wenn jedem alles gehört hätte, so hätte jeder Feinde gehabt. Nur noch zwei Szenarien schienen dort möglich, nur zwei: Blut und Hunger. Die Vermehrung und Verteilung der Güter nach Vertrag und Gesetz könnte längst nicht mehr alle zufrieden stellen, denn viele mussten im Leib und im Geiste hungern. Wenn aber Wut und Zorn außer Band gerieten, und Vernunft und Unvernunft sich nicht mehr unterschieden, und die Sinnlosigkeit von Zwang und Pflicht und Recht und Rechtfertigung unerträglich ward, da brach ein jeder außer sich. Und Hass, und Neid und gegenseitige Verachtung kamen ungehindert zu Tage, sodass Tod und Leichen auf den Straßen herrschten. Dem Hunger folgte Gewalt, und jene ganze Menschheit musste in der Sintflut ihres eigenen Blutes ertrinken. Ihre Gesellschaft war zu einer unheilbaren Wunde geworden.

Es begann mit Kain, denn Kain mochte seine Existenz nicht länger ertragen. Als er merkte, dass sein Vater und seine Gesellschaft das Werk des Schäfers würdigte, der es mit seiner Herde im günstigen Terrain leicht hatte, Kains Arbeit aber wenig Anerkennung genoss, weil die Beschaffenheit des Bodens dem Ackerbau im Wege stand, und also merkte, dass man ihm eine schlechtere Stellung in jener Gesellschaft geben wollte, obwohl er so viel arbeitete wie sein Bruder, da wurde Kain ungehalten. Hass entstand in seinem Inneren und er fragte sich, wenn er abends vor seinem fruchtlosen Felde stand, nachdem er den ganzen Tag gearbeitet, was er getan habe, um diese Existenz zu verdienen, und woran er sich von seinem Bruder unterscheide, der vom Zufall so viel Gunst erfuhr und überall gelobt wurde, während Kain mit derselben körperlichen und geistigen Beschaffenheit das Licht dieser Welt erblickte und dennoch von ihr ausgestoßen schien. Das schien ihm nicht recht. Als er eines Abends seinen Bruder allein sah, nahm er Abel auf das Feld und tötete ihn mit der Schaufel. Kain nahm seine Rache nicht nur an Abel, sondern an allem, was ihn wie aus dem Nichts in jene aussichtslose Lage geworfen hatte. Er gebrauchte das Höchste seiner Freiheit, um eine unversöhnliche Revolte gegen die Existenz auszudrücken, und bezahlte einen hohen Preis dafür.

So wanderte Kain sein Leben lang weinend durch Wüsten, während die Stimme seines Vaters ihn verfolgte und fragte: „Was hast du getan?“ Nach Jahren des Leides brachte ihn die Zerrissenheit der Reue zu einem Ort, in dem er eine Stadt gründete, um seine Taten wiedergutzumachen. Seine Herrschaft brachte Ordnung, aber er hatte nicht gelernt, in Gesellschaft zu leben, und konnte nicht verhindern, dass hinter dem friedlichen Anschein Zwietracht und gemeinsame Verachtung entstanden, ein unsichtbarer Krieg aller gegen alle, ein solcher Krieg, in dem das Leben eines jeden billig wurde. Kains Gesetze waren schwach und seine Sitten führten nicht zu Frieden und Freundschaft. Wenn diesem Adamssohn nicht einmal die Wirtschaft seines Ackerlandes gelungen war, wie konnte ihm sein zweites Ackerland, eine ganze Stadt gelingen? Kain schüttelte voller Enttäuschung den Kopf und seufzte. Die Kinder der Schwachen schauten ratlos auf den Untergang seiner Stadt. Dort litt am meisten die Hoffnung.

Auszug aus
© Drei Essays über Geschichte: [ http://greg-ory.org/dreiessays.html ]


Current Works
------------------------------

© Emily and the Hermit:
Dialectic prose; in progress


alle wörter sind gleich
------------------------------

[ http://greg-ory.org/archive7.html ]


Autoritäre züge können auch in der formalen gestaltung der sprachen fuss fassen. den schreibenden geistern ist es geboten den gebrauch äusserer normen in ihren schriften zu hinterfragen. die vorstellung dass literatur sich diesen normen unterordnen muss, darf eine kritische ästhetik nicht für selbstverständlich halten. selbstverständlich ist dass der offizielle und der literarische gebrauch der schrift getrennten wegen folgen können, und dass die umstände neben einer offiziellen oft auch unterschiedliche literarische rechtschreibungen verlangen. solche umstände liegen vor wenn unreflektierte normen der sprache und der gesellschaft schaden, wenn rechtschreibungen eine unnötige hierarchiesierung von wörtern und buchstaben zustande bringen.

In der märzrevolution von 1848 gab es versuche den deutschen schriftgebrauch dynamischer zu gestalten, nicht zuletzt durch eine vereinfachung der normen. so wurde die grossschreibung vielerorts an den globalen gebrauch angepasst grossbuchstaben nur bei eigennamen und satzanfang zu verwenden. schon damals wurde die grossschreibung von substantiven als eine altmodische praxis empfunden, die den eindruck einer künstlichen hierarchie der wörter vermittelte, als ob substantive wörter erster klasse und der rest wörter zweiter klasse wären.

Seit der einführung der karolingischen schrift wurden wörter je wichtiger sie empfunden je grösser geschrieben. die karolinger selbt hatten nicht nur zwei sondern Vier klassen von buchstabengrössen. dennoch drückt der versuch von 1848 die überzeugung aus dass Alle Wörter Gleich Sind, und dass die hervorhebung einer bestimmten wortklasse durch grossschreibung ein etwas autoritärer schriftgebrauch ist, ausdruck einer gesellschaft in der auch menschen nicht gleich behandelt werden.

2017 sehen wir immer noch überreste frühneuzeitlichen autoritarismus in der deutschen rechtschreibung. warum nur. in einer zeit in der autoritäre parteien ganz locker ins parlament einziehen, muss man die quellen dieser politischen gefahr auch ausserhalb der expliziten politik suchen und bekämpfen. das autoritäre das diese parteien verkörpern hat vor allem ästhetische wurzeln. die gut situierten anführer dieser bewegungen werden überhaupt nicht von wirtschaftlichen nöten sondern von ästhetischen fetischen und obsessionen getrieben. ihre unfundierte nostalgie gilt einer gesellschaft in der die abstraktionen der kultur und der identität sichtbar gemacht werden könnten. sie sehnen sich nach blonden blauäugigen menschen die elegante anzüge oder lange mäntel tragen und sich die haare nach rechts kämmen. sie wünschen sich eine welt voller rokoko- und downton-abbey-gepränge in der sich alle affektiert ausdrücken und gebärden. diese besessenheit mit sauberem schein und fassaden erheben sie dann zum politischen programm. raus mit einwanderern, zurück in die vergangenheit wo alle kultur und identität hatten, und bald werden alle wie bei Downton Abbey leben. aber jeder versuch identität sichtbar und handfest zu machen, wird stets in ästhetischem desaster enden. identität geht immer weit über formbesessenheit hinaus.

Darum ist es falsch und gefährlich zu denken dass deutsche identität oder irgendeine identität eine frage von gross- oder kleinschreibung, von schwarz oder weiss ist. identität ist vielfältig und belastbar. sie ist bereit ihre komfortzone zu verlassen. eine ästhetik die die komfortzone des schriftgebrauchs verlässt fördert die kultur und stärkt sie gegen die obsessionen des autoritarismus.

Ich versuche nicht eine apologie der gröbe und der hässlichkeit zu halten. im gegenteil, das was ich vorschlage betrachte ich nicht nur als politisch fundierter sondern auch als schöner. wir sind erben der karolingischen minuskel. dieses erbe kann seine ausgewogene eleganz aber nicht entfalten wenn jedes dritte wort mit einem grossbuchstaben beginnt. das stört die augen, das behindert das potenzial eines schriftbildes das am besten im schlichten gebrauch glänzt. die literatur, insbesondere die dichtung braucht keine rechtschreibung die das kognitive vermögen ihrer leser unterschätzt und annimmt, man kann einen text nicht verstehen wenn wörter klein geschrieben werden. grafisches gehabe ist nicht die lösung. literarisches schreiben ist viel eleganter wenn grossschreibung, abgesehen von eigennamen und absatzanfängen, nur zur subjektiven hervorhebung benutzt wird. Nur Zur Hervorhebung.

Auch die kommasetzung ist von ungewöhnlichem byzantinismus geprägt. ein komma ist nur nötig wenn der diskurs eine natürliche pause anbietet oder erfordert. man macht keine pause zwischen kurzen haupt- und nebensätzen wie „ich weiss dass du schreibst“. wozu die künstliche trennung zwischen prädikat und objekt. vor subjekt- und objektsätzen gehört grundsätzlich kein komma, zumal eine konjunktion bereits anzeigt dass ein neuer satz anfängt und zwar ohne pause. man würde es für undenkbar halten objekte oder subjekte zu isolieren wie „der mann, geht nach hause“ oder „wir sehen gerade, den mann“. das wäre syntaktischer pedantismus, und pedantismus ist es auch subjekt- und objektsätze von hauptsätzen zu trennen. allgemein beginnen nebensätze auch mit konjunktionen die den gebrauch eines kommas entbehrlich machen, es sei denn, es gilt eine natürliche pause zu markieren.

Explikative relativsätze brauchen komma, aber restriktive relativsätze brauchen kein komma. man sollte schreiben „der mann der dich sucht ist hier“, denn hier wird der begriff „mann“ auf einen bestimmten mann begrenzt und diese restriktive erläuterung ist nötig, so nötig dass eine pause in dem zusammenhang unzulässig ist. aber man sollte schreiben „der professor, der übrigens nie pünktlich zur vorlesung kommt, hat heute auch die unterlagen vergessen“, denn hier wird der begriff „professor“ nur nebensächlich explikativ erläutert.

Ein komma ist auch sinnvoll wenn verben aufeinander treffen und man eine verwirrung auschliessen will. „bevor wir schreiben, sollten wir denken“ ist besser als „bevor wir schreiben sollten wir denken“, da man nicht sofort erkennt dass Sollten sich auf Denken und nicht auf Schreiben bezieht. aber „bevor wir schreiben denken wir auch“ bietet keinen raum für verwirrung. wozu komma.

Doch es geht weiter. auch die interpunktion eines guten schriftgebrauchs ist durchaus in der lage nur mit komma und punkt auszukommen. kann man denn nicht erkennen dass dieser satz eine frage ist. wer braucht denn ein fragezeichen wenn der satz schon Selbst mit einem fragewort beginnt. ja, es gibt fragen die ohne fragezeichen schlecht zu erkennen sind und bei denen ein fragezeichen angebracht ist. aber die meisten fälle brauchen kein solches zeichen. es gehört nicht viel anstrengung und kreativität zu erkennen dass die meisten zeichen unserer interpunktion nur grafisches beiwerk sind. das was wir brauchen ist jedoch eine belastbare ästhetik jenseits des pompösen beiwerks. dekadente pomp nährt nicht die tiefe des inhalts sondern nur die oberflächlichkeit autoritärer fetische.

Wir haben eine archäologische rechtschreibung. muss literatur einem gehabe gehorchen das nur die obsessiven träume von rokokoparteien bestätigen. nein, das ist nicht der weg. eine ästhetik die sich in einer welt globaler herausforderungen behaupten will muss aufwachen, denn komplexe probleme brauchen ausgereifte lösungen. alles andere wird untergehen. vielleicht, wer weiss, ist die deutschsprachige literatur noch vom willen beseelt zu überleben, damit auch das schönste und das beste der sprache überlebe. ich für meinen teil kann den schreibenden geistern nur ermuntern sich in ihrem schriftgebrauch von allem abzuwenden was nach autoritarismus riecht. das ist der grund warum ich einen anderen weg suche, einen weg der mehr politische verantwortung und sensibilität, aber auch zweifel zum ausdruck bringt.

Das internet ist durchaus ein privileg. dieser scheussliche segen erlaubt es mir meine seeflaschen ganz bequem ins deutsche festland zu schicken, ohne mit einer miesen geldstrafe für wiederholte infragestellung einer verbindlichen rechtschreibung rechnen zu müssen. verbindlich wo. ja, man könnte ganz glamourös meine webseite im bundesgebiet sperren, aber das internet ist eine weite welt die man nicht abschaffen kann. ich schreibe also im bewusstsein dass die deutsche sprache nicht das eigentum eines staates oder eines volkes ist. sie gehört, wie jede andere sprache, der ganzen welt und bedarf keiner deutschen oder nicht-deutschen identität.

Ich möchte diese gelegenheit nutzen um wieder an mein stück Medea zu erinnern, das übrigens diesem neukarolingischen schriftgebrauch folgt. Medea ist das opfer einer gesellschaft in der nationale hysterie die oberhand nimmt, in der die menschenwürde einem illusorischen ästhetischen fetisch weichen muss. in dieser dystopie, der agonie der oberflächlichkeit unter dem hohlen mantel von kultur und identität, kann Medeas antwort aus der verzweiflung nicht anders als dystopisch fallen. Medea ist allgegenwärtig und doch nirgends bekannt. wahres leid ist unbekanntes leid, und Medeas tragödie ist eine tragödie sozialer gleichgültigkeit.

Nicht überraschend ist dass meine Medea ziemlich unbekannt ist. wahre kunst ist unbekannte kunst. wie denn nicht. bekannte kunst ist das ergebnis von kompromissen, doch in den kompromissen lügt sich der künstler an, er widerspricht seiner eigenen kunst, er gibt sich auf um der hedonik von geld und beifall zu dienen. da entpuppen sich geld und beifall als den wahren zweck einer kunst die zum blossen mittel wird. daher kommt es dass, wie wahres leid, auch wahre kunst unbekannte kunst ist. in der gleichgültigkeit die sie überall findet zahlt sie den hohen und dennoch unvergleichbar edlen preis dafür, dass sie niemandem etwas schuldet und dass trotz ihrer obskurität ihre integrität sich selbst genügt. mich muss man nicht lesen. nur klage man nicht wenn plötzlich seine kinder sich im bann einer politischen obsession einlullen. an warnungen fehlte es nicht.

Gestattet zur klassischen dämpfung eine kleine coda. inzwischen, so habe ich neulich gehört, lehnen verlage bücher ab mit dem zugeständnis dass die entscheidung nichts mit der qualität des werkes zu tun hat. da fragt man sich was der zweck eines verlages sei wenn literarische qualität keine rolle spielt. aber die antwort ist doch offensichtlich.


-----------------------------
What have I been listening to? Handel - harpsichord suites; Chopin - nocturnes; Debussy - 24 preluedes

What have I been reading? Plato - letters; Seneca - Letters to Lucilius; Pope Pius XII - encyclica Summi Pontificatus
------------------------------


Letters
------------------------------

Letter to the Internet Society: Is the Internet free and open?

[ http://greg-ory.org/letter11.html ]

To The Internet Society
1775 Wiehle Avenue
Reston, VA 20190, USA


Dear Friends of the Internet,

It has been a pleasure for me to be a member of the Internet Society for one year. I would like to thank you for the opportunity you gave me of joining. It is reassuring to read in your statement online that one of your missions is advocating equal access to the Internet to make the world a better place. I hope this was also the spirit in which the Internet was created.

I am assuming that, when you mention equality of access, you are defending that no human being should be prevented from using the Internet. Yet if this is the assumption, it just takes a bit of observation to conclude that many people in the world have no Internet access. While the Internet was created (possibly) as a tool of freedom and for freedom, access to the Internet is not free. It is difficult to advocate equal access to the Internet without advocating free access as well. As it is now, access to the Internet is dependent on commercial transactions. If you want Internet in your home, you need to pay for a service provider like Telecom. If you want to create your own space online, you need to pay for your own domain and for web hosting. While it goes without saying that many of us are able to afford these costs, many others are not. This is the first barrier to equality: and it is a powerful one. Large communities in Africa have no Internet due to their lack of money. Non-profit or philanthropic organisations and private persons have to pay for domains and web hosting.

I do understand that business interests play an important role in the development of the Internet. It would be foolish to deny the benefits of a free-market. But if we assume that the Internet was created with a view to making the world a better place, we must also assume that the purpose of the Internet should not only serve the interests of businesses and free-market. And that the Internet should not be just about money.

I do not know the position of the Internet Society, but mine is simple: equal access is free access. There can be no equality if freedom not be at hand. Note that we are not talking about equality of opportunity in accessing the Internet, but about actual equality of access to the Internet. These are two different things with different implications. Why, if equality of opportunity be enough, then nothing needs to be done. This view implies that we live in the best possible world and you just need to work hard and earn enough money to have access to the Internet.

What I advocate, however, is free access to the Internet regardless of money; it is people being treated equally regardless of money. Everything else is equality of opportunity, but not actual equality of access.

It is admirable to hear from people who bring Internet access to remote regions and peoples. It is less-than-noble, however, when the price for this noble gesture is that vulnerable and deprived communities have to incur in fixed costs in order to maintain Internet access. What I defend is that those who have access to the Internet should not be forced to incur any fixed costs. I realise that, where third parties like Telecom are involved in bringing access, third parties deserve remuneration. I am not suggesting that third parties should work for nothing. I am suggesting that there should be no third parties. I am suggesting that remote communities should be empowered with enough knowledge for independent access to the Internet. Independent means not relying on the service provided by any third party. It means being able to build their own Internet access in a self-sufficient way.

It is also admirable that organisations other than businesses have access to the Internet. Yet it is less-than-admirable that everybody should pay for a domain, since not everybody is using the Internet with a view to making money, and that relying on social media in order visibly to exist online is not a credible and serious alternative to the freedom, I should say the dignity, of a personal website and domain. It is true that domains are not too expensive. For us. For many others who would make a difference in their communities, for example fighting for human rights, domains are expensive. I appreciate the fact that ICANN does need money to finance the maintenance of so many domains. Yet this is an institution that has existed for almost 20 years. Did they not have enough time to work out a better and more egalitarian alternative to making a tremendous amount of money out of little people's domains? This almost raises the suspicion that the problem was not lack of time but lack of interest, and that their interest is to make access to domains a matter of money. This is certainly not a scenario in which we could call the Internet free or open in any regard.

One of the good things about the Internet Society is the number of fora online open for debate and policy making. These are enriching discussions. What I could observe, however, is a certain prevalence of business interests in most debates I was able to follow. I have been missing a more generous focus on the human and ethical dimensions of the Internet, including human rights. I have been missing more philanthropy and less business. There is a danger that too much concern about technical development and business opportunities may overshadow concerns for the ethical pertinence of the Internet as an instrument truly capable of making the world a better place. While many developments can be achieved, I would affirm that the current capabilities of communication online are already good enough to provide a genuine space for understanding and dialogue between different people and peoples, if only there be more interest in truly building free and equal access to the Internet for all humankind. If in spite of good technology and business the human purpose of the Internet is not achieved, the Internet will fail. It will become a false promise. Perhaps this is just what the Internet was bound to be. Yet I will always advocate a more meaningful purpose than just efficiency and profit, I will embrace the cause of freedom and empowerment.

When I say empowerment, I mean greater focus on the development of more technologies enabling remote communities to break away from the financial constraints imposed by a few companies which de facto own the Internet and access to it. No human being is able to access their own website online without paying a regular amount of money, directly or indirectly, to companies and organisations like ICANN, Telecom etc. This has to stop if we really want the Internet to make a difference in human terms. In the 1990s, when the Internet arose, there was more understanding and sensibility for the search of a so-called "third way", and there was a degree of hope that the Internet would contribute to make this third way more viable. There is much less understanding for a third way today, where it appears to go without saying, more than ever, that the Internet is just about money. Africa is not impressed.

I count myself lucky and privileged by the fact that I did not join the Internet Society to represent the interests of a company, or organisation, or national state, and that I have the rare freedom to say what I really think. Yet I always try to convince and compel others by the force of words and arguments rather than by gifts and lobbying, given that policies which arise under the spell of gifts and lobbying mostly end in disaster. But I am assuming that there is a difference between the Internet Society and a dysfunctional parliament where politicians have their rhetorical fun in the plenary and then go to the arms of lobbyists in the corridors, ready to be taken to a corner where the auction of policies awaits. Where these are the standards, trust will never prevail. It is not helpful either when people trying to contribute to a debate are judged by formalities and appearances rather than the actual content of their arguments. The well-intentioned often say they are looking for new ideas and solutions and ready to open a debate, but the only ideas and solutions they want to hear are those of ministers, professors, CEOs, celebrities: people who epitomise a status and with whom it is more fashionable to agree. In most cases the real concern is not about what is being said, but about who is saying it. This cult of personality and obsession with status has to stop if we are interested in genuine policy-making for the Internet and for the benefit of many.

Be that as it may, I will not refrain from raising my voice, discreet and inglorious as it is, since this is the only voice I have. If I do not raise it, nobody will raise it for me. What I embrace, as I said, is the cause of inclusion, freedom and empowerment. Since you wish to work on the mission statement of the Internet Society, I believe there should be a more concrete definition, however succinct, of what an "open" Internet and Internet "for everyone" is supposed to mean in a world where the Internet is widely treated just as merchandise.

Yours sincerely,
Gregory Name


Updates
------------------------------

© Nulla Dies:
new layout
check
[ http://greg-ory.org/nulladies.html ]

© Verwirrung:
stellenweise bearbeitet,
siehe
[ http://greg-ory.org/verwirrung.html ]

© Totila:
versão completa disponível,
confira
[ http://greg-ory.org/totilacompleto.html ]


Letter to President Macron
------------------------------

[ http://greg-ory.org/letter10.html ]

Excellentissimum Praesidentem
Rei Publicae Francicae
Emmanuel Macron salutat.


Gaudeo electione tua ad Praesidentiam, quae Deo volente prospera erit. Praestantia virtutis ducit animam nobilem, non sitis gloriae vel divitiarum. Nobilis autem est anima quaerens amicitiam erga omnes, vinculum quod inter civitates pulchrius. Ita populi convenerunt in Unionem Europaeam post terrorem Secundi Belli Mundani, qui sicut amici dignitatis humanae in pace viverent. Britannia, tristissimum dictu, exitum optavit.

De principiis quae praestaverunt in referendo frustra esset loqui. Omnis error habet pretium. Brexit mala optio est. Optaverunt pro avaritia, pro metu, pro racismo contra amicitiam. Sed civitates et cives sunt duae differentes res. Civitas Britannica potest exire ex Unione. Cives manebunt. Qui venerunt et vivunt in Francia, Germania et ceteris vivunt ut amici, homines bonae voluntatis, bonae fidei laborantes vitamque agentes. Grate tractari debent sicut monuit olim Publilius Syrus: Amicum laedere ne ioco quidem licet.

Iura civium protegenda essent, maxime eorum ex UE in UK et ex UK in UE. Nescio num aut quomodo Regnum Unitum respectaturum sit iura Europaeorum civium in insula. Quos firmiter defendere primum officium Europes debet esse. In timore expulsionis sunt. Si Britannia cives deportabit, oportet respondere ignavia – respondere tamen cum iustitia, quia reciproca ignavia non expedit. Ignobile esset deportare de Francia Britannicos, etiamsi Britannia Francicos deportaret. Rationem quaeso pondera: –

Affirmabat Socrates: Malum pati melius quam malum dare. Malum quidem non debet a malo puniri, quoniam malum bono solum vincitur. Respondeamus enim bene si Regnum Unitum offendet iura nostrorum civium. Iustum est infirmos semper defendere, non tantum ubi conveniat. Graeci timebant Zeon Xenon, deum potentissimum qui punit civitates ubi male tractant bonos peregrinos vel advenas. Proponamus vexillum huius dei generosissimi, qui infirmos defendit, qui nobibis est. Vereamur eius iram.

Ita causa consideranda: Si Regnum Unitum aut quaedam ingrata civitas necaret civem nostrorum, iustumne esset pro responso necare Britannicos in nostris urbibus? Nequaquam! Manifestum enim est iustitiam non caecam reciprocitatem esse. Oculus pro oculo indigna doctrina. Indignum igitur est primum quearere quomodo cives nostri tractentur in Britannia, et solum deinde decernere quomodo tractemus hospides eius apud nos. Quod decernere oportet secundum principium iustitiae, quae immutabilis est. Cui omnis lex de dignitate humana iuribusque gentium studet. Iustitiae officium punire obnoxios neque permittere ut pro crimine aliorum innocens damnetur. Decet omnino promissa servare nec tangere ius acquisitum, ut vatis Iliadis docet:

            οὐ μέν πως ἅλιον πέλει ὅρκιον αἷμά τε ἀρνῶν
            σπονδαί τ᾽ ἄκρητοι καὶ δεξιαὶ ᾗς ἐπέπιθμεν.

Si Britannia vult errare et contra ius iurandum et sanguinem agnorum et sanctum vinum et dextram datam agere, erret sola per viam iniquam. Ne sequamur malum exemplum.

O tutor et praeses huius Franciae magnanimae: Si nobilis es, infirmos defende. Cives Britannici in Francia innocentes sunt. Non eos oportet punire. Ego Germanicus civis, Europaeus in Britannia, forsitan deportabor. Nequaquam tamen gauderem quod Europe cives Britannicos deportaret. Virtutem ac amicitiam credo. Rogo non pro me ipso, quem ignavia non attingit, sed pro Britannicis. Cura ut valeas.


---------------------------------------
Greg Ory's atrium:
http://greg-ory.org/atrium.html

Nulla Dies Sine Linea:
http://greg-ory.org/nulladies.html

Important - Terms of Use:
http://greg-ory.org/termsofuse.html
---------------------------------------


Nota bene: The writer is not legally responsible for the content of external links.

Contact the writer:
Email: [ ad.gregorium@startmail.com ]
Index Operum: [ http://www.greg-ory/indoperum.html ]
About The Carolingian: [ http://greg-ory.org/carolingius.html ]

The Carolingian is Greg Ory's online and private circular letter. It is open for submissions concerning arts and literature in any language. The Carolingian encourages and gives preference to submissions in Latin.


© Greg Ory 2017, The Carolingian, Edited by Greg Ory at The White Carolingian Office, Flat 7, 18 High Street, Petersfield, Hampshire GU32 3JL, United Kingdom; mobile +44 7821355575, e-mail carolingian@use.startmail.com








15th September 2017


Index

Letter to Jeremy Corbyn.
Antwort aus dem Bundespräsidialamt.
The Carolingian series of books.
Apresentação do épico Totila.
Interview mit Georg Solz.
Updates.


Letter to Jeremy Corbyn
---------------------------------------

On immigration and the European freedom of movement

[ http://greg-ory.org/letter5.html ]


Dear Mr. Corbyn,

I am writing to congratulate you on the success of your party during the last general elections. For many people, your manifesto provided a vision which other parties and leaders could not offer for a long time. It is rare to find a leader who stands by his word and will not be intimidated by bullying behaviour from within or without the party. The public opinion has great appreciation for those who say what has to be said.

Saying what has to be said also applies to the British exit from the EU. Immigration has been an important topic in the public debate since the referendum, and I do not know exactly what your party's understanding of immigration in general is. While I do not expect that all members of a party should have a unanimous view on this matter, it is reasonable to strive for a prevailing opinion, that the public may know with more clarity which policies are being advocated.

It would be unfair to underestimate the complexity of the matter. Being an open and inclusive debate, the reflection of immigration should always welcome new and reasonable arguments, that with time and tranquillity we may take as much as is needed into consideration and avoid any rash conclusions. Otherwise, unhelpful policies will follow.

There is broad agreement among philosophers that the ultimate aim of society and the life of states is to achieve mutual friendship and prosperity. Aristotle speaks of states as partnerships with a view to a common good. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) refers to all countries as a "human family" in its very opening sentence. This is related to the fact that, everywhere, isolation leads to suspicion, suspicion leads to conflict and conflict leads to war. Suspicion begins where dialogue and partnership cease, where the motto is: You hide in your place and I hide in mine.

The existence of states and borders does not change the fact that the Earth was already inhabited before any state arose. At that time, the natural right of every member of the human family to move wherever he saw fit went unchallenged, and rightly so, for as Immannuel Kant stated in his Perpetual Peace, it is not the case that anybody is more entitled to live in a particular place in the world than anyone else, neighter by birth nor by any kind of natural law. So that, in this regard, national laws try to create, by convention, a privilege that nature as such did not bestow on anyone. The fact that the Earth is the Earth everywhere is that mankind is mankind everywhere is enough to show this: the whole Earth was equally given to all mankind.

This is the spirit, I believe, which the Declaration of 1948 tries to express by calling all human beings the "human family". Whether we like the European Union or not, we must acknowledge that this Union is an attempt to concretise the universal call to live as a family. It is not just a supermarket, as President Macron said recently. It is an attempt to erase borders. Although it does not make freedom of movement universal, it enables this freedom within most countries of a whole continent, which is already a beginning. The EU is not alone. Other regions of the world are coming together as families. The African Union and the Mercosur are only two examples of countries envisaging ever greater forms of free movement. This is not utopia. It is the pragmatism of nature. The dynamics of civilisation works towards bringing people and peoples together in an ever closer union. When single countries try to isolate themselves, suspicion, conflict and war follow. No friendship will grow out of isolation, and without friendship there will be no peace.

Yet not everybody is focusing on the human implications of isolation. Rather, there is a widespread concern in the public opinion about the economic impact of immigration. It is certainly an aspect worth considering. I doubt, however, that any objective assessment will be found. Anybody that understands statistics knows that figures are not reliable mirrors of reality. They are always based on insufficient data and criteria, they are drawn in subjective ways and ways that can manipulate the reader's perception. The same reality can be presented by two completely opposing figures. As a politician (not Churchill) once affirmed, “I only believe in statistics that I doctored myself”.

What I know about economics is that the market, including the job market, is ruled by demand and supply. This being so, if a foreigner found a job in this country, that means that there was a job available in the first place. I also want to assume that nobody obliged the employer to employ a foreigner, but everybody employs whoever he or she wishes. I assume as well that nobody is employed on account of being national or foreigner but rather on account of either suitability for the task or cheaper supply of service. Thus, where there is market there is also competition. Yet losing a competition does not make us morally entitled to be resentful or annoyed at the prosperity of others, at least when we live and act with a view to friendship. Nor are we entitled to be hateful of the country, sex, race or religion of those who, in the competition, fared better than ourselves. There is an ethical distinction to be made here: Even where the prosperity of others may harm us, it does not follow from this that others are prospering in order to harm us, so that they would deserve to be hated. Rather, hating those who won any kind of competition in good faith only proves that we as losers deserved to lose.

Surely, the best society is that where there is no loser and where everybody has something to win. Where this is not the case, citizens can gather efforts and tackle sources of unfairness. If the job market is not working properly, it is best to look for solutions rather than resentment. If a certain group has little access to the job market, it is helpful to invest in such a group rather than trying to harm or exclude others. If someone performs badly in a competition, it would be rash to conclude that the reason for the bad performance is the presence of other competitors, and that the solution would be to exclude them from the competition. This would not improve the performance but destroy the competition. Where states invest in the education of their nationals, the access to the job market is improved. Otherwise, foreigners will fare better. Excluding the foreigners will not improve the performance of the nationals. If you want your own nationals to prosper in the job market, you do not close the borders, you change the government and the laws in order better to care for the nationals. Else you will close the borders and the problem will remain, because it was not the foreigner that brought the problem with him, as if sending him away would solve the problem. Rather, the foreigner will leave and the problem will stay.

Enabling competitivity is more enriching than destroying the competition. The latter leads to isolation. The former, though it is competition, still brings people together and gives them the opportunity to realise that they are part of a human family and should act fairly towards each other. This improves the moral standard of the competition and turns it into something constructive, guided in a spirit of brotherhood, friendship or at least respect.

Someone could argue that the true problem of immigration is not those who have a job but those who do not. Yet those who do not have a job came with a view of finding a job. They are enriching a friendly competition by adding variety to it. If they find a job, they will stay and work, and if not, they will look for opportunities in another country. If you are afraid that some will come to live on benefits, you change the legislation. In Germany, only those EU-citizens who worked for five years can claim certain benefits.

Others may answer that, in fact, immigration is not the main reason for leaving the European Union. If this be the case, then it would be reasonable to hope the the UK will not change its immigration policy towards Europe. Why, I have heard politicians say that, after the British withdrawal, only European citizens with a job contract should be allowed to enter this country with a view to settling in the long term. Perhaps not many politicians are aware of the implications of this discourse and the human values it reveals.

Let me start, if you please, with the concept of job: Apparently, politicians are implying that the best possible state is the state where everybody has a job, and that creating jobs for everybody will also create the best possible society. If this is what is being said, and if the best possible state is the state where everybody has a job, then you must be assuming that the state for which you are looking is something like Nazi-Germany, where by 1937 there was no unemployment: Everybody had a job, what else was missing in that state? The right values were missing! Thus it is the most illiberal reasoning to assume that it only takes giving everybody a job to make any society better. Yet where does this leave us with the argument that only people with a job should enter a country? Perhaps you can introduce me to a politician who is an infallible judge of lives and is prepared to judge the dignity of individuals on account of their having or not having a job.

Clearly, those who say that only people with a job should enter a country must be assuming that those with a job will bring a benefit to the country, while those without a job will bring none. And yet we need a distinction of terms here: Are we talking of moral benefit or economic benefit? If we are talking of moral benefit, it is difficult to understand why a person that is bringing a good job but no values to a country is more entitled to enter it than a person that is bringing no job but good values. There is also much confusion about concepts, for there is a difference between job and work. Why, a person can work and have no job: A painter is working on her paintings, although her work is not a job. I may be doing unwaged work in a community garden, which may take much time and effort, although this is not a job. On the other hand, a top manager in a big city may have a very well-waged job and do no work. Yet, if I understand the logic of those politicians, they are saying that someone with a job but no work is morally more entitled to enter the country than someone with a work but no job. Does that make sense? A diligent Spanish painter would be prevented from settling in the UK, and so would a passionate volunteer nurse from Poland, since those politicians imply that they do not deserve to live in this country, and that a well-paid consultant from Germany is more entitled to it. All shows that, in this argument, what matters is not the ethical value of the work, but simply the job, and when politicians say job, they mean simply wage. Will we therefore say that wage is enough to bring any moral benefit to a country? Yet this is not all, because some may say that the benefit of good jobs, which means high wages, is economic, and that therefore the consultant should be allowed to settle rather than the painter. This is intriguing, and here is why: The consultant may advise a big company in London to save money and cause 200 British workers to lose their jobs. Is this an economical benefit?

This being so, I am at a loss and cannot explain why an immigrant with a job and no values will bring a greater benefit, moral or economical, than an immigrant with no job and sound values. But I am a man of insufficient education, always glad to be enlightened, and perhaps you know of an argument that has escaped my poor reasoning and you will be so kind to produce it. If it be right to assume as Cicero in his work on duties that only what is honourable is useful, then we must agree that an economical benefit is not always useful, since it is not always honourable. Thus, if there should be a criterion for foreigners to settle in this country, this should be a moral rather than an economical one. Yet I am again at a loss, because I am not quite sure how easily values can be verified. Perhaps the UK wants to pioneer an innovative kind of border control and check how sound the moral values of individuals are before they enter the country. Or is someone going to say that this is absurd? Yet even more absurd would be to value an economic criterion of immigration rather than a moral criterion. Therefore, given the absurdity of the former and the unfeasibility of the latter, the best solution is not to judge the dignity of people on account of their having or not a job, but let them enter and settle in the country, knowing that those who bring no good job may bring good values. Because our hearts are not great enough to let people enter our borders in the very capacity of members of our human family, as indeed both universal rights and reason vainly enjoin, let at least those of the European family continue to have a freedom of movement truly worthy of human dignity.

Perhaps defenders of British pragmatism will argue that, if anyone can come to the UK, the country will be soon overcrowded. They are ready to forget the laws of the market and even logic when it suits them. For even if the 7 billion in the world were to make their way to Britain, most would leave soon afterwards, because a small place has not enough land and jobs for 7 billion. What benefit would they have in lingering here? Nobody wants to stay in a place where there is no perspective. This applies to European migrants too. Those who come to this country either have no financial concern or they do have a concern. If they have no concern, they can support themselves. If they have a concern, they must be coming with a view to find a job. Yet if after a while no job can be found and there is no prospect of finding a job and living off benefits, why would this person want to stay? He can realise for himself that the best to do is not to lose any time and look for a job in a more promising market. There is no need of intimidating legislation. Or will someone say that, even if all European immigrants could support themselves, leaving the borders open for them would soon overcrowd the country? But the same answer applies here, for surely nobody wants to stay in an overcrowded country, especially those who can support themselves. The more populated a place becomes the less attractive it becomes for new immigrants, for they can see that the market is saturated and that, if the market is saturated at one place, it must be full of unexplored opportunities somewhere else. Thus, demography has its natural ways of balancing itself.

The tone in which economic migrants (so-called) are mentioned is also worrying. There appears to be a consensus that these do not deserve to enter any European country. As a matter of logic, most help should be given to those who most need it. Now a journalist who flees political persecution often has a job and means to support herself, since the cause of migration is not economical but political. She would be welcomed in Europe. Yet a victim of famine in Africa flees her country not because of her opinion. She is too hungry to have an opinion. Her need of help is the same, if not greater, than the help needed for political immigrants. But why is it that the most fragile of all are the most demonised? I am sure that policies can be enacted to provide structural development in their countries. This is a noble pursuit. Yet the person who is fleeing famine needs to eat now and not just in ten years, when development comes to fruition. In France earlier this year, I spoke with the only survivor of a boat that capsized in the Mediterranean. I was told that, in Lybia, every night a stream of tears flows through the shores as most travellers call their families to bid them farewell. Nobody is proud at home, the mothers trying to prevent their children from embarking either to death or to a continent unworthy of their suffering. Most are urged to stay and go back - but go back to what?

Indeed, a job market that works fairly is vital for every society, but the job market alone cannot cover all the needs of human dignity. It is vulgar to live only with a view to increasing one's wage and becoming a treasure-hoarder, and even more vulgar to expect that this should be the moral profile of people most entitled to settle in a country. I mean vulgarity, of course, in the same way as Aristotle, as anything that alienates our mind and body from what is conducive to their best constitution: virtue and health. As I mentioned in a recent exchange of letters with the President of Germany, a nation of uneducated car drivers cannot be the goal, even if everybody has a job. There will be always weak citizens who need protection and the state should protect the weak who seek refuge not in jobs and wages but in art, in science and knowledge. Even weaker than these, alas, are the refugees and many so-called economic migrants.

Democracy is the key principle of our political values. Yet democracy as such is not enough to build human dignity. It is important, in all our actions, to avoid anything that can turn democracy against itself. Since the beginning of the 20th century, not a single dictatorship in the world has refrained from claiming the name of democracy for their autocratic systems. In Nazi-Germany, "democratic" referenda were called to give power to Adolf Hitler and decide over the Anschluss with Austria. In 1943, Goebbels incited the audience during his notorious Sportpalast speech to acclaim his doctrines unanimously, and so it was "democratically" decided that there should be a total war against the bolsheviks and the Jewish "terrorists" (this very word was used) who were financing communism and the destruction of the West. Currently, we see states proposing referenda to reintroduce the death penalty in a democratic way. Is it right that the will of the people should have no limit? Is it right to use democracy to defeat universal rights? This is an important reflection for a country like Britain, where apparently there is great appetite among politicians to rewrite human rights. Will they rewrite the Declaration of 1948 as well? They should consider the implications of their actions: rewriting universal rights whenever it suits them is to say that there is no such thing as universal rights and that, in a way, those condemned in Nürnberg were right in their statement that they could kill whoever they wanted because it was not written in any law that anybody has a right to live, or because the will of the people decided that a certain group should die. There has to be a moral limit for democracy. You cannot let the people decide in a referendum whether Jews should be sent to concentration camps and then excuse yourself by saying that this was the will of the people. There are universal rights that are above anything: also above the will of the people.

Many could find it improper that I try to compare the above referenda with the referendum on the British withdrawal. Why should I not compare them? Because less people will die? Yet the moral gravity of a decision does not depend on how many will die but on the intrinsic value of the decision. Or will someone argue that there were irregularities in the procedure of those referenda, that the audience at the Sportpalast speech and the electors were carefully chosen? This was indeed the case, but if we say that this was the problem, we say that fixing the procedure will make the decision legitimate. Had there been a democratic campaign with a long debate and different parties arguing whether homosexuals should live or die, and the death vote had won, then this would be a legitimate decision, since the procedure was regular. Is this right? This is wrong. Procedure cannot take precedence over values.

If the crowd is stirred against universal values, agitated by a discourse of resentment and hatred, you do not join the crowd under the pretext of listening to their concerns, you stand up and fight for the values under attack. You do not show compliance with hate speakers in order to canvass a few more voters. One may expect this behaviour from someone who went to Oxford just to join the rowing club and play with pig heads, and who after working ten years for a big and influential company now thinks he is fit to run a country. This is why businesspeople should not go into politics. They learn the dishonourable ways in which, much to shame of many a valuable trade, business can be done and think politics should be done in the same way, nay, that their ability in doing what is dishonourable is their best qualification for running the public affair. It would not be congruous with a man of integrity to approach politics as an illiberal bully looking for a business career. A man of your stature should be able and willing to break the spell of imposture that populists have put over the country, flattering the crowd and manipulating the will of the people in ways that sooner or later will only harm the people.

Free movement is a principle higher than the European Union. It is not written in the Declaration of 1948, but it is written in our conscience as a natural right on a planet that does not belong to any people in particular. In fact, it is a shame for mankind that the Declaration of 1948 had to be written: It took the greatest genocide of all time for world leaders to write down what goes without saying. I hope no further genocide will force us to write down what is not yet written and should not need to be written. Let us not join the defenders of Nürnberg by saying we have no regard for universal rights because they are not written. It is not the writing that created rights, but good and evil already existed before mankind could write, and so did rights.

The European freedom of movement is a first glimpse of something universal. It is an attempt to turn nations of foes into a family of nations. Europe is more than a vile supermarket with which you can make a few quick trade deals. You cannot say to old partners and friends that you want their products but not their people. The moral logic of this attitude is not sound. Behind any product, there is the work of those who produced it. You cannot truly value the product if you do not value the people behind the product, if your motto is "you hide in your hole and I hide in mine, and every six months I can send a ship with money to get some of your products." It would be retrograde, in terms of the universal rights that the free movement represents, to try to unravel this process. It would unleash unnecessary woes to the European Union and to the UK alike. Do not use referenda as a pretext to trample over rights acquired with great difficulty. Respect the sacrifice of many who died that Europe might be a place of unity rather than a chain of isolated supermarkets where every thirty years an Adolf Hitler may arise. Do not tamper with the tools of democracy to attack principles much higher than democracy, and without which democracy is devoid of ethical meaning.

It is not a coincidence that, for Plato, the kings should be philosophers, the word "king" being used generically for any political leader, and "philosopher" applying to anyone who seeks wisdom and any fair distinction between what is right and wrong. For clearly, the actions of political leaders will affect the lives of many, and he who does not know with absolute certainty what is right and wrong should either not enter politics and risk bringing countless woes upon the lives of many, or at least approach any political decision with the greatest possible modesty, since the true effect of his acts and laws will be only visible years later: when the enthusiasm of heated debates and ephemeral passions has ceased, people will still be suffering the consequences. It is better, thus, to think carefully before voting too quickly for this or that law. In this spirit, I hope you will encourage a serene reflection in your party about immigration and the ethical meaning of the free movement of people both in the European Union and as a general principle. I agree with Plato that the good leader is he who can interweave the different elements of a state or party into a harmonious fabric by friendship and community of sentiment into a common life. I hope with all my heart that your leadership may build a friendship worthy of the human family.

Yours sincerely,

Gregory Name


Antwort aus dem Bundespräsidialamt
---------------------------------------

[ http://greg-ory.org/letter.html ]


Sehr geehrter Herr Solz,

der Bundespräsident hat mich gebeten, Ihnen für Ihr Schreiben vom 2. Mai zu danken und Ihnen zu antworten.

Sie machen darauf aufmerksam, dass Kunst und Kultur für die moderne Gesellschaft äußerst wichtig sind und fordern eine staatliche Unterstützung für in finanzieller Not lebende Künstler. Es gibt in der Tat eine Vielzahl von Bildenden Künstlern, Musikern und Schriftstellern, die finanziell kaum über die Runden kommen und denen die Altersarmut droht. Dass sich einzelne von ihnen von den Sozialbehörden ungerecht behandelt fühlen, wurde mir von vielen Künstlern und Schriftstellern, mit denen ich zu tun habe, auch mehrfach geschildert. Hier ist grundsätzlich ein Umdenken erforderlich, wie Sie auch in Ihrem Brief formuliert haben.

In den letzten Jahren konnte einer Vielzahl von in Not geratenen Künstlern und Schriftstellern seitens des Staates bereits geholfen werden. In diesem Zusammenhang möchte ich Sie auf die Deutsche Künstlerhilfe des Bundespräsidenten aufmerksam machen, die 1953/54 von Bundespräsident Theodor Heuss ins Leben gerufen wurde. Die Stiftung wird von dem jeweils amtierenden Bundespräsidenten treuhänderisch verwaltet. Ihr stehen jährlich 3,3 Millionen Euro an Mitteln zur Verfügung.

Im Übrigen verfügen einige Kultusministerien der Länder ebenfalls über Haushaltsmittel, die ausschließlich für in Not geratene Künstler bereitgestellt und in Form eines Ehrensolds ausgezahlt werden.

Die Förderung von Kunst und Kultur liegt Bundespräsident Frank-Walter Steinmeier sehr am Herzen. Wie hat er es neulich so treffend formuliert: "Kunst lässt uns begreifen, was uns ergreift".

Ich wünsche Ihnen alles Gute und verbleibe

mit freundlichen Grüßen

Im Auftrag

Petra Hoffmann


Random Extract
------------------------------

Mandem calar ao Cariri de vida sedenta,
onde o gado cai pelo chão, o nome dos fortes
homens que, passeando rente a margens distantes,
decidiram: Joga fora esse mar! E jogaram.
Foi secando, coitado, secando embora e morrendo.
Graças a Deus, partiu num paciente silêncio:
Teve a bondade, vejam, de abafar a própria agonia
sem chamar atenção de ninguém. Talvez um desejo
derradeiro as águas deixem. Apaguem dos mapas,
por compaixão, o nome velho do mar e deserto.
Já não faz sentido qualquer azul cartográfico,
só lhe cabe um doloroso amarelo – um vazio.
Pede apenas morra sozinho, longe a memória.
Mas a criança não conhece as dores dum mapa.
Dizem que ali, na margem seca, brincava Bobur e
construía castelos de areia junto aos amigos.
Eram fortalezas – resistentes às ondas
como às altas marés. Ao fim de algum esforço,
lá esperavam vir as vagas, cercando castelos:
Quais resistiriam? Fora imensa façanha o
ver baixar marés e ver castelos intactos,
pouco dano. Aos engenheiros dava-se prêmios e
muita inveja rondava as vitoriosas proezas.
Um dos mais famosos, Bobur excedia em perícia.
Tinha uma técnica nova, prensando areia molhada
quanto possível, dando gênese a massas compactas.
Certas vezes, o afã de construções hiperbólicas
quase causava inimizades. Bobur se lançava
contra rivais e vice-versa. Dessas batalhas
foi surgindo a mal chamada guerra dos bagos.
Eram refregas diárias, e começaram aos poucos.
Diz a versão majoritária que o próprio Bobur,
fora de si, lançou bolotas fartas de areia
contra algum atrevido, dizendo: "Batata na cara!"
Como não? O punido lançara o pé num castelo e
não ficou sem resposta tamanho gesto de guerra.
Cada qual tomou partido e formaram-se exércitos.
Ora, Bobur, nas palingenesias da glória,
fez-se o líder de jovens gravemente sedentos,
ávidos todos de corajosos feitos – heroicos.

© Poemas de Guerra, II, Prosação: [ http://greg-ory.org/poemasdeguerra.html ]


Current Works
------------------------------

© Beauté de l'Amour:
Literary essay; complete

© Emily and the Hermit:
Dialectic prose; in progress


Announcements
------------------------------

An Introduction to The Carolingian series of books

New Title: "An Essay on Existence" - Ontology and Metaphysics

[ http://greg-ory.org/archive.html ]


The Internet has brought us the benefit of easier forms of communication, but one of the effects of mass communication is the lack of focus and clarity. Where all contents are mingled together, it becomes difficult for any particular content to stand out and reach its target public. Yet is the Internet really getting in the way?

Until recently, it went without saying that there must be an intermediary between the writer and the reader: the publisher. This notion went unchallenged since the late Middle Ages when the modern book was invented, and probably rightly so, since any thought needed this printed medium to be communicated and not every thinker and writer had his or her own printing house and the means to finance the edition, printing and distribution of a book. This required a craft of its own, and thus the publisher arose.

When the levels of literacy in the world were low, the demand in the publishing/printing market was clearer and manageable. Yet slowly, publishing houses became overburdened with demand. At such a time, this trade had already established itself as a proper business and, obviously, prioritised only the submissions which promised the greatest sale. It transformed literature into a business model. Writers were encouraged to approach their work as a businessman pursuing his career. To crown the trade, literature was finally divided into commercial genres like the departments of a company: crime, fantasy, historic novel, science fiction etc. Conversely, readers were conditioned to expect this kind of genrified writings in the shelves of book stores.

It is not a coincidence that hardly an author from this commercial setting won a Nobel Prize, for which I still have great regard. Derek Walcott, Thomas Mann, Samuel Beckett, Pablo Neruda, Albert Camus, Ernest Hemingway, Bertrand Russell, Thomas Eliot, William Yeats, none of these wrote in pre-conceived genres to please the ambitions of a publisher, because a true writer writes out of ambitions higher and nobler than money. It becomes evident, therefore, that publishers and the new branch of agents, far from rendering any valuable service to literature, are playing a rather illiberal role: They take advantage of their privileged position as intermediaries between writers and readers to alienate the literary production by unbearable commercial requirements and, at the same time, to alienate the taste of readers by a disproportionate supply of doubtful writings.

The advent of the Internet and new forms of communication made many believe for a while that, for the first time, it would be possible to break the spell of illiberality and vulgarity that the publishing business put over writers and readers. Direct contact, debate and interaction suddenly appeared possible and feasible. We saw the rise of websites as a potential haven for writers, as well as forums of discussion and other platforms. Ideally, writers would soon acquire their own domain and build their website, a free and unique place to share their writings with readers and explore a different dimension of interaction. A wide net of small but authentic literary pages, all interconnected, would lead to a new cultural effervescence. It would emancipate literature from the shackles imposed by commercial interests. Yet by 2010 it was clear that the whole project of the Internet was being engulfed by social media. The trend became only worse and has now stifled most of the creative potential online. Instead of a wide net of free, small and authentic websites, we see almost everybody quickly opening an account at the same social network and spending their days in trifling pursuits. Only a few learnt HTML and acquired the tools to take the progress of the Internet, this huge and beautiful project, in their own hands. Most let themselves be carried away.

Thus we reached a point where, despite all hopes, little is left for writers who still look for serious ways of interaction online. Their spaces are losing traffic for networks like Instagram, Facebook and Twitter, where pictures and numbers take precedence over debate. Independent thinkers are struggling to find any resonance. At this moment, I can hardly think of any strategy that would enable writers to find a public online and provide a freer interaction beyond the petty and pernicious ambitions of commercial publishers and alienating networks. Yet whether the Internet be a disaster for critical debate is a difficult thing to say. Without such a medium, the very interaction of this circular letter, however discreet and unnoticed, would not be taking place, and a discreet interaction is still better than none.

I have great respect for publishing houses as for any useful organisation. It would be foolish not to acknowledge their contribution for the written transmission of many a classic. I am not stating that a publishing house is less worthy of respect on account of not having won a Nobel Prize. I have just presented a non-exhaustive list of most deservingly Nobel-awarded writers who were all published by established houses. My point is that none of them wrote in any of these doubtful genres which fill most of contemporary bookshops. I do have misgivings about publishing houses that appear to encourage the massive production of these genres (so-called) for commercial purposes. I condemn this attitude. I affirm that it is below the standard of the uncompromising freedom of creativity that true, good and beautiful literature requires as does any other art. It is a technocratic behaviour that leads to alienation both of readers and of authors. In my perception, this is a major problem in the current publishing world.

The times where I indulged in inflammatory rhetoric are now behind me, not much because of my age but because I read and pondered over Plato's Gorgias more than once. I agree that most of the work of so-called self-publishers is deplorable. In a world where every third person deems himself or herself a writer and wants to publish something, it is difficult to distinguish what is good and bad and, if Plato is right in Euthydemos, in any trade or art you consider, most people are mediocre, the truly good ones are only a few. Regarding literature, I am not convinced that contemporary publishing houses have enough aesthetic authority and refinement to single out the best writers, since too many commercial criteria play a role in their decisions, unless you rank books like Harry Potter, Fifty Shades of Grey and many other best-sellers as literarily refined. Even from those with enough discernment it would be naive to expect that, receiving thousands of manuscripts in a short period of time, they were able always to make the best possible decision, overloaded with work as they are. It would be unreasonable to expect that any conscientious writer, whether published or not, should expose his or her work to the slush pile of a money-driven publishing house. Note that the expression "slush pile" is not mine, it was coined by publishers themselves.

On the other hand, I am not convinced that the solution for this is for anyone who wrote whatever writings to resort to self-publishing. Yet it is important to distinguish different contexts: The reason why most self-publishers do a disservice to literature is not that they avoid publishing houses, but that they produce their work with a view to become rich and famous and not from a spirit truly enlightened about the noble cause that art and literature should always serve in order to be good and valuable both in aesthetical and in ethical terms. They regard literature as an end in itself or as a business model (which attitude they share by the way with publishing houses), while genuine art and literature serve a cause much higher than themselves, in my view at least. Sadly, publishing houses and self-publishers, other than being opposed to each other, have in fact too much in common: Both seek the cause of literature as a means of quick enrichment and applause. They are competing for the same goal, and this is the main reason why they reject each other. Both seek from literature what they should seek from the lottery.

A conscientious writer should neither approach any publishing house nor be his or her own commercial publisher. What I suggest is that they do what any respectable writer did originally: If you believe in art as a sacrifice for something higher than art, then you spend your means to produce copies of your work in a small number, which you will distribute free of charge among friends of the cause and the subject. This is how Plato and Aristotle circulated their writings. Plato did not place a dialogue like Republic on a shelf to try to bargain as someone who will let us read his books if we pay, but not if not. Success is not about turning literature into a doubtful contest of best-sellers. Rather, Plato made the sacrifice to pay for his manuscripts to be copied and carefully (and discreetly) circulated among a select group of people. He lost more money than he won, and this should be the spirit of anyone who believes what he has to share is true or good or beautiful. The payment is not money, but the intrinsic benefit of the work for the readers, which in return will benefit the author. This is an argument put forward at the end of Gorgias and which makes the usual business of publishing houses look like an imposture, although this is too harsh a word for a serene spirit to employ, and I am sure Plato does not have the last word in this debate.

The texts of the classics survived because in the Middle Ages monasteries sacrificed their means to acquire and reproduce copies of these texts. If the classics were to depend on businesses moved by a spirit of profit, they would not have survived. Why, the Church did not copy the classics in the hope that they would sell, but in the belief that they were good. Much later, when these texts gradually acquired the status of “classics”, publishing houses started selling editions thereof, possibly in the belief that the texts were good, but more probably because they knew that buying the “classics”, whoever they be, is a sign of status for many readers, so that there will always be a superficial demand for whatever be called “classic”. It is easy to sell and continue selling what is already branded as “classic.” Buying the “classics” becomes a fetish for a number of readers.

The modest disruption that the Internet has caused in the publishing business will have positive effects. It will help literature to become more emancipated from the commercial discretion of publishing houses. It is known that, until the Reformation, the priest was regarded as an intermediary between man and God, and indispensable in his office. I hope that literature will be emancipated from an element that, for far too long, has been trying to impose itself as an intermediary, a priest between the writer and the world. There has to be a movement of literary Emancipation. Free thinking cannot compromise with the needs of money-driven publishers. If you are looking for a means of enrichment, you do not approach literature, neither as a writer nor as a publisher. As a matter of principle, first you procure the means to support your life elsewhere, in order for your art or patronage of art to be truly free from any commercial concern, as it should be. The Renaissance is full of inspiring examples: The true publisher is a patron; a person who can afford to lose money to support not what will sell but what is good, because losing money in this way is a noble loss, while the gain which is based on selling what is mediocre is a vulgar gain – and it is vulgar to be concerned, as a publisher, with the question as to whether or not a book that is good will also sell. A publisher who needs to be concerned about how he will finance the circulation of good books should not be a publisher; he should leave it to someone who can afford not to be concerned about such matters. A patron does not sell a book, he enables the book to be circulated in all circles that are appropriate to the book, regardless of quantity. Yes, the work of the true publisher is a kind of patronage, yet, at least in terms of money, true patronage is not a gain, but rather the most expensive sacrifice. This is the spirit in which publishers should approach literature.

Such is the aim of The Carolingian, both as my circular letters online and as my series of printed books. The title is a reference to the Carolingian Renaissance: At Charlemagne's time there was only a small circle of literati at the Emperor's court and very few literate people beyond the clergy. In this circle of literati, members circulated their writings among each other, which was the only way of cultivating literature at a time in which no wide readership could be expected. Yet the difficulty of finding an audience is faced by any truly independent thinker or any writer who does not write commercial main stream. For them, the Dark Ages will hardly come to an end and they will be always in need of a Carolingian Renaissance to leave a discreet and modest, yet lasting impact on a small audience.

The Carolingian is a series of circular books, which means, books that wander from reader to reader within a circle that begins and ends with the author. They belong to the author as their editor and are circulated free of charge. Readers will give it back to the author or pass it over to friends after perusal, who in their turn will give the circular book back to the author, who in his turn will make it circulate in another circle and so on. The Carolingian concept is also useful for the environment: It allows a small number of books to be printed and each copy to be perused by many different readers. Anyone can order a circular book from the author, who will post it free of charge. The reader must only pledge to return the book. This is not a practice that I am inventing. This is a genuinely Carolingian approach to the cultivation and circulation of literature. I do not regard the printing and circulation of these books as a publication, but simply as private presentation to and direct interaction with the public.

While the printed version of The Carolingian contains the books that I circulate privately, the online version is a newsletter that raises awareness about the work that is being circulated and is also available online. For this reason, The Carolingian is not proposing an elitist approach to literature: Although the printed books circulate within a select and private circle, online versions are available on my website for whoever wishes to peruse them, and whoever wishes can also order a printed version from anywhere in the world. I gladly repeat myself: The books are sent free of charge, because charging does not fit the spirit in which these books were written. If you truly believe in the intrinsic worth of what you write, you assume that the work will bring some kind of benefit to the world, from which you will profit yourself at last. Yet if on top of this you need to charge money as a reward for your work, then you are not really convinced of its intrinsic value. As we live in world pervaded with commercial sophistry, circulating a book free of charge does not mean that readers are bound to agree with your views simply because they did not pay. Yet even those who will disagree with or dislike the content of my writings (and there will be many) will acknowledge that, at least, they had no financial damage on top of their frustration; and that a conscientious thinker is under no moral obligation to write what will please the susceptibilities of those who are paying to be flattered and entertained. The moral contract between my readers and myself is not conditioned by money but only by true commitment to the cause of literature and knowledge as well as free and respectful debate.

The Carolingian approach is an attempt to find a third way, an ethical middle way between the commercial arbitrariness of publishing houses and the conspicuous greed of self-publishers. Under this and all the above premises, I am happy to announce that the first title of The Carolingian series of circular books has just appeared in a limited, private edition and is now open for orders from the public. "An Essay on Existence" is a literary enquiry on the concepts of being and existing, relation and isolation, causality and non-causality, which will appeal to readers interested in ontology and metaphysics. It also treats the problem of universals (so-called) with implications in theological and cosmological fields of study. It is composed of sections in prose and dialogue in alternating order (ca. 80 pages). Future titles include a lyric anthology and a philosophical dialogue on livelihood, as well as writings in Latin and other languages. Today, I also had the opportunity to present a major epic poem to the public, for which I thank God for the existence of the Internet.

Is the Internet getting in the way of our cultural life? I hope to able to show, with fortune's help, that a combined initiative of virtual and printed elements like The Carolingian can lead to a Carolingian Renaissance which will benefit the culture of our time both online and offline. It will not be in the foreground of social perception, as neither the actual Carolingian Renaissance was, but it will lay the foundations for greater things to arise as the actual Carolingian Renaissance did, hidden in the background and yet enough visible for all who look for depth and enlightenment, a steadfast beacon showing that, despite all confusion and fears of war, culture and erudition will remain, and the world will not go under.


T O T I L A
----------------------------------------------------

COMUNICO ao público por instrumento desta carta circular a obra épica Totila, a qual está disposta a público acesso para fins de leitura em meu domínio. Aos amigos da literatura e leitores afins a meus trabalhos, a quem mais uma vez agradeço o interesse, peço humildemente que acolham e façam chegar, a quem interessar possa, conhecimento e nota desta obra. Anexo a evocação de Apolo pela qual se inicia o poema.

Petersfield, 15 de setembro de 2017

[ http://greg-ory.org/totila.html ]


EVOCAÇÃO DE APOLO

Como devotos de Iemanjá lançando prenda ao mar depus no entardecer, Apolo, ofrenda de flores sobre a pedra cantando pelo prado um nome relembrado. Terás talvez de eternidades perdidas um olhar generoso sobre a sombra das vidas? Tutor de firmes, é somente um poema que dedico ao teu escudo maior, è dom menor que a beleza da flor e que a força das armas. Acede não por mim, mas pela dor de Roma que o verso recorda e que outrora te honrou.

Naveguemos, Febo, pelas ondas desta Internet, abominável bênção por onde, agitados, caçadores de moda e divisores de tempo vão flutuando vagos, intrigados no facebook e no twitter comentando a temperatura do vento. Comparam as fotos e as vidas alternando virtude e vilania pelos sítios, esquisita existência. É por esse deserto que um destino severo impôs viver e dividir o que somos, e desse palco improvável evoco, na flor e na voz e no html, a transcendência dum deus incompatível.

Eu, se puder pedir, pedirei, ò Febo, que a tua mão se abata pelo mundo como um raio escaldante, sol devorador que és, e destruas as redes e os cabos, como um martelo esmagues no ferro uma impostura exterminadora de letras e vida e verdade. Confunde, guerreiro insaciável, a pretensão dos distraídos: Atira os seus filhos contra a rocha!

Muitos quiseram prantear a desventura que canto e também pranteio tarde. Poema! Teu verso è tão velho que do olvido acaba sendo novo. É preciso evocar, Apolo, com toda a força do sopro e todo o peito o teu concurso: Não naufrague na indiferença dos brutos o esmero raro e digno de nota! É preciso muitas flores depor a teus pés a fim de que a boa sorte vença, se assim quiseres, a inveja de tantos deuses e dum destino destruidor de desígnios. Praza às tuas setas cruzando o peito de eleitos despertar amor ao belo, ao bom e ao vero. Ensina ao tolo que nada è velho nem novo, eterno ou não eterno apenas.

Feita a minha parte, Febo, faz a tua. Ordena à musa inebriar o sopro do bom coletor e destruir, na batalha do verso, a presunção de quem lê com pressa e má vontade. Tu que miraste, rei de guerras, o fundo das almas, prepara-me algum pequeno lugar no templo donde Platão com veredito aguarda, juiz implacável de Homero e do verso dos maus. Não ergui minha voz para cantar quimera e peço perdão se, nalgum momento em verso meu, a verdade soou porventura mais sonora do que ordena a gravidade. Redime, Apolo, a pequenez dum poema vahidoso e contudo ansioso da verdade. Ave, eleitor de fortíssimos, ave, desarmado desarmador de armadíssimos!

Eustácio de Sales

Totila: [ http://greg-ory.org/totila.html ]


From The Carolingian series
------------------------------

This month, The Carolingian series of books was officially launched. For a first introduction to the initiative
check [ http://greg-ory.org/archive.html ]

A new circular book from The Carolingian series, "An Essay on Existence", is now available in a limited edition and can be ordered
under [ http://greg-ory.org/carolingius.html ]


Updates
------------------------------

© Medea:
Hintergrund bearbeitet,
siehe
[ http://greg-ory.org/medea.html ]

© Retter der Republik:
einige Zeilen geändert,
siehe
[ http://greg-ory.org/retterderrepublik.html ]

© Richard Scharten:
erste Kapitel hochgeladen,
siehe
[ http://greg-ory.org/scharten.html ]

© Canto da Coruja:
alterados alguns versos
confira
[ http://greg-ory.org/cantodacoruja.html ]

© Poemas de Guerra:
alterados alguns versos
confira
[ http://greg-ory.org/poemasdeguerra.html ]

Relembre:
considerações sobre prosódia poética
no link
[ http://greg-ory.org/archive6.html ]


-----------------------------
What have I been listening to? Handel - Apollo und Daphne; Schumann - Kreisleriana; The Beatles - The White Album

What have I been reading? Plato - Philebus; Sallust - Bellum Iugurthinum; Jean-Paul Sartre - Morts sans Sépulture
------------------------------


Interview
------------------------------

>> Georg Solz und Georges Louis in einem Gespräch über Ästhetik, die Karolinger-Reihe und zeitgenössische Literatur <<

[ http://greg-ory.org/interview7.html ]


LOUIS: Herr Solz, man weiß nicht viel über Sie. Warum findet man keine Angaben über Ihre akademische Bildung?

SOLZ: Ich möchte nicht den Eindruck perpetuieren, dass literarisches Schreiben eine akademische Legitimierung benötigt. Thomas Mann hatte einen Realschulabschluss. Heute hat fast jede Vita einen Satz wie "hat dies und das studiert", als ob ein Germanistikstudium oder eine Promotion den besseren Schriftsteller machte.

LOUIS: Akademiker sollten also den Finger weg von Literatur lassen.

SOLZ: Das war bis Anfang des 20. Jh. Usus – eine Frage des Schamgefühls. Heute ist man lockerer, gewiss. Aber wer als Autor historisches Bewusstsein hat, sollte sich nicht zu sehr als Akademiker brüsten. Diskretion ist geboten.

LOUIS: Ist Ihre englische Anthologie Word and Dust eine Art Abrechnung mit der Modernität?

SOLZ: Keinesfalls. Ich bin ein Kind der Modernität, ich verdanke ihr meine Identität. Was ich kritisiere, ist eine gewisse Ideologisierung der Zeit und der Gegenwart. Wie jede Ästhetik ist die Ästhetik unserer Zeit bedenklich, und ich versuche zu zeigen, was daran bedenklich ist.

LOUIS: Zum Beispiel.

SOLZ: Zum Beispiel die Vorstellung, dass es zwischen dem Schönen und dem Vulgären keine Grenze gibt. Das Schöne kann durchaus alltäglich sein. Aber reines Unterhaltunsmaterial kann das Schöne nicht sein.

LOUIS: Also gehen Sie von der klassischen Dichotomie zwischen Kunst und Unterhaltung aus.

SOLZ: Ja und nein. Kunst darf unterhalten. Aber was unterhält, ist nicht unbedingt Kunst. Entscheidend ist immer der ästhetische Anspruch.

LOUIS: Dabei klingen manche Ihrer Verse sehr vulgär.

SOLZ: Sollen sie auch! Das ist eine Art Provokation, weil ich die Anspruchslosigkeit der Banalität ja gern vorführe und karikiere. Sie brauchen nur meine deutsche Elektra oder Medea zu lesen, um die Diskrepanz zwischen Sprachebenen zu erkennen. Aber die Diskrepanz ist auch ein Dialog, denn ästhetische Abschottung gegen den Zeitgeist ist keine Lösung. Was ich in ästhetischer Hinsicht nicht mag, ist nicht gleich wertlos, im Gegenteil, ich verwende es auch gern für Kontrasteffekte.

LOUIS: Sie haben ziemlich viel geschrieben. Wie gefällt Ihnen die Unterscheidung zwischen Autoren und Schriftstellern?

SOLZ: Sie wird immer schwammiger. Schriftsteller sind etabliert, leben von der Literatur und schreiben mit Niveau. Der Rest sind bloße Autoren. Das ist das klassische Verständnis. Ich bin ein Weder-Noch.

LOUIS: Sie geben ein Online-Zirkular heraus. Warum heißt es Der Karolinger?

SOLZ: Das ist eine Anspielung auf die Karolinger Renaissance. Zur Zeit Karls des Großen gab es keine Verlage. Es gab nur einen Kreis von Literaten am Kaiserhof, die ihre Schriften unter sich zirkulieren ließen. So wurde Literatur zu einer Zeit gepflegt, in der es keine Möglichkeit gab, eine breite Leserschaft zu finden. Das passt ja gut zu meinen Schriften, für die es nur eine kleine Leserschaft gibt. Wer keinen Mainstream schreibt, kann kein großes Publikum beeindrucken. Insofern lasse ich meine Schriften in einem kleinen Kreis zirkulieren.

LOUIS: Finden Sie das nicht elitär? Man könnte den Eindruck haben, Sie wollen die öffentliche Masse von Ihrer Kunst ausgrenzen.

SOLZ: Keinesfalls. All meine Werke sind im Netz frei zugänglich für jeden, der sie lesen will. Die Aufgabe des Karolingers ist ja zu zeigen, dass diese Werke überhaupt zugänglich sind. Neben des virtuellen gibt es aber auch den gedruckten Karolinger. Das muss man unterscheiden: Der virtuelle Karolinger macht auf Einzelarbeiten aufmerksam und berichtet über Neuigkeiten. Der gedruckte Karolinger ist eine Reihe ausgewählter Schriften, die ich in kleinen Mengen herausgebe und vorsichtig zirkulieren lasse. Das sind Zirkularbücher, oder Rundbücher.

LOUIS: Und das sind...

SOLZ: Bücher, die in einem kleinen Kreis von Leser zu Leser wandern. Sie gehören mir als Herausgeber und die Idee ist, wenn Sie mit dem Lesen fertig sind, geben Sie es einem Freund weiter oder mir zurück. Deswegen heißen sie Rundbücher. Sie wandern in einem Kreis, der mit mir beginnt und wieder bei mir endet. Glauben Sie mir, Herr Louis: Das schont auch die Umwelt!

LOUIS: Und wer kann diese Bücher lesen?

SOLZ: Jeder kann ein Zirklularbuch bei mir bestellen. Das wird per Post verschickt. Der Besteller muss sich nur verpflichten, das Buch zurückzuschicken oder mir durch andere Wege wieder zukommen zu lassen.

LOUIS: Also werden die Bücher nicht verkauft, weil sie zu Ihnen zurückkommen, und von Bestellern verlangen Sie auch keine Zahlung. Warum denn nicht?

SOLZ: Tja, wie soll ich das sagen? Das entspricht nicht dem Geist, in dem diese Schriften verfasst werden. Wenn Sie an den inneren Wert eines Werkes glauben, gehen Sie davon aus, dass solches Werk etwas Gutes in der Welt bewirken wird, von dem letzten Endes auch Sie selbst profitieren werden. Das ist ja schon mehr Bezahlung, Herr Louis! Wenn Sie aber zusätzlich Geld verlangen, dann sind Sie nicht wirklich vom inneren Wert des Werkes überzeugt. Ich wiederum bin nicht überzeugt von denen, die Literatur als Geschäftsmodell betrachten. Aber wahrscheinlich ist das nur Ansichtssache.

LOUIS: Herr Solz, Ihr Gedankengang erinnert mich stark an Plato, genauer gesagt an den Dialog Gorgias.

SOLZ: Ich weiß, ich habe auch meine Schwächen und Vorlieben. Niemand ist perfekt!

LOUIS: Und was ist der erste Titel, den Sie in der Karolinger-Reihe veröffentlichen?

SOLZ: Ich betrachte das nicht als Veröffentlichung, sondern nur als Vorstellung. Es ist ja wie gesagt nur für ein kleines Publikum gedacht und steht nicht zum Verkauf. Der erste Titel ist aber mein englischer Essay on Existence, eine literarische Arbeit über Ontologie.

LOUIS: Und wann erscheint denn der erste Titel auf Deutsch?

SOLZ: Hoffentlich bald, aber wenn Sie den Umfang der englischsprachigen Welt bedenken, werden Sie vielleicht verstehen, warum es Sinn macht, dass der erste Titel ein englischer ist. Ein deutschsprachiges Publikum zu finden ist viel schwieriger. Aber keine Sorge: Deutschsprachige Titel werden auch erscheinen. In due course, wie man im Englischen sagt.

LOUIS: Kann man Ihr Werk einem Genre zuweisen?

SOLZ: Niveau kennt kein Genre. Was ist denn Günther Grassens Genre? Welches Genre schreibt Herta Müller?

LOUIS: Aber haben Sie nicht den Eindruck, dass Verlage und Agenten eine Art Genrisierung der Literatur bewirken?

SOLZ: Das tun viele, weil es bequem ist. Es erleichtert die Arbeit. Aber die Literatur ist nicht da, um Verlagen und Agenten einen Gefallen zu tun.

LOUIS: Das klingt ziemlich harsch.

SOLZ: Das ist vielleicht kritisch, aber freundlich gemeint. Der Mensch ist ein unternehmensfreundliches Wesen, jawohl, und es ist schön, mit Literatur zu handeln. Aber es gibt ein gesundes Gleichgewicht zwischen ästhetischem Puritanismus und reiner Geldmacherei. Literatur soll nicht nur verkaufen. Sie soll auch schön sein.

LOUIS: Aber glauben Sie nicht, dass im Umgang mit Instanzen, die letzten Endes entscheiden, wer veröffentlicht wird, eine gewisse Diplomatie gehört? Nach dem Motto: Klein anfangen!

SOLZ: Man soll richtig anfangen! Entweder fängt man richtig an oder man fängt nicht wirklich an. Respekt ist immer wichtig, natürlich, aber Respekt existiert nur in einem Verhältnis unter Gleichen. Alles andere ist Duckmäuserei. Verstehen Sie, was ich meine? Man vollzieht den Schritt vom Bürgertum ins Künstlertum nicht, um als Ja-Sager zu leben. Kunst umfasst ja die Fähigkeit zu sagen, was nicht jeder hören will.

LOUIS: Sie haben gerade das Bürgertum erwähnt. Ist der Künstler etwa ein Revolutionär?

SOLZ: Nicht unbedingt. Kunst ist keine Ablehnung des Bürgertums. Sie ist aber ein Ausdruck der Freiheit. Wenn sich Autoren klischeehafte Verhaltensmuster aneignen, dann hat die Kunst ein Problem. Denken Sie an Autorenfotos, z.B. für einen Zeitungsartikel, Feuilletons etc. Was sieht man immer darauf? Ein junger Mann mit Lederjacke und zerfetzter Hose steht vor einer Grafitimauer. Soll das ein Ausdruck von Modernität sein?

LOUIS: Jedenfalls ist es schon weit vom Bürgertum entfernt.

SOLZ: Das weiß ich nicht. Wenn die Lederjacke schon teurer ist als ein Frack, dann sieht man sofort, wie präsent das Bürgertum ist.

LOUIS: Aber ist die Lederjacke vielleicht nicht ein Ausdruck von Innovation?

SOLZ: Innovation bringt etwas Neues zustande. Wenn man sich ein Verhaltensmuster aneignet, um sich nur der gängigen Cool-und-Geil-Mentalität anzupassen, was ist denn innovativ dabei?

LOUIS: Also doch lieber Frack tragen!

SOLZ: Man kann alles tragen, solange man nicht versucht, eine Künstleruniform durchzusetzen, wie es leider bei Autorenfotos so oft der Fall ist.

LOUIS: Auf Ihrer Seite liest man, dass Sie in social media nicht aktiv sind. Warum denn nicht?

SOLZ: Kunst zielt ja auf kulturelle Bereicherung und ästhetische Differenzierung. Social media bewirken genau das Gegenteil: kulturelle und ästhetische Nivellierung.

LOUIS: Glauben Sie aber nicht, Twitter oder Facebook könnten Ihnen als Schriftsteller helfen und Ihnen ein Publikum verschaffen?

SOLZ: Von Twitter und Facebook halte ich wenig. Ein Künstler kann nicht sagen: Ich trete Facebook bei, weil meine Freunde schon da sind. Das wäre eine Frivolität. Seine Freunde trifft man persönlich. Man kann sonst anrufen und Emails schreiben. Ich habe kein Bedürfnis, das gestrige Menü eines früheren Schulkameraden zu sehen. Meine Entscheidung hängt vor allem mit der Natur meiner Tätigkeit zusammen. Ein Schriftsteller ist ein Künstler. Man erhebt nicht die Flagge der Originalität, um zugleich Mitläufer zu werden.

LOUIS: In Ihren Schriften ist Musik fast allgegenwärtig. Spielen Sie ein Instrument?

SOLZ: Ja. Klavier! Aber nicht zu gut...

LOUIS: Was spielen Sie momentan?

SOLZ: Ich übe jetzt die Nocturnen Op. 48 Nr. 2 wie auch Op. 37 Nr. 1 von Chopin.


---------------------------------------
Greg Ory's atrium:
http://greg-ory.org/atrium.html

Nulla Dies Sine Linea:
http://greg-ory.org/nulladies.html

Important - Terms of Use:
http://greg-ory.org/termsofuse.html
---------------------------------------


Nota bene: The writer is not legally responsible for the content of external links.

Contact the writer:
Email: [ ad.gregorium@startmail.com ]
Index Operum: [ http://www.greg-ory/indoperum.html ]
About The Carolingian: [ http://greg-ory.org/carolingius.html ]

The Carolingian is Greg Ory's online and private circular letter. It is open for submissions concerning arts and literature in any language. The Carolingian encourages and gives preference to submissions in Latin.


© Greg Ory 2016 – 2017, The Carolingian, Edited by G. Solz at the Officium Carolingium, Flat 7, 18 High Street, Petersfield, Hampshire GU32 3JL, United Kingdom; e-mail carolingian@use.startmail.com