Fabrizio Ulivieri - TrendSetter

This is a question Aristotle asked himself. It is clear that Aristotle also recognised the possibility that the dead are in some way affected by what happens to their loved ones among the living. If Aristotle remains ambiguous on this point and does not give a clear answer, Dante Alighieri shows how this connection is very much alive. Let us consider the episode of Cavalcante de’ Cavalcanti in Inferno X, 61–72, where one can clearly see how the fate of the son influences the happiness of the father: E io a lui: «Da me stesso non vegno: colui ch’attende là, per qui mi mena forse cui Guido vostro ebbe a disdegno». And I to him: “I come not of myself: he who waits yonder leads me through this place, perhaps the one whom your Guido held in scorn.” Le sue parole e ’l modo de la pena m’avean di costui già letto il nome; però fu la risposta così piena. His words and the manner of his punishment had already revealed to me his name; therefore my answer was so complete. Di subito drizza...

  Sento che già non appartengo  Più al mondo - solo nella rabbia A lui ancor mi vendo - per il resto Come se non fossi. Tutti i volti Del mio viaggio lungo non sono qua e lontano a un dove senza Luogo trasparente mi consegno E a qualche ultimo istinto d'uomo Per dire "Ehi! Ancora sono. Vivo!" Li ho persi tutti quelli in cui credevo Solo ombre nomi e memorie vacillano Attorno in una folla indistinta vanno Come sudicio maleodorante, porto Loro nel naso nella pelle e fra le gambe Nelle mani nei capelli e nel corpo ovunque. Se Dio non fosse, sarebbe grande L'inganno e disperazione un gorgo senza segni che notte ovunque spande.

  Dell'Italia non ricordo che nulla. Qui in un paese straniero vivo Sepolto e di sole e luce privo. Ma una piccola grazia di stato L'alto suo cielo ha regalato. ---------- Dio quando impone un peso, dà anche la forza per portarlo. Qui è la grazia di stato che unisce, sostiene e si fa sorgente indefettibile nella fatica quotidiana.

  The most accurate definition of what an I is can be found in Richard of St. Victor: Dicatur itaque a Daniele Danielitas, sicut ab homine humanitas. Danielitas itaque intelligatur illa substantialitas, vel, si magis placet, illa subsistentia ex qua Daniel esse habet illa substantia quae ipse est et quam participare non potest aliqua alia. Humanitas itaque, sicut corporalitas, est multis communis. Danielitas vero omnino incommunicabilis. Richardus a S. Victore, De Trinitate II, c. 12 “Therefore, let ‘Danielity’ be named from Daniel, just as ‘humanity’ is named from a human being. Accordingly, ‘Danielity’ should be understood as that substantiality — or, if one prefers, that subsistence — by which Daniel has being: that very substance which he himself is and which no other can share. ‘Humanity,’ however, like ‘corporeality,’ is common to many; but ‘Danielity’ is entirely incommunicable.” The individual is constituted by a subsistentia that gives him that substance which he himself i...

  This is perhaps the most profound description of the Heraclitean Logos: अनिरोधमनुत्पादमनुच्छेदमशाश्वतम्। अनेकार्थमनानार्थमनागममनिर्गमम्॥ anirodham anutpādam anucchedam aśāśvatam anekārtham anānārtham anāgamam anirgamaṁ (Nāgārjuna, Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 1.1) अशाश्वतम् (aśāśvatam) — “not eternal”: not because it is merely temporal, but because it makes itself intelligible through its presence within human time. Neither perishing nor arising in time; neither terminable nor eternal; neither self-identical nor changing in form; neither coming nor going. (Sprung’s translation) It is nothing more than a σύλληψις -  a seizing, grasping, or apprehension - which not everyone can develop into genuine knowledge. Within this σύλληψις , the Logos is always turned towards individuals; yet only some individuals are turned towards the Logos.

The person who thinks stands at a crossroads: either to become a new Zarathustra or to dissolve into uncertainty. To become a new Zarathustra, one must learn to listen to the Logos, to the Excess — that from which everything arises, yet which only very few are able to perceive. This occurs through the alignment of one’s inner disposition with the awareness of that Excess which speaks to us. All of this takes place within the history of the human being. By dwelling in his homeland, a person grows together with it, because he has grown out of it. This can be clearly perceived in people’s posture and bodily gestures when comparing Lithuanians with other peoples (for example, Italians). The history of the homeland comes alive within the person in all its fullness. To dwell in one’s homeland means to dwell within its history. In the city of men, history separates people; whereas in the city of God, the Excess speaks equally to everyone. Sensory experience turns toward the horizon of history...