How To Paint A Porcelain Statue

How did Machiavelli

I would publish an article on our blog Christopher Montt-great friend," about the origin of sociology from a fresh perspective ... It's .. jajajaj Very good.
This article was published in www.le-Montt-diplomatique.blogspot.com blog this unusual individual.
Montt Greetings!

José Miguel
-------------- -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- --------------------

As sociology was born

We have been deceived for years telling us that a certain Auguste Comte was the first to coin the term sociology is more, this type, located in the highest echelon of all sciences coincidence? Or rather, what a marketing strategy?

In remote at all times, there was a small number of careers, medicine, law, architecture, engineering, etc. All these were not the interests of all people, ie not meet the total demand. There were other people who were not able or simply had no interest in these disciplines, or rejected them straight, some perhaps for bourgeois or other reasons and are thus excluded from the university system.

During the above disciplines, someone came up to propose that students should have a development "integral" and born of additional training courses, or elective or whatever they are told. With the above appeared anthropological foundations courses such as medicine, science epistemology, philosophy of law, urban development, qualitative methodology, etc. these classes were a sort of bonus, the bouquet poop, the impossible to lie down, for which nobody was studying and still approve. Ahi

early twentieth century by a guy came up that could create a career from these electives, which could coapts those who were outside the college selection both capacity and self-interest, seeking to integrate the "resignation dollar. " [1] , the academic world. Thus was born the sociology, ideal for students scattered, some hippientos, with backpacks instead of the most comfortable backpacks, potentially revolutionary entrepreneurs, vegan, deserters of law, etc.
But then the idea out of hand, these individuals wanted to do science, to find regularities, explain the world social. Those responsible for this have been forced to add branches of mathematics, statistics, among others, could now pretend to be scientific.

Over time, the graduates began to gain legitimacy, and some, today, are interviewed in the media even more prepared by the reporters. Needless to say, which is always a "pleasure" to see when sociologists appear on TV, especially Pablo Huneuss when he was talking about the ghosts of the reality show "The Farm", a great contribution, or Humberto Lagos, "expert" on cults , and useful data rosa para identificar a los neonazis, “generalmente llevan una svástica”, envidiable capacidad de percepción.


[1] HICKS, Bill, Bill Hicks on marketing, en http://www.youtube. com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo

Houses That Are Half Brick

Sociology and Politics conference

En una de las entrevistas que He nry Kissinger brindó a la revista The New Republic , se le preguntó, después de oírle hablar sobre los consejos the President, if he considered himself a "Machiavellians." Kissinger does not hide his annoyance he answers, "no, no way." The reporter, puzzled, asks, "but, at least, have you received any influence of the Italian diplomat, Kissinger's insistence, answered emphatically," Absolutely not. "

Why Kissinger rejected with explicit as it defined as "Machiavellian"? or asking more broadly, why be termed a "Machiavellian" in politics is so negative? the answer is clear, but no right-"Machiavelli is the representative of the policy that seeks power as an end in itself without worrying about the media" or "Machiavelli believes the end justifies the means, it is the policy without project, no morals, no values \u200b\u200bor ethics. "

No doubt any politician would like to scream pragmatic n out of ideas, but is Machiavelli who is to blame for such ideas? The answer is negative.

Now do not just want to make certain defenses to Machiavelli (an issue already made by many authors), but I want to raise what for me is the most significant contribution to the policy of Machiavelli.

As stated Mauricio Virolli (in "Maquiavelli and Republicanism") is not lower than in the text where Machiavelli makes the couple advice Prince to stay in power (root from which Machiavelli subsequently attack that frees the author to the politics of morality), Machiavelli never used the word "political" to define actions. From this perspective, the concept of "political" Machiavelli would have to look elsewhere. It is here that republicanism suggests that the most suitable place to find the fundamental features of politics in Machiavelli so n "Discourses of the First time of Tito Livio." The foundations of Machiavelli is closer to the political vision of the ancient Romans, and who emphasize politics and life in the Republic , life in the free cities, where civic virtue is developed and lives According to law, and not arbitrary actions of despots.

policy Machiavelli refers to freedom, I the latter as the desire not to be mastered, no dependencies and arbitrary interference by subjects of power, and therefore, raising the inability of the political and despotic governments that prevent citizens to establish ties and linkages built only master-subject, which prevent the development of freedom.

This view of Machiavelli as a republican author, who, as son of the Renaissance, presents a categorization of the political as own republics and focused on the broad freedom to create a citizenry devoid of domination by foreign bodies to Republic is clearly novel breaks with the traditional pragmatic Machiavellian and amoral. On the contrary, the author shows how a policy that links and values \u200b\u200bsuch as liberty, fraternity ( Republic is perpetuated only in fraternity, hence the value of citizenship) and no domination.

While this is correct, we can not say that such ideas are unique Machiavellian thinking. In some Thus, such proposals, and Machiavelli himself acknowledges, comes from ancient Rome and its cities, and going back further back, come from Aristotle and his own idea as a space policy that seeks the common good through citizen consensus ( clear in his day were not all citizens, without a minority, but the important thing is that it did emphasize the common good and the consensus among the citizens of damage City).

Where to find the breaking point of Machiavelli? Where do you see any "epistemological break", to paraphrase Althusser-? Where Machiavelli not only gives new answer to old questions, but new questions to old problems? In short, where Machiavelli makes an "exodus" of the consensus at that time?

The issue is complex, and much has been said about . Giovanni Sartori (in " Policy"), and with it much of Science current Policy, argues that Machiavelli is the first to find a new object of study, to lay the foundations or pillars a new science, the science of politics. The reasoning is not at all superficial. If Machiavelli manages to remove the power of his frame religious, moral, finally, metaphysical, and see the power as such, naked, there is no reason not to reject the assumption that what has been discovered is an object hidden under study metaphysics, and see, at a time, those justifications of power in, for example, ideas "emanating from God" as an act so natural and human as power and keep looking. If correct this, what has been now a new problem, which generates an own language, its own set of concepts that they can understand. Machiavelli has built an epistemic framework, has broken with his present you.

But this is only correct to some extent, seen in Machiavelli's new, but I think their response is inadequate. When analyzing Machiavelli as the founder of a new rationality, a new object, it is within view of Machiavelli as the father of the "Reason of State" is, like the one managed to get the power of any moral roots. is seen elo Machiavelli as the founder of a science that justifies the actions of the state according to their power and not metaphysical, which monitors the state as an entity separate from civil society, institutional set requires a new set of ideas for consideration. Political science, with Machiavelli as a "founding father" would be to study the state of its development, its logic, behavior, oblivious to the logic of "civil society" (object of sociology), material production (or URPOSE independent of the economy) and normative values \u200b\u200b(now the subject of philosophy). These "Uses of Machiavelli" (as Portantiero then write about the uses of Gramsci) reduce this author to state defense counsel sa c unitary object, reified, and independent and have their symptoms in the current use in subdiscplina of Science Policy, International Relations, Machiavelli is one of the fathers of realism, which sees as the only subject on the international scene these objects unit with its particular logic, States.

Where do we fit into this view of Machiavelli, his conception of "virtue", the reasons why the failure of C analyzed Esar Borgia, and his vision Fortune ? I believe that, in fact, Machiavelli is one of the founding fathers of the policy, but a very different political categorized by Sartori, and also a policy that goes beyond his republican normative basis ( search of freedom, subject to the frames of the Republic , etc.). Machiavelli allows us to analyze the correlations of unspecified forces, contingency as an area subject to the clash of wills, where there is no Newtonian law, but given the chaos prigogiano (if it is physical), where the social sphere and is not come from heaven or less natural, but a clash, subject to the organizational capacity of wills (do not we are fast approaching the Gramscian vision of the modern prince?).

In Machiavelli's fortune, as the contingency lose its sacredness, untouchable. Power no longer is associated with divine values, immutable and therefore non-human action. Machiavelli admired Cesare Borgia not because their ideas of the world, but by his way of dealing with contingency, particularly as related co No power, not as a private institution subject to unearthly values, but rather, as a field of conflict, subject to the particular ways in which we organize our will. Policy goes from heaven to earth, the great divine ideas into concrete action of wills in conflict.

Machiavelli, then, managed to make a criticism of other leaders Borgia, where they criticized the failure to change its strategy to remain in power at the rate at which changes of fortune, contingency, the clash of wills. o Machiavelli, therefore, the action exceeds the determination and build a field "empty" subject to the volatile conflict of wills. It is in that field indeterminate, unstable and contingent where Machiavelli building a new place for politics.

This allows us to understand the meaning of "virtu" in Machiavelli. Virtu is the capability or set of qualities that be developed to address the "fortune" or, in contemporary terms the situation and attempt to tame it, control it to some extent. It is this ability that dominates the writings of Machiavelli, is this capacity to cope with contingency and guide them to our advantage. This is the new ethic that Machiavelli's policy inserts (very close to the ethical responsibility of Max Weber) and is far removed from the traditional view of "the end justifies ic media."

Machiavelli suggests an undetermined field is the theoretical, to paraphrase the important contribution of Althusser to the Florentine thinker's understanding of the situation, in that space of what " Finally Althusser "(is not it paradoxical to talk about a" last "," mature "as opposed to a" young "Althusser, while Marx himself categorizing dividing the young humanist Marx and the mature Marx, science?) called "aleatory materialism" and emphasizing the field where neither Fortune or Divine, are inserted in this field, dominated by the c forces Hoque, where virtu triumphs.

is in this sense we can understand the words of Gramsci when he says that "The Prince" is a "revolutionary manifesto" because it contains no criticism of the rulers (much to the contrary! this text was written Maqui Avelo to prove to the Medici which has the capacity to be diplomatic, and be employed) or because it contains explanations of why the social structure was unfair, but it is "revolutionary" by something deeper, because "Naked King" shows the power as something mundane, subject to action and will not as something alien to our ability to practice. The field of conflict, the policy that Foucault described as "war by other means" (Clausewitz investing), this instability is precisely the proper field of politics. At the time of Machiavelli inserted politics in this area unstable, uncertain and conflicting, power strips and "fortune" once again subordinated groups. Macchia veil is demonstrating that the powerful are those with something as mundane as their ability to prevail and put the rest, not divine values. In the Florentine thinker any teleology disappears in the ongoing conflict, many s sometimes latent, but always subject to the will of the social partners.

is precisely that spirit against any teleology which prompted authors such as Antonio Gramsci to see the correlation of forces in the key moment of political action. Against the economic determinism of the Second Communist International, Gramsci notes that the time "active and operative" in that it space in which social groups beyond their corporatism and enter the field in which struggles for their ideas, worldviews, and their bearing Weltschauung Universal, is Hegemonic . This field of hegemonic struggle and cotrahegemónica is an active field, subject to the organization of the will, the ability to structure a speech that builds hegemony.

As Gramsci and Machiavelli before come together in the same track. The political, understood as the field undetermined volume confluence NTAD to organize (virtu) and build their power over the rest. It is a "deterministic chaos" as Fortune (as a clash of wills) is always a certain relation of forces, and when you come in, come in this particular articulation of social forces. But it is a chaos, as it is not certain, lacks any historicism or telos, and is subject to the conflict. "Men make their history but not under conditions they choose," said Marx, perhaps more accurately, we can say that these "conditions" are contingent products of old correlation of forces unstable, subject to modifications, alterations or, default radical change.

Machiavellian That's the contribution I think is most important to recover today. In an era where the whole social field is seen as natural, given, subject to technical calculations neutral and objective (the goal of Chilean society has already been imposed, to grow by strengthening the export model, to perpetuate a political system subject to the procedures election every four or eight years and maintain collective goods in private hands to "encourage investment "), where the conflict are just anomalies or irregularities in the cold social order and where any questioning of the consensus (Gramsci would say hegemonic) in place (fire and blood to remember), to remember that politics is the technique efficiency of how we can perpetuate the purposes provided to society, or the art of state (raison d'état), but the unstable area where the end decided that we propose as a society and as such is a battlefield, conflict, open and uncertain, but in this sense is a field open to all imagined possible, open to all possibilities, it is precisely this area where we think the purposes of society, without being subject to a particular telos.

For Aristotle, politics was the art of human excellence, because he sought the greatest good of mankind, the good of the community. Yes, politics can be the ultimate human art, but not because I seek the good of the community, but because the field is unknown where the clash of wills, the war between the groups can generate a space open to the imagination, to break frames as possible and where can collide different visions of what is the common welfare. If the policy of Machiavelli gives us something today, is that we opens the mind to the impossible, what is now unthinkable, broke with tradition, this perspective is that Machiavelli is, in its deepest sense, a revolutionary.

How To Drill Holes In A Stone Fireplace

comment on Psychiatric Institute

I'm interested to comment on the subject of a lecture by Marcel Czermak in the Psychiatric Institute of Santiago Barak JH de Chile. That conference was named "Contemporary psychiatry seems to be unfortunately misguided" challenging subject in a psychiatric institution.
My motivation for making this comment sprang from conversations that took place after the event; discussions revolved mainly around the lack of understanding that we had all Czermak what he meant. Some even eager to see blood running, others, like me, we do not know what it was or what the title of the exhibition. In his presentation

Czermak in psychosis established how the function of organs and body parts can be very different than in the body of neurotic patients, then confined to the holes in the body. This is most evident in the case of patients schizophrenic whose body orifices have functional responsibilities that seem strange, if I remember Czermak gave an example in which a patient could no longer hear through the ears, and also spoke of patients in which the mouth is not served and to eat and seeking food from the ears or other body holes.
note that for Lacan body orifices are of great importance, particularly in relation to the concept that he intends to enjoy, although this is not something that I think I can fully manage to venture a bit to go wrong to ask what interests me. The completion of phallic jouissance is done through body orifices, delineate the locations of these holes through which can pass the drive, and therefore these are the holes that delineate what you download and enjoy what remains in the body and enjoy the profit.

"To love is to give what you do not have," he said at the conference Czermak accurately quoting Lacan. Love involves the action of desire and can be seen from this definition, such as giving a vacuum. For the speaker's love is carried out through the holes, marked by gaps and holes confined by the body, then such people are in the language holes to fill with "nails"-as Maria Elena Sota-translated can then kissing with his mouth full. For that kiss Czermak no love, because it is a kiss that is given from something full, is clearly different when given a kiss on the handing the vacuum's own oral orifice.
What is the desire for Lacan. The desire is metonymy tell him, but also gives us another definition. Desire, says Lacan, is what is an impediment to enjoyment, the desire says here does not rejoice, for here you enjoy. If we understand it in this way shows the relationship between desire and body orifices which form the boundaries through which to channel the phallic jouissance. Then began

Czermak tell us about Cotard syndrome, which often covered the holes are no longer good for anything, through them you can not eat or, as sometimes happens, can not be ejected. Is that they are covered. Then he said patients are not always psychotic, who make suicide attempts that are not intended to kill himself, that is, they are attempts dde poke holes in their reality, for example with a razor pierce the belly, or jump from building to make a hole in the world, a hole through which to enjoy. Carrying out these holes, as outlined in its reality, it is your desire.

Now how is that this relates to contemporary psychiatry?
Omar was a patient of sector 3, has a diagnosis of schizophrenia. We saw him get to the hospital with a very serious major wound on his forehead on which he gave little reference, but often coated with a headband he knew it was a hole that concerned doctors, little by little was being much better . But that wound, every so often reappeared. Her doctor saw it and started making the necessary arrangements for him to go high, so he talked to his family and the patient for their reintegration into the everyday world.
During the last interview with him the doctor noticed something strange, he asked: "Omar, why do you cover your face?, to see let me see .... " Omar was designed with a penknife, a nearly perfect cross on her head had a hole in its center. It was a wound more or less ugly, anyway, was discharged.

What was the other option her doctor?, She might have thought that Omar drugs were not in the corresponding doses or, perhaps, these drugs were not indicated, better or for worse, the patient was self-inflicted injury, psychotic patients you never know where you can stop this self-injury.
I remembered that in many places filled the mouths of patients with nails, as I said Czermak horrified by the practices of today's youth, but rather what does it take to fill their mouths are pills and find it arbitrary holes, also filled with needles.

Soul Silver Freeze Patched Rom

Czermak in a couple of notions on the Economic and Social

the day we formed this blog, Simon and I were in one of our meetings snob, getting drunk with a bottle of wine (apart from bourgeois chicken heads) and discussed on various topics . Talking, Simon tells me "not very logical to me basic axiom of Marxism, which says the primacy of production when analyzing social structures." I, apart from horror (having a heretic to the Marxist axiom continues to impress someone like me) felt a certain extent it was an essential question, which put in jeopardy the cornerstone of Marxism as a method of interpreting reality, and made me think a lot.

What follows is a kind of quick comment (bathed irresponsible hypothesis, which is always good), or opinion about this mystery. I try to give some ideas that can help us to have some opinion to that sharp question. I will be guided by the traditional Marxist framework, but by a kind of scheme that combines arguments of Marx, Weber and Polanyi (scheme very primitive and full of errors likely interprestación, but to the extent that this is not an attempt to make an interpretation of those authors, but busy to give my opinion to a question, I do not care if my interpretations are absolutely right, let's see it only as a game with the authors, as Foucault did with Nietzsche).

Every society needs to articulate relationships between individuals, between these relationships and the nature and means of interaction between man and nature and society (ie, between production tools and humans). This set of relationships forms a base (mantegámosla as a neutral base) within which is the identity of an individual, their world views and perspectives. This base is a base where relationships are about what we produce as a society (bread or guns, or guns artificiciales fires, etc.), How we produce (what kind of relationships are established to produce) and how we distribute surplus of this production or the social surplus (which Adam Smith defined as the difference between production and consumption). Thus, by way of simplifying the argument, let us call this basis, the structure of social relations of production (as you can see, even now I'm just repeating Marx).

However, we argued that this structure is the one that generates productive identities, imagination and meaning to individuals, we have not stated that the production structure is (playing with quantitative concepts) the "independent variable" that explains the world views and frameworks of agents. We only realize its existence, nothing más.Karl Polanyi (in his book "The Great Transformation"), proposes that have existed in history four ways to articulate (to give coherence, or ordering principle) the production structure, which identifies as reciprocity (with its institutional pattern asymmetrical), redistribution (central institutional pattern), finance (autarky) and exchange (market). Do not summarize each, but take the example of reciprocity and exchange.

La reciprocidad es una forma de articulación de la estructura productiva en el cual, los individuos comparten sus productos en forma asimétrica, donde cada uno comparte con su vecino su producción (tipos de articulaciones económicas de los indígenas de Australia) y este tipo de conducta está determinado por sus tradiciones y sus costumbres, por sus creencias y sus visiones de mundo que determinan la forma en cómo se articulará la estructura productiva. Aquí por lo tanto, son las instituciones políticas, sociales y culturales las que determinan la esfera económica, dándole sentido, dirección y coherencia, generando su propio sistema de conductas. Las instituciones políticas (elites gobernantes or not) keep their legitimacy in the past, unchangeable customs (so solid that will not fade in the air yet.) Its kind of domination is sustained by traditions, as Max Weber would argue. Should be affirmed, as noted by Robert Heilbroner, in this type of economic articulation there is no need for the existence of Economists, as all the "economic" is determined by the agreements and consensus-building, social and cultural rights.

By contrast, in the exchange as the guiding principle of the economic structure, it happens quite particular. The development of the industrial revolution coupled with the political development of the nascent bourgeoisie created a unique event in history, a complete uprooting of the economic structure (in the market institution) of the social, political and cultural. Bourgeois sectors, given the need to invest large sums of capital in the emerging industry, also needed to ensure that resources to produce under that big investment to be secured, streamlined. In short nacesitaban that people who work the land where work and instruments of production (the productive structure elements) were coded around the "rational calculation of capital" (based, as Weber says, to judge the actions on the profits generated by ordering the actions on this logic) in order to secure the investment and the ability to generate a surplus to increase the cycle of accumulation (MCM 'as Marx's scheme). In this sense, human beings and their subjective and creative ability to create things found quickly pass the logic of rational calculus of capital to be coded as "labor", eliminating all forms of life that did not happen by the need to sell workforce, to BECOME good. The nature, seen before as divine or direct connection with human beings, becomes a commodity coded as "arable land", to be occupied around the accumulation in the market and production tools (distributed anteriomente as social patterns) become privatized by the rising bourgeoisie (social structure, therefore, must BECOME an aggregate of commercial production structure).

reported at the scene, we have a particular situation. The individual must, to survive, become a commodity, selling their labor power, and subsumed into a logic that is independent of the previous social institutions. The production structure, under the principle of market institutional independence from social institutions and cultural policies that once gave meaning and direction. A fact is symptomatic in this period (seventeenth and eighteenth centuries) began to generate a set of knowledge that did not exist and coalesce under the naciende discipline, "economics." The economy now is what explains the State, we the fact that society should create a contract to the State, the fact that society seeks independence of the Leviathan, Hobbes went from one to Smith, a Machiavelli to Bentham . This can be summarized in the statement of Polanyi, "the market economy can not exist without a market society, commercial economic structure can not exist if not to their logic subsuming all other social institutions, if not secularizing what was once sacred, if not is through the process in which "all that is solid melts into air" or, in less metaphorical terms, where the customs, traditions, social agreements and arrangements, political and cultural, become a mere addition of a new ethos rational commercial. Is the fact where the old forms of legal and charismatic domination become monopolized by rational domination.

Moving from the theoretical to the empirical number, do not we see this process mercantlización (pillar of the economic structure rooted in the political and social) for example in the way how to distribute and manage knowledge in contemporary society? Our university not shown as a set of civic knowledge (as required today, in the field of political philosophy, republicanism) but as a set of techniques for insertion of the best labor market, to be useful for labor market . Did not see it in how to manage urban space, where the need to increase the accumulation of the auto industry (and especially China insutria after the FTA with that country) generates truckloads are built púlblicos removing spaces (as in the district of La Reina today it)? Can not you see how the State should ensure the accumulation of capital (translated to generate a climate for investment) for their own material existence (via the collection imposotiva)? Is not patent the hegemony of market logic when the state puts core goal of economic growth (at the expense of ideas such as sustainable development)? or the cultural sphere should be subsumed to the logic of capitalist right when selling fast calls generated films (Titanic, Shrek, Spider-Man) lacks profundiad (Guy Debord defined "performance" as the commodification of culture), does not see a logic, an organizing principle, a structural cause that affects these areas? Not only this, the knowledge itself, themselves ideas and techniques are now privatized under copyright, patent remedies (indigenous stud issue of Australia would be absolutely illogical) and looking forward to own the human genome. With the above I want to reach a conclusion as a hypothesis, the institutional pattern which is organized under the structure of production today (the market) hegemonizes, overdetermined, or "sobrecodifica" the rest of the social, subsumed to the logic, imposing frames close to our own existence, our own imagination and our own expectations. Not only the "Welcome to the Desert of the Real" The Matrix, but "Welcome to the desert of Publication. Jose

Help On Cricket Respiration Lab/ap Bio

"Nothing is less passive than an escape, an exodus. The defection alters the conditions in which the protest takes place before presuppose an unchanging horizon, instead of tackling the problem by choosing a the alternatives provided, change the context in which to insert the problem. exit unbiased investment is altering the rules of the game and makes the opponent crazy compass "Paolo Virno, " Grammar of the Multitude. "