neomodernframes

[neomodernframes]

How the lonely man met an humble fisherman and discussed ethics with him

The lonely man, during his pilgrimage, had almost reached the beach. Suddenly, he heard a low, dark voice behind him. Turning, he saw a strong young fisherman with handsome features and glacial blue eyes.

"You're not from around here, boy."

"No, indeed. How did you notice? "

"Simple. When men are tired and in difficulty and cannot find their way home, they always look for the sea to find their way around. This I have learned in the course of my life. "

"Well, I spent a unique evening in my life: first I dined at the home of post-modern intellectuals, where we discussed about ideologies and sending postcards; then I met a homeless man, with whom I spoke about theology; then I found a beautiful woman, with whom I discussed freedom and civilization, and manifested for the first time in my life. I am far more peaceful, responsible, but I am still afraid of letting go of my immortality. It is almost dawn; I feel tired, and I hoped that the sea could sing me a lullaby delivering me to the morning. "

"You're almost home. Come, let's go fishing for men. "

The fisherman and the lonely man sat on a rock and threw the line into the water.

"Mr. fisherman, I must warn you that I don't know how to fish."

"It doesn't matter boy. Sometimes it is the waves of the sea that bring us the most unexpected gifts. To find men, one must listen, not seek. Like fish, men are everywhere, yet you can't see them."

"Mr. Fisherman, why does the sea bring us gifts? And above all, why will take us to men?"

"We are the ones who come to give ourselves to the sea in hope to receive something. The Greeks, who knew the sea better than you and me, had strict laws of hospitality and first let the guest into the house to wash, dress, and care for him; and then they asked him who he really was. You have to enter the house to look for men. "

"Is the sea our home? What does it mean that we give ourselves to the sea? "

"It is from the sea that algae come, the first living creatures to ever appear on earth. The sea constantly clashes on rocks and then goes back and starts again. When I told you earlier, that men who get lost seek the sea, it is because the sea is the best place to ask questions. It confronts us with man's most original experience: loneliness. Alone, immersed in the amniotic fluid, we come to light naked, blinded, weeping, frightened; and therefore we live surrounded by our fellow men. This is why man seeks the sea: it is a visual representation of the infinite, to which we are eternally destined. We are destined to find men in the eyes of sea."

"But Mr. Fisherman, the sea seems so far from us, yet so close: it scares me and makes me grieve."

"The sea scares you because you don't see beyond the line of its horizon: as far as you know, the world could end beyond that line. Now we will do one thing: we will knock on men's door. "

"What are you meaning?"

The fisherman stood up, took the two fishing rods and threw them: within a few seconds, the waves swallowed the unexpected gift.

"But, Mr. fisherman! Now how are we going to fish for men? "

"Go to the beach. You will meet a child who sits on the ground with a fixed gaze. Approach him and ask him: do you want to be happy? Soon everything will patch itself up. "

The lonely man got up from the rocks and slowly descended the stairs that led to the beach.

Exert from "The lonely man: or on Eternity" by myself. Read the full story for free on wattpad:

The Lonely Man or on eternity (on Wattpad) https://www.wattpad.com/story/276672290-the-lonely-man-or-on-eternity?utm_source=web&utm_medium=tumblr&utm_content=share_myworks&wp_uname=OscoDirot&wp_originator=m7DJ5%2FGlYdfX8p0BiNZXUKDjM8HNMfNsyqHyS03Y8wzl3hGWvYgkiG6z7%2F0HZTwsAHgla6yKqiMvcrtWQxInv1gJvm%2FgR%2FeAooyQm%2F63lVNkdjNdv3mRWutnULS4sJ3e

What would happen if the unhappiest man received the happiest gift from an angel? A philophical quest on the nature of men, and what does it mean to be immortal or eternal.

[neomodernframes]

You know what I love about good people? Somewhere some stranger in this world remembers them solely because of a simple kind act they did. What a beautiful legacy to leave in someone’s head. That they deserve kindness because once, a complete stranger was kind to them.

[neomodernframes]

The Invisible Pink Unicorn, Pastafarianism and Theists.

PINK UNICORN-MAN: hello gullible.

CHRISTIAN THEIST: hello heretic.

P.U: I went to church today but I didn't see you. Did you have a party last night by any chance?

C.T: what nonsense are you saying! I was sitting in the back, far enough to admire the bleeding cross of our lord jesus ...

P.U: ... or maybe because you were chatting and were afraid that the deacon would scold you and make you recite twenty rosaries!

C.T: you dare to speak when you rarely show up here. Why did you decide to attend today? Are demons starting getting tighter in the kitchen of your soul?

P.U: look, my demons are totally fine. Today they would have prepared an exquisite Bolognese sauce, but unfortunately I was dragged here against my will.

C.T: to learn a lesson from the Holy Spirit would only help you. Instead, I came here out of my will, but then I saw you.

P.U: I see that I am no different from the Lord: as he weighs on your conscience, so I weigh on you!

C.T: sure. However our savior weighs on the conscience of us all, while being nowhere. Instead you are here and I notice it from your horrible scent which is too recognizable. But geez, change it!

P. U: damn man, you are so mean! I would rather want to know how can you say that your lord is nowhere if you find him leaning against the arch of the church right now.

C.T: you talk as if he was sunbathing, but can you hear yourself talking? Fortunately he is far away enough to not overhear this conversation ...

P. U: but I do not understand: you say that he us nowhere and yet you worry that it may hear us. You say it's all over the place, but then why are we talking in such a low voice, like we're mourning the cat?

C.T: with all due respect for the cat, you are truly incorrigible! So, it is a matter of faith: I cannot make you understand why I see Jesus and you do not. He is invisible to the eyes, you can only grasp him with heart.

P.U: What if I had a heart attack and had a pacemaker implanted in the body?

C.T : you are so funny.

P.U: wow, did you see it?

C.T: what?

P.U: the invisible pink unicorn!

C.T: eh?

P.U: Incredible, I'm the only one who has seen the invisible pink unicorn!

C.T: but if it is invisible how can you have seen it?

P.U: I grasped it with heart, my friend. Come on, let's have a drink, in the name of the heavenly pot...

At the bar

C.T: I can't think about it, you are so disrespectful! You will burn in the fires of hell for this!

P.U: Hey, calm down, take it easy for a moment. How can I believe in God when you don't want to believe in my pink unicorn?

C.T: What does this have to do with it? The unicorn is a human creation, how could it possibly be comparable to our lord who first became man, then baptized us in the waters where the holy spirit descended?

P.U: Well, I really don't know...

C.T: You cannot prove the non-existence of God then!

P.U: To tell the truth, no affirmation can be believed only on the basis of the fact that its inaccuracy cannot be proved. This is why it is not up to me to show you that the unicorn exists, or that beings made of pasta have created man in his image and likeness, that is, a very hungry animal.

PASTAFARIAN: sorry? Who dares to name in vain the prodigious flying spaghetti, creator of restaurants and coca cola?

P.U: Oh my, here's another one.

C.T: Haha, here's another heretic standing in the way of the house of Christ. You are many apparently!

P.F: Christian, I do not persecute the followers of other religions: but do not disturb me while I honor my meal, otherwise it will be trouble for you!

C.T: Who are you to talk to me like that? Show yourself, devil!

P.F: I'm a five-foot-tall boxer, that's who I am. You know what? I am gonna beat you, not in the name of spaghetti, but because you're a sucker!

P.U: guys, please calm down, it's not worth the slaughter. I think that in the end what really matters is that we all have the same intuition of a creator of the cosmos and the providential order of things. The ideas of men are changeable, so it is normal to have different representations of God at the same time. For me, it could be a Pink Unicorn, for you it could be a Person who gets close to us because of suffering, or for you it could be an appetizing flying Monster made of Spaghetti. We should be closer than that. Religion has left us precepts concerning the care and love of our neighbors, it has not told us what color or shape God is. So let us love each other: men are Gods to men.

P.F: that was beautiful...

C.T: I agree with you. But, who's going to pay those drinks over there?

[neomodernframes]

Dialogue between a post-modernist and an intentist

POST-MODERNIST: Good evening.

INTENTIST: Good evening to you.

Post: how is life going? I wanted to talk to you about this sterile controversy carried on by your friends ... How do you call yourselves? Intentists?

Int: Yes, you say well, we choose this name to identify ourselves.

Post: Wouldn’t it be better to call yourselves fanatics? After all, you pursue an absolute ideal of interpreting a work of art, consciously choosing to refer to deformed mummies that were already outdated in their time.

Int: I would like to point out that it is post-modernism itself that desires the stagnation of culture in itself, declaring the end of history and the end of every ideal. It is its very nature that requires to feed on the carcasses of the mummies you mentioned above: judging by the way you treat those who think differently from you, the fanatics are on your side.

Post: The stagnation of culture and the eating of corpses are an humble admission of the limits of our exquisitely human tradition. Moreover, it is not I who practices the thaumaturgy to resurrect the dead: it is not I who requires the utmost authority for a mere expedient of conveniente such as "the author" can be.

Int: as far as I can remember, eating one’s fellow men is a form of barbarism, which is not to be condemned for the gesture itself, but rather for the fact that whoever reduces himself to eating people, probably is very hungry. At this point I have to think that you guys are starving? It is not the intentists who advocate the authority of the Author, but it is the word itself that indicates the responsibility of the author in the face of the culture he creates and helps to create. Man is a social and cultural animal, don’t forget that.

Post: As long as you quote Aristotle, you will be the victim of a vicious circle.

Int: it seems to me that the one who falls into a vicious circle is you. Logocentrism, said one of your teachers: well, let me show you where it takes you to admit that there is only a "quote-culture" . Pessimism, renunciation: you are too concerned with discussing the real foundations of tradition, deconstructing concepts, dissolving subjects. You refer to a naive, foolish Christianity that kills the body but since you are Aristotelian, you gentlemen, also kill the soul. Can an ineffable being learn through a beheaded Christ?

Post: If you think there is a guiding faculty of all human agents, then I would rather think you are a joke.

Int: I do not believe in a guiding faculty, as the "reason" of the Enlightenment could have been: I believe that the conditions of truth depend on inalienable factors: sincerity, trust, dialogue. Those are mathematical conditions that must be granted to a rational discourse.

Post: if we admit what you say, we should also reduce man to language, nullifying any attempt at a new humanism.

Int: Is there anything wrong with this? I am against the idea of language as a fabric of quotations, or at least, I believe that this is only one of the possible uses. Language is the tool, not the end: it is through language that the ethical and epistemological possibilities of reason are opened.

Post: After all, this defense of the author seems to me only an excuse to affirm the authority of the author’s unique reason. Wouldn’t it be better to admit an infinity of truths? So everyone would contribute in his own way to ironize about the misery of our thinking.

Int: philosophizing is not a cabaret! Whenever you think that thinking is ironic, a word will die; you will kill a responsibility; you will cancel the weight of history on men.

Post: that is, are you telling me that the history of men is the history of authors?

Int: not at all, great man. I’m just saying that by doing this you relieve the Author of his main task, which is not to convey art to others, but to allow others to take responsibility for their actions, for their ability to change the world. This is intentism: this means being intellectuals and not just thinkers.

Post: it will be as you say. For the rest, your ideas smell of Hegelism.

Int: at least they don’t smell of death.

[neomodernframes]

The story of the howling rooster

In the deep countryside, there was a farmhouse inhabited by a large group of hens. The hens lived in peace worrying about hatching their eggs and waiting to peck at the grain every day for multiple times, with meals guaranteed comfortably at noon, in the middle of the afternoon, and just before midnight. As they gained weight, they enjoyed their lives waiting for the God of the chicks to take them to heaven.

One day, however, a pack of wolves approached their quiet farm, preeviding the possibility of a banquet early in the afternoon, so as to not spoil their mood with indigestion. Later in the day, the chief rooster was confronted by the leader of the wolves:

<< you are nice, fat and gallash, do you? But tell me, are chicken more bitten than you? Or are they fatter so much that I'm already hungry, even before seeing them?>>

When the rooster tried to speach a few miserable words, he caused general hilarity among the wolves, who hadn't leave before saying that the next morning they would kidnap and devour a "limping female hen".

Immediately the rooster rushed into the chicken coop, so as to make everyone aware of the situation:

<< These wolves are really hungry. But for sake, who called them? Am I tastier, or is Susina down there? What did we do to them, oh, what did we do to them, oh Lord of chickens? Tomorrow everyone will be limping, so fools won't know which one to take. >>

And so they decided as that. The next day, here are the wolves, ready to take their meal. The chickens seemingly were all claudicant, and the thing at first sent the predators into confusion. But soon they realized that everyone limped on the same foot but a female hen, the only one who really was claudicant.

<< Oh sly Rooster, you gave the order and everyone executed: but didn't you thought that as they knelt, you were the only one who didn't lie down? That's why one dies today, and tomorrow another one will die.>>

The rooster was appalled. But there was no need to cry over each other: after all, one less hen was not a problem. << these wolves are really hungry. But for sake, who called them? Am I tastier, or is Siria over there? Tomorrow we will dye ourselves yellow, so they will believe we are too unripe and bitter to be eaten>>

And so they did, making sure everyone was dyed the same color in order to not arouse suspicion. The next morning, here they are again at the chicken coop, ready to savor their prey. Incredibly, the trick seemed to work. But the smartest wolf thought that only the little chicks are yellow, so they ended up slaughtering all the yellow dyed, adult hens, leaving few elements still alive.

<<Oh sly Rooster, you gave the order and everyone executed: but didn't you thought that while everyone played, you were the only one who sang? For you are a hypocrite, many have died today and tomorrow it will be up to you.>>

The rooster did not believe to his ears. The wolf seemed very clear, and soon he would be the one to be devoured if he had not invented something. << These wolves wish to devour me. But for sake, do I really taste so good? If we're not united tomorrow, they're going to have a feast on me. Tomorrow you're going to do like me, and you're not going to say a word. >>

The next day the wolves still showed up at the chicken coop, now reduced to a lugubrious silence due to the disasters of the previous days. The hypocritical rooster, thinking he would be supported by the remaining population, disguised himself as a wolf while the wolves would have eaten the others. The rooster still howled among his fellow companions, but they did not react as he had anticipated. The wolves noticed the deception and killed him.

<<Oh sly Rooster, you gave an order, and everyone executed: you deserve this, for you can't fit a round peg into a square hole. You masked yourself with the best of intentions, and your own actions condemned you. Actually, this was a trivial excuse for the lunch of the strongest. >>

[neomodernframes]

Enlightementism. A manifesto.

These are the principles that resonate within the concept of enlightementism. Enlightementism advocates activity, tolerance, prosperity, freedom of thought, optimism, trust and dialogue against post modern cynism, passivity, stagnation, isolation, pessimism and one sided thought.

Intentism: when a text is to be interpretated, a key aspect is the "intention" of the author, or his interpretation if you prefer. So, if there are still multiple interpretations, one must always take note of the author's idea itself.

new sincerity: rather than to destroy values and leave nothing but pure nihilism, one must actually create from the ashes. The very truth is not that there is no truth: but that there is truth in a way we must side with values that share common traits, in order to define the very mathematical conditions of truth itself.

Meta-modernism or post-postmodernism: values that must be granted to a functioning system of values are faith, trust, dialogue, will to act, performance and sincerity. Happiness is beneficial to everyone, and beneficial to everyone is charity. Indeed, the core value is the responsibility to take action.

remodernism: the place in which man take action in history. Then, the importance of history is not in the chronology but in the protagonists. History always proceds from the worst to the best. It would be rather naive to denounce the worst of our time but to not admit the benefits of our society. There is still time and possibilities for improvement, so history cannot go from bad to worse.

Transmodernism: postmodernism cannot declare the end of history, as itself can be considered as a moment in time and still subject of transformation. So, while it is not possible to have the end of history, we can still have the end of postmodernism. The era in which we are living is something like a trans-modernism, that is a time of transition, as the noun suggests.

In the name of reason, let us change the world for a better future!

[neomodernframes]

Neo-enlightment Aesthetic.