Note

Several thoughts actually hinder me from thinking and writing as it should be, perhaps in particular because my reading habits have significantly decreased; this is no troubling matter for I am distancing myself and acquiring a vantage point that eventually allows me to ask entirely human questions, questions of understanding instead of theoretical problem-solving hints. This greatly differs from what I had considered philosophy to be in those days when I dwelled under the pine tree in the company of Giorgia - my first teacher. I believe our way of arriving at this "understanding" no longer matches but it is her to whom I owe the life of the spirit.

I'm also but very vaguely philosophical because I'm alien to the system, yet unlike Nathan I do see a need to read systematically not in order to make statements or write "systems" but to have a rather comprehensive overview of a problem by means other than Logic. This is meant obviously in the formal sense, human questions are asked by different Logics and that is what I've learnt from Heller and Simmel. I insist on the model of the photograph which must be looked at from many diverse vantage points within and outside the universe but by no means from all of them; that would be a systematic overview which in turn would eliminate the radical freedom in the idea of the individuality; this nevertheless requires many different approaches and certainly extensive readings more than anything in political theory. It is always daunting that one finds the sources of inspiration in Kierkegaard altogether engaging in the Protestation that gave us Modernity and that indirectly was midwife to the technological imagination; the daunting part comes when (as I saw in a book recently) that the idea of the individuality (not in the political sense) is as old as the Western canon and that can therefore be pinpointed from the writings of Prophets, Greek poets and Roman statemen.

I would certainly like to agree with this entirely, but the truth is I haven't looked up into the matter. It seems to me the concept of individual is quintessential for the rise of the religious imagination and played a pivotal role on the development of thinking structures out of pre-rational narratives. This individual in any case couldn't have been too political, but it could have certainly contained a fiction that could be used as a lethal weapon against certain modes of criticism that follow the thread of the modern narrative; the rise of the individuality certainly doesn't come unaccompanied by some sources for freedom which basically rests on a relationship of tension. Freedom is certainly the necessary consequence of politics or at least the desirable consequence; but in turn cannot be made an end in itself because freedom as a whole lacks power to liberate at all. I really wanted to write something else, but it should suffice for now... I need to read. I just thought for a second that an early beginning implies an early end and yet when I'm not able to speak about this with a translation of personal experiences it haunts me.