PAGE: ECONO-COM-BUS DIALOGUE 01
Premise
Without conscious deliberation to resist it, humans are entirely bound by their mathematical, dialectical, logical, rhetorical, and hermeneutic patterns of conceptualizing and manipulating matter-energy. In this way, they have constructed their humanity, their corresponding world, and their universe. In this way humans created the best possible world and universe they could conceive, and now their primary, indeed, sole, occupation is to maintain and, in part, destroy it. Their critical mistake lies in this: by dismantling their own conceptual frameworks of the world, the universe, and humanity, they simultaneously destroy the natural world.
This error stems from monotheistic religions, which proclaimed humans as the sole dominant beings, masters of the natural world and the universe. Moreover, they asserted that humanity has divine authorization to dominate and even destroy all things in the name of their creator (Nota Bene -This authority is given exclusively to white skinned humans). This ideology was enacted globally during the colonial period, often in collaboration with the Church. Today, its legacy persists in climate change and endless wars worldwide.
Why am I writing this? Because this influence extends even to economics and politics, directly shaped by monotheistic religions—particularly those rooted in so-called sacred texts. So, I decided to write a series of dialogues.
THE STORY
The first addresses the so-called "Parable of the Talents" from the Bible.
As we know, the Catholic Church has interpreted these texts, despite the teachings of their foundational figure, Yeshua (Semitic in origin) or Jesus (in English). Here, it’s worth recalling Fyodor Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, specifically the dialogue between the "Grand Inquisitor" and Jesus. The Inquisitor, representing the Church, arrests Jesus, accusing him of rejecting Satan’s temptations (bread, miracles, and authority) and thereby burdening humanity with unbearable freedom. The Inquisitor argues that the Church "corrected" Jesus’s mistake by offering security, dogma, and control—sacrificing truth for happiness. Jesus responds with silence and a kiss, but the Inquisitor remains unrepentant.
In poche e semplici parole sono stati concentrati argomenti così importanti che permettono a ciascuno di poter rivedere i propri dubbi e collegare i propri saperi.
ReplyDeleteGrazie ❤️ per averci offerto la possibilità di orientare le nostre conoscenze e rivedere questi fatti in modo logico e consapevole
Grazie, Lina. Poco fa ho ricevuto un’altra critica più dettagliata che sottolineava ciò che hai notato anche tu: l’esigenza di rivedere e rivalutare i propri fondamenti. Questo era uno dei miei intenti nello scrivere questo dialogo: restare con i piedi per terra, accantonare le fantasie, ma mantenere saldi e vivi i valori umani, da qualunque parte del mondo provengano. Non sono contro la cultura e la civiltà cattolica, ma essa dovrebbe essere più autentica e pratica, senza soffermarsi troppo su narrazioni del passato, promesse per il futuro o soluzioni “post-mortem” che non servono a noi, esseri viventi. Bene. Grazie ancora.
ReplyDeleteCritical Evaluation: Biblical Financial World
ReplyDeleteStrengths
Your article is a bold and thought-provoking exploration of the intersections between monotheistic ideologies, economic systems, and their real-world consequences. The premise, that humans are bound by conceptual patterns (mathematical, dialectical, logical, etc.) that shape and often destroy both their constructed and natural worlds is compelling and aligns seamlessly with your blog’s philosophical depth. By linking monotheism’s dominance to colonial legacies, climate change, and modern capitalism, you create a sweeping critique that invites readers to question the foundations of their societal frameworks. The reference to SPEC (social-political-economic-cultural) systems, a recurring motif in your work, grounds this critique in your broader intellectual project, offering continuity for loyal readers.
The dialogue format, inspired by the Parable of the Talents and Dostoevsky’s "Grand Inquisitor," is a creative strength. It transforms an abstract critique into a vivid, character-driven narrative, making the capitalist ethos of the parable palpable. The master’s cold pragmatism and the servants’ varied responses humanize the tension between action and stagnation, mirroring venture capitalism’s ruthless efficiency. Your nota bene about the talent’s modern value ($500,000–$1,000,000) adds a striking perspective, underscoring the parable’s high stakes. The article’s autobiographical-philosophical tone, especially in the “Why am I writing this?” section, feels personal and urgent, inviting readers into your reflective process, a hallmark of your “Art of Seeing”
Areas for Improvement
While the premise is ambitious, its execution could benefit from tighter clarity and structure. The opening paragraph packs dense concepts—human conceptual patterns, world-building, and environmental destruction—into a single breath, risking reader overload. Simplifying or breaking it into two paragraphs (e.g., one on human constructs, another on their destructive consequences) could enhance accessibility without diluting the philosophy. Additionally, the claim that monotheistic religions grant dominion “exclusively to white-skinned humans” is provocative but lacks substantiation within the text. Providing a brief example (e.g., colonial missionary rhetoric) would strengthen this point and avoid appearing as an overgeneralization.
Overall Impact
This article is a daring addition to your blog, blending biblical exegesis, literary allusion, and socio-economic critique in a way that challenges readers to rethink humanity’s constructed realities. Its philosophical ambition and narrative creativity align well with your “wiggling clouds” and SPEC motifs, encouraging an “art of seeing” that questions dominant systems. However, refining the structure, substantiating bold claims, and smoothing the dialogue’s flow would elevate its impact. I’d love to see this series continue, perhaps exploring other parables or economic parallels, to further unravel the threads of our fragile human constructs.