Mitul lui Sisif la bacterii

15 Responses to Mitul lui Sisif la bacterii

  1. Edi Constantinescu

    Intrebarea care s-ar pune ar fi daca dincolo de realitatea pipaibila si investigabila stiintific, realitatea care cade sub simturi, mai exista o realitate mai profunda la care nu avem acces cu instrumentele noastre de masura. Cineva facea o paralela cu un caine care priveste un sonet de Shakespeare. Pentru caine, dincolo de punctele negre si liniile negre de pe foaie din care sunt facute literele, sonetul nu mai inseamna nimic altceva. Intrebarea ar fi daca dincolo de aceste ”puncte” care in cazul nostru ar fi particulele elementare gen electron, proton, neutron, quarc etc, mai exista o alta semnificatie a realitatii care dpdv stiintific ne este inaccesibila. Si unii afirma ca aceasta semnificatie mai profunda ar fi accesibila pe calea revelatiei. Exista si oameni de stiinta care cred asta, unul dintre ei este Francis Collins, cel care a condus Proiectul genomului uman. Collins afirma in cartea sa ”Limbajul lui Dumnezeu”, ca evolutia APARE omului de stiinta (subliniez APARE) ca fiind un proces orb si neghidat, lipsit de finalitate, insa ca oameni credinciosi, spune el, putem crede ca dincolo de asta exista niste semnificatii la care nu putem ajunge cu mijloacele stiintei, ci doar ale revelatiei. Asta e o afirmatie care cred eu ca merita dezbatuta ca sa vedem ce implicatii ar avea daca ar fi adevarata. Dvs ce credeti?

  2. polihronu says:

    Mai intii, lamureste-ma si pe mine cum nu cade revelatia sub simturi.

  3. dysangeliumm says:

    insa ca oameni credinciosi, spune el, putem crede ca dincolo de asta exista niste semnificatii la care nu putem ajunge cu mijloacele stiintei, ci doar ale revelatiei. Asta e o afirmatie care cred eu ca merita dezbatuta ca sa vedem ce implicatii ar avea daca ar fi adevarata.

    cam astea ar fi implicatiile:

    To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with the natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am persuaded that such behaviour on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress.

  4. AV,

    Problema este ca noi cautam sub felinar ceasul pierdut pe partea cealalta (intunecata) a strazii. Dixit Wittgenstei: sensul lumii nu poate fi vazut decat din afara lumii.

    Ioan se sfasie in pustie
    de Lucian Blaga

    Unde esti, Elohim?
    Lumea din manile tale-a zburat
    ca porumbul lui Noe.
    Tu poate si astazi o mai astepti.

    Unde esti, Elohim?
    Umblam turburati si fara de voie,
    printre stihiile noptii te iscodim,
    sarutam in pulbere steaua de subt calcaie (atomul? N.N.)
    si-ntrebam de tine – Elohim!
    Vantul fara de somn il oprim
    si te-ncercam cu narile,
    Elohim!
    Animale straine prin spatii oprim
    si le-ntrebam de tine, Elohim!
    Pana in cele din urma margini privim,
    noi sfintii, noi apele,
    noi talharii, noi pietrele,
    drumul intoarcerii nu-l mai stim,
    Elohim, Elohim!

    Gandirea, martie 1926

  5. As adauga definitia zizekiana a crestinsmului: de la „anxietate la iubire”. „Si va voi arata o cale mai buna”.

  6. AV,

    Am fost in Nevada si am luat un cheap lunch in Las Vegas. Daca nu crezi ca H sapiens degenereaza urmareste videoul. Asculta Bach sau Beethoven. Injura-i pe americani, dar asta e lumea in care traim. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGXxkXkNuLE

  7. Amaranthine Sophia says:

    Am ascultat muzică și versuri în alta stare de conștiința și mi-am dat seama ca în viata de zi cu zi sunt acel câine. Cred ca așa trăiește arta un om excepțional. La nivel subiectiv trăim în lumi paralele. Dar nu ține de revelație ci de cât e de evoluat și complex organismul.

  8. Amaranthine Sophia says:

    Ma gândesc uneori la mitul lui Sisif, nu neapărat legat de Camus, și mă întreb ce ar presupune sa ma opresc, altceva în afara de sinucidere. Camus e pozitiv. Eu cred ca ce l motivează sa suporte durerea e existenta unei dureri mai mari dacă se oprește, reala sau imaginara.
    Eu în mitul lui Sisif am văzut munca inutila, repetitiva, fără progres, fără acumulare, fără scop, generație după generație. De aceea e necesar progresul, ca munca nostra sa nu fie sisifica. Dacă chinul și munca tuturor organismelor de pana acum a fost sau nu sisifica, depinde de noi.

  9. Amaranthine Sophia says:

    Viata noastră individuala nu are alt scop decât cel dat de noi. Pana acum totul ne arata ca universul nu are niciun sens dar avem potențialul de a-i da noi unul dacă evoluam și-l cucerim. Un organism modificat genetic cu un anumit scop.. are un scop. Ca potențial suntem demiurgi. Dar existenta scopului presupune pierderea libertății. Suntem binecuvântați cu o lipsa de sens și rol, dar noi cautam planul lui d-zeu pt noi. Adevărul e ca dacă tu nu ai un plan pt viata ta, vei deveni parte din planul altuia. Cauți planul lui Dumnezeu? Se va găsi un binevoitor sa ți-l livreze, asa cum i-a fost livrat bolovanul lui Sisif.

  10. It is during that return, that pause, that Sisyphus interests me. A face that toils so close to stones is already stone itself! I see that man going back down with a heavy yet measured step toward the torment of which he will never know the end. That hour like a breathing-space which returns as surely as his suffering, that is the hour of consciousness. At each of those moments when he leaves the heights and gradually sinks toward the lairs of the gods, he is superior to his fate. He is stronger than his rock.

    If this myth is tragic, that is because its hero is conscious. Where would his torture be, indeed, if at every step the hope of succeeding upheld him? The workman of today works everyday in his life at the same tasks, and his fate is no less absurd. But it is tragic only at the rare moments when it becomes conscious. Sisyphus, proletarian of the gods, powerless and rebellious, knows the whole extent of his wretched condition: it is what he thinks of during his descent. The lucidity that was to constitute his torture at the same time crowns his victory. There is no fate that can not be surmounted by scorn.

    If the descent is thus sometimes performed in sorrow, it can also take place in joy. This word is not too much. Again I fancy Sisyphus returning toward his rock, and the sorrow was in the beginning. When the images of earth cling too tightly to memory, when the call of happiness becomes too insistent, it happens that melancholy arises in man’s heart: this is the rock’s victory, this is the rock itself. The boundless grief is too heavy to bear. These are our nights of Gethsemane. But crushing truths perish from being acknowledged. Thus, Edipus at the outset obeys fate without knowing it. But from the moment he knows, his tragedy begins. Yet at the same moment, blind and desperate, he realizes that the only bond linking him to the world is the cool hand of a girl. Then a tremendous remark rings out: „Despite so many ordeals, my advanced age and the nobility of my soul make me conclude that all is well.” Sophocles’ Edipus, like Dostoevsky’s Kirilov, thus gives the recipe for the absurd victory. Ancient wisdom confirms modern heroism.

    One does not discover the absurd without being tempted to write a manual of happiness. „What!–by such narrow ways–?” There is but one world, however. Happiness and the absurd are two sons of the same earth. They are inseparable. It would be a mistake to say that happiness necessarily springs from the absurd. Discovery. It happens as well that the felling of the absurd springs from happiness. „I conclude that all is well,” says Edipus, and that remark is sacred. It echoes in the wild and limited universe of man. It teaches that all is not, has not been, exhausted. It drives out of this world a god who had come into it with dissatisfaction and a preference for futile suffering. It makes of fate a human matter, which must be settled among men.

    All Sisyphus’ silent joy is contained therein. His fate belongs to him. His rock is a thing. Likewise, the absurd man, when he contemplates his torment, silences all the idols. In the universe suddenly restored to its silence, the myriad wondering little voices of the earth rise up. Unconscious, secret calls, invitations from all the faces, they are the necessary reverse and price of victory. There is no sun without shadow, and it is essential to know the night. The absurd man says yes and his efforts will henceforth be unceasing. If there is a personal fate, there is no higher destiny, or at least there is, but one which he concludes is inevitable and despicable. For the rest, he knows himself to be the master of his days. At that subtle moment when man glances backward over his life, Sisyphus returning toward his rock, in that slight pivoting he contemplates that series of unrelated actions which become his fate, created by him, combined under his memory’s eye and soon sealed by his death. Thus, convinced of the wholly human origin of all that is human, a blind man eager to see who knows that the night has no end, he is still on the go. The rock is still rolling.

    I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds one’s burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

    Camus.

  11. dysangeliumm says:

    Astfel, încredinţat de originea pe deplin omenească a tot ce-i omenesc,

  12. Literature and art have long depicted God as a stern and elderly white man, but do people actually see Him this way? We use reverse correlation to understand how a representative sample of American Christians visualize the face of God, which we argue is indicative of how believers think about God’s mind. In contrast to historical depictions, Americans generally see God as young, Caucasian, and loving, but perceptions vary by believers’ political ideology and physical appearance. Liberals see God as relatively more feminine, more African American, and more loving than conservatives, who see God as older, more intelligent, and more powerful. All participants see God as similar to themselves on attractiveness, age, and, to a lesser extent, race. These differences are consistent with past research showing that people’s views of God are shaped by their group-based motivations and cognitive biases. Our results also speak to the broad scope of religious differences: even people of the same nationality and the same faith appear to think differently about God’s appearance.

  13. dysangeliumm says:

    ..Trump began speaking, not for the first time, about his desire to make a profit from the deployment of American soldiers.

    astai priceless

Lasă un răspuns:

Te rog autentifică-te folosind una dintre aceste metode pentru a publica un comentariu:

Logo WordPress.com

Comentezi folosind contul tău WordPress.com. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Fotografie Google

Comentezi folosind contul tău Google. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Poză Twitter

Comentezi folosind contul tău Twitter. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Fotografie Facebook

Comentezi folosind contul tău Facebook. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Conectare la %s

Acest site folosește Akismet pentru a reduce spamul. Află cum sunt procesate datele comentariilor tale.

%d blogeri au apreciat: