AA.VV.
Faiv Domands To (Damned) DeBaserians - Question Uàn (A - L)

Question #Uàn:"How does one conceive the ethics of a self which is by definition ambivalent and also has to come into contact in every social relationship with the ambivalent psychic formation (NO Mr. Psychopompe relationscippes) of others?". In $oldoni: "Don't you think that if ethics must be considered in reference to the paradoxes and ambivalence of the human condition, any natural concept of the self necessarily removes the same human condition from the sphere of ethics?"

[PRECISATZIONEM: this de-page, just like all those pertaining to the unlikely Faiv Domands, is an initiative (not by Anicagis) EXCLUSIVE and ABSOLUTE of the mono-neuronic mind of the wreckwriter; the courteous Editors and the entire DeBaseric Staff have nothing to do with it.]

Let us now proceed to anal/yze the [+ and/or -] interesting replies provided by the (truly) courteous De-Users (from A to ELLE):

Monsieur A. argued: "There is a virtual air of freedom and informality in this place that you cannot breathe on any other site of this kind. However, informality is a nasty beast because it presupposes that people can put a limit on themselves. This site pursues the most beautiful and difficult ideal in the world, an anarchic self-regulating coexistence, especially difficult in a period when ethics is in serious trouble just like Petacchi on the Izoard. Result of this hopefully not too disjointed mental wandering? Perhaps the point would be, leaving a free hand on the “spectators” - commentators side, to give minimum requirements for publication. The language, the content, a minimum level of seriousness. It would be enough to say it, without acting with harassment, or returning. Do you understand me? (....) What is missing: a relationship even with the Editors, the way of publishing without direct contacts, the dialogue with no one, does not invite attempts to send better reviews, one sends like that aseptically, without feedback from the site, and feels a little authorized to send frivolities, have their space to say one nonsense like another, sans souci, light-heartedly."

Messer A.M. said: "I could propose a simple Schulzian estrangement, by means of the infant microcosm created by the above-mentioned, as a ritual reiteration of the typical situations, of common experience, both an epistemic and a semiotic guarantor, as Simona Bassano Di Tufillo would say. It is in the human condition to seek the palladium of security in a blanket? Surely human. But is it ethical to place one's serenity in a blanket? I leave the word to you, esteemed one."

Mister A_d states: "Sincerely, any natural concept of the self is so outdated that associating it with any sphere would cause an evident embarrassment; it's a bit like Nicola Di Bari, proof to revisionism or vintage rescues."

Madame B. dit: "I didn't understand a blessed thing, but what I can tell you about my personal ethics, is that I am completely Amoral."

Signor B. decrees: "Ask Prodi, surely he will have a séance and will know how to give you the correct answer. I hope he doesn't say Gradoli."

Garçon B. argued: "The possibility of letting everyone write everything. Re-reading some of my old reviews (we're talking about the end of September/beginning of October 2006) I felt mortified with shame. Nonsense crammed with nonchalance everywhere, very arrogant responses, somewhat ambiguous attitudes that, in reality, were just inexperienced and a bit foolish. If I were you, I wouldn't have personally given myself the chance (how rhetorical :-D) to appear on the homepage with those things you call reviews that, in reality, were little poorly written thoughts. Even now there are "reviewers", most probably fake or trolls, but alas, there are also people who are indeed like this (:§), who come out with terrible, grammatically incorrect, deliberately provocative writings, totally off from a historical/musical point of view (Ex: The Nirvana in 1981 released that folk masterpiece "Killers"). At least a selection should be made from this point of view. There is the hilarious section dedicated to literary cases: let's use it, then! :-D"

Sor C.H. mumbled: "Nunca pensaba que la Etica pueda ser comparable a la condición humana pensada por un individuo singular, el hombre (como unidad) es, en mi opinión, absolutamente a-ético (se puede decir así?porque no quiero decir antiético, sino precisamente a-ético..hay diferencia) no hablemos de la moral, esa es precisamente una invención de algún clérigo bonachón, resulta que siendo un animal social y en algunos casos pensante, los más sensibles han intentado encontrar intermediaciones comunitarias, la ética es una de estas."

The esteemed C.D.C.U. expressed: "Truly I wouldn't know what to answer. Anything I could say would surely be nonsense, thus unable to meet the lofty question posed".

Mademoiselle C. wrote: "Mizzica or how my nokia's t9 writes minciga!"

Dr. D.G. certified: "The issue you raised regarding ethics brings up a central question in the development of all of Western philosophy. Far from me trying to give a valid answer to the age-old question. I will limit myself to noting on one hand the inevitable dualism you rightly highlighted, and on the other to suggest the Hegelian response to this problem. Such resolution, while not definitive and exhaustive in its developments, shifts the perspective in an interesting way, providing new points of development and unshackling the discussion from the uncomfortable and seemingly insurmountable Cartesian obstacle represented by the duality of human nature (res cogitans res extensa). In particular, I take the liberty of drawing attention to the social-political dissertations of the philosopher Hegel, precisely regarding the origin of morality and the state, and particularly in the hierarchies of this relationship. The Historical view of the philosopher may perhaps provide new ways of resolution to your stimulating questions. In the configuration of the Spirit to identify in the ego any element alien to itself is quite foolish. Much less consider ethics as an external object to the ego itself, and thus to the Spirit. The dualism you highlighted, then, is nothing more than a phenomenological moment of relative value if considered in the Hegelian perspective. Therefore, ethics, as the product of the Historical vision, will result in nothing but a moment child of its own time, as after all, every manifestation of the ego cannot be but traced as a moment when related to the self-conscious Spirit returned within itself."

Lord D.I.A. communicated: "I do not intend to answer the questions - although I find them interesting - as I consider this initiative of lesser importance compared to those changes on the site which are necessary and which continue not to arrive, despite being requested by many repeatedly."

Compadre E.C. expressed: "I wouldn't really know whether to accept the term "natural concept" regarding the self..in simple terms, I would say that the self as such is born IN and WITH ethics, in sociocultural terms, and hence the answer to your question is no... this considering the obvious limitations that a response essentially tied to a precise frame of reference such as mine carries."

Neighbor E.T.D. erupted: "And who ever said that ethics cannot be paradoxical? Think about it, bamboozle."

The multiple F4 affirmed: "If you send the email back to us in Italian maybe we'll answer you."

Sir F. crammed: "My humble intellect suggests to me that ambivalence is present both in the real-human condition and in the deb-context, although here the entwined social relationships are complicated by factors inherent to the web-world, and who cares ".

A second Sir F. stated succinctly: "If you essentially mean ethical relativism, you're absolutely right. Otherwise, no."

Miss F.Y. gasped: "In the Middle Ages, you would have been an excellent court jester... it’s not an insult eh, if they weren't crafty and sharp, they had a bad ending afterward!"

Senor G.U.K told: "I don't think so. If every change in the human condition required corresponding changes in the sphere of ethics, any discourse related to the mutability of ethical references within social aggregates would inherently lose meaning, emptied by the "circumstances" that defined it. Regardless of whether the path is chaotic or causal. In fact, with every change the references should also change, and there wouldn't be anything certain, perhaps not even at the molecular level. I am not saying this is important or has any prejudicial value, I am only saying this is the case. We would find ourselves in a situation of total impasse, of chronic immobility of the concepts of time and action."

Boy G. expressed: "Sure! I would also add a: emmecojoni! I believe so. Namely, if your incipit were true, then the ethics in question would not be able to express itself within the scope of an argumentation that can be considered in itself surviving. Otherwise, it is also true if we start from premises that are then denied by the ego that others represent themselves in themselves."

The lawyer G.W. filed: "The Prosecution has instructed the Ris of Parma to thoroughly analyze all the elements found in your questions, to provide an equally effective answer. While awaiting the results that will serve to confirm the accusatory picture, I must remind you not to eat beef from Anglo-Saxon countries, a sure vehicle for contracting mad cow disease, just as not to buy birds from China, affected by avian flu."

The entire Union through the voice of G.E. picketed: "Drawing on the film my extreme-Catholic members had me see yesterday in the main hall of the union's headquarters, namely "The Passion" of Braveheart, ahem... by Mel Gibson, in truth I tell you that according to G. E.'s hyperbole ascendance aimed at the signification of a higher truth, mystically directed towards the salvation of human ethics, must be understood as a postulate to fully realize one's internal dimension so that it can reach, not without ambivalence, the karma of divine perfection."

The gutter H. emitted: "EHHH???"

The horseman H.P. rode: "DRAMATIC QUESTION TO WHICH I ANSWER WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE FAILURE OF EVERY ETHICAL RULE IN THE FACE OF SPECIFIC SINGULARITIES. I.E., LEAVE INSULTS IN POSTS WHO CARES?"

The terse H.B. contributed: "I believe that the configuration of the ethics of the self, given its unquenchable ambivalence, and extensively the ambivalence of Man, rests on two problematic elements: I the discrepancy between the ideal self and the imperative self, which generally (according to recent statistical-sociological studies) significantly correlates with scales of depression, understood in probabilistic terms, which can then also be understood as one of the nerve centers of Contemporary Society. The unaware hyper-communication of its fictional nature of non-communication but of "narcissistic" staging of its own digital projection would become a partial sedation-type solution to the problem. II The necessarily complex structuring of the self, under the heaviness of a normative imperative and the infinite pseudo-alternative attractions, becomes hyper-complex, but due to the feeling of a widespread zeitgeist, it becomes hyper-compressed. All of this leads to a falsely complex self, thus possessing greater vulnerability and fragility that would partially explain the observable difficulty in the prevalent forms of interaction: the scarce metacognition of one's own scarce complexity, leads to a linearization of verbal (written) exchanges, a kind of adaptive implosion of solid complex icosahedron-pyramidal and what-not, or quantum or conic curves which "degenerate" into ellipses devoid of foci, lines, and points. Enough: in the first place let's not forget that virtual environments (from VirtualGardens, to various MySpaces, etc.) due to their horizontal access (there are no more "hierarchizing" filters) encompass a universe less and less demarcable in its physiognomy; in the pseudo-communicative compulsion, beyond losing sight of the awareness of one's own ambivalence, and thus of that of others, this subtraction however from physiological becomes (potentially) destructive: not all human condition is constructed around paradoxes and ambivalence is quite another thing, which is a source of enrichment of something that thought/communicated can therefore be subtracted, but since the evolution of the self does not pass through this indispensable cornerstone of self-awareness, the absence of the source of ambivalence will render the hydroelectric basin dry as its tributaries are withered: the consequent blackout is a rather frequent phenomenon."

Doctor J_ glimmered: "Thank you mister for giving me the opportunity to play and I dedicate the goal to those who have always believed in me."

Kid K. ruined: "My social condition as a cyber character is closely linked to that of a normal living being, in order not to condition and/or cause these two dominant personalities to conflict, I preferred to abstain from writing and communicating with other users. My abstention was only because, in the musical review area, I have written quite enough and as never before, I know for sure that many people know tons more than I do."

Mr. L. tells us: "If the first question consists simply of having to authenticate oneself before making a comment, I say yes, after all, each of us is what we are, already sufficiently hidden by a nickname, I think it suffices. The old layout (the one from last year) was (even if it was uglier) more functional, the favorites were on the side, quick to use, faster to evaluate and look at. I never read movie reviews, and like me, quite a few people but the data is in your hands and not mine, just pointless dispersion. Many of my friends write less, you know who they are, just look at the comments. The quality of the reviews has dropped a lot, probably the most historical records have already been more than reviewed, and the new ones are mostly slaughtered. However, the overall charm isn't entirely gone. There was a long period where stupid comments overwhelmed the more appropriate ones, a bit like spam in emails; perhaps someone who would do a little cleaning would have been beneficial to the site and would have facilitated reading. The overall style needs to be revised because you now have a rather serious database and playing it wrongly would be a real shame. I have noticed a significant drop in debaser links, which until last year seriously competed with other sites. My critique is not destructive at all, I love you and I will continue to frequently visit the site and also write as I can (much to your chagrin), mine were mere observations made to friends, without malice."

Nurse L. injected: "You must feel very lonely wreck... But don't worry: I'm here ready to give you attention and try to limit your mental problems!;). Bullshit niceties aside, if the problem is how I relate to my Internet alter-ego and that of others, well the problem doesn't exist. Whether it be to be who we want to be in "real" life but can't, whether we're ourselves or a hidden side of our character... who cares!! I tried to take things as a game, it's very likely that the game will occasionally get on my nerves and I will stay away from the Internet for months, but in general, it works. You meet new people, nice friendships are born (however fake)... just take it as it comes and have few hang-ups! Maybe that wasn't even your question (but I think no one understood what you wanted to say... and it was absolutely intentional, indeed!) anyway I was in the mood for writing these two jokes, I hope they can appease you or make you want to kill yourself or bore you to death... it doesn't matter!!"

(to be continued..)

[definitely.. maybe]