The blog of the prehistoric party

That it is it is therefore, whatever it is: guilt would not therefore be a Judaeo-Christian invention?
This entertains you in PP, they would say, to break all our id e re ue, sorry?

Guilt is naturally born in the conscience of other one, no? It would not be a sly way of coming back into the topic of selfishness by another door, Vincent??? h #?

Written by Andr Comte-Sponville:

GUILT:
To be guilty, it is to be responsible for an error which was not only fulfilled voluntarily but deliberately, that is to say by knowing that it was an error. It is in what guilt assumes freedom (they are responsible only for what was freely made) and seems to certify it. They will point out however that they choose only what they make, what they are. So each is guilty of its actions, and innocent person of one.

(Philosophical dictionary, PUF, on 2001)

This definition of guilt there which presses on the simple responsibility taken by an error, does not give an account of another much more toxic aspect of question: that of inherent petrifying anxiety in guilt in its morbid development.

It seems to me that this aspect there is worth being studied closely, especially since it touches, in my opinion, a central question of the modernity: that of (or) neurosis (es).

I would have tendency to think that to fit to our types of Western societies, the best solution consists in developing a psychical organisation of neurotic type with, unfortunately all more or less viable pathologies which go with, and especially the terrible anxiety of guilt, fruit of internal fault leads by this type of psychical organisation.

This means that it is necessary to make differentiation enter be guilty of , and feel guilty of . The first being objective and joining definition of ACS, second being undoubtedly more neurotic, anyway more subjective.

Where I join ACS, it is that they are ALWAYS representative for what is made, as much as it is always a matter of choice.

I say to this while considering at the same time that they are never free really

The question of guilt r soud for me rather simply (undoubtedly too much) at first sight:

The one feels "guilty" who is mu first of all by desire and has more or less dully conscience which he "takes" more that he "gives".

A (Paleolithic or contemporary) hunter who kills would therefore feel less guilty than other who takes life?

Mouais

Yeah I find this pretty poor also
It is really the fundamental type which encourages bad faith.

Afterwards (seen under another angle, more reflected), I am persuaded that some guilt is inherent in mankind (beyond any consideration on "jud o-Christianity" etc.). She comes simply due to the fact that we are a kind which for reasons which remain to determine went out of his initial conditioning notably by changing his initial diet.

The "freedom" on which our dignity is based seems to me to have as more or less conscious back a feeling of transgression "anti-natural", willy-nilly making feel guilty.

This state remains then to cope or not. In short, to feel guilty or not of this guilt.

The guilt of guilt now.
Every time, 120 the specialist of verbose concepts: the nature of nature, history of history, life of life, etc goes to nsurench rir by naming Edgar Morin (.)

I do not understand well what you say

"Jud o-Christianity" did not invent guilt. He just gave a new form on a feeling of " original sin " always already there.

Question is not therefore for me: are they or not culprit? but: how to live serenely these "guilt feelings" which torment us all more or less dully?

Seen well, Vincent, I share your point of view on question.

Ah yes but the question of the jud o Christianity it had been already evacuated since the beginning.
But what gives rise to the guilt feelings?

You do not think that it is simply born in the instant when one were considered other one as other one detached with a value at least equal to one? And what therefore, it was not more possible to be offhand in its acts (to take the only piece of food for example), without feeling guilt?

I thought often sometimes that some forms of autisms (those where they climb out of the world), were due to unmanageable guilt feelings.

In agreement with you Am lie on the fact that they are always representative for its acts even in case they obey the orders of its hierarchy (though in that case individual, he is usual to lighten his part of personal responsibility as much as the game of hierarchy and of power implicates almost unconditional obedience but this remains to discuss, in my opinion).

However question remains to know in which measure they are really capable of taking them and of looking them in the face without giving in to easiness not to see. And it is there, in my sense that guilt intervenes. More these guilt feelings are less developed the person will be capable of this lucidity and the temptation of denial will always be the strongest. That is why they become all the more responsible and reliable as for his acts as they free themselves of this done guilt.

ah it is odd I would have exactly said the opposite! :-))

I would have rather tendency to say that it is necessary to admit the part of freedom which there is tjs in his acts to take entirely his part of responsibility, therefore of guilt.

The truth is perhaps (as of hab ) perhaps just contrary to the commonplace:

Original sin is not to have crunched the apple at the instigation of the snake but eaten the snake!

The human being is indeed primates initially fructivore become progressively carrion feeder then carnivora (for reasons which it remains to claicir).

It is not willy-nilly contradictory.

Is it necessary to search reasons far?
It was a truth chieur, this mocking snake. On the other hand, what an aroma!!!!

I specify: it is not willy-nilly contradictory, Am lie.

Especially with small onions and a branch of parsley in c..

You speak of whom, Cr o?

Of the snake, eh, banana!

ah you perhaps want to speak about the neurotic guilt which tarnishes judgement?

If the man had not eaten the meat, he would not have been able to stand up and develop muscles so much. remain to know if he felt the need to develop muscles and therefore began eating some meat, or if he began eating some meat for other reasons and consequently developed muscles.

Yes, completely, Am lie. Not only she tarnishes judgement but she provokes the worst of bad faith, the one who is capable of denying the simplest obviousness.

For me the worst of bad faith (if it is really possible to establish a hierarchy what I doubt), it is rather the one who always tries to stop feeling guilty

Regarding guilt:
it is soon the week of the sustainable development (I did not prove if the bisontine of reduction announces it). Topic 2009 to Consume lasting
at the end of parenthesis

To answer the last comment just: not enough chance which the Bisontine de D croissance (at least in her current form) makes the class of the "sustainable development". At her simple evocation, she need to see how jumps in the ceiling!

As for the rest: two debates a bit crossed, of blow it is complicated to go on especially since the question of my birth of Other one , moved forward to the comment 17, is also interesting to dig (and opens a 3rd debate).

I want, for my part, to take back the track of mankind " transgressive (changing diet, therefore "Natuire"), later, in another article specifically dedicated to subject.
The question of the Other pourait also to be put, one time, aside.
Let us return therefore to bad faith.

Bad faith indicated more precisely the inherent denial of reality in neuroses of guilt such as it is possible to see them developing as symptoms of the malaise of the modernity. I felt like supporting the idea of neurotic guilt as central pathology of the Western modernity, and at the same time as psychical disposition most adapted to the perpetuation of the constituting system of production-consumption. And then idea as post modernity will willy-nilly have to exceed these problems by freeing itself from neurotic guilt.

If you understood nothing in its rantings, especially do not make you feel guilty, Isi makes the congestive neurosis of the brain; and he uses it to heat his home during winter Therefore, no worry, OK.

I wonder if feeling seeps out from guilt which haunts us a bit all feeling would not come to have nothing to "return who is as high as the world which was "given" to us by coming to him.

Where from perhaps (that is said by passing) the impulses which encourage us either to destroy him, or to construct a better "double" which to it.

This is there! I understood why I am not you since the beginning: you left principle that they were all haunted by guilt feelings. Who said to you this??? You would not have u not very fast generalised a personal feeling?

By checking off the original sin of my reflexion there, would not you be in spite of you confirming what I moved forward?
(To know that guilt or its simple feeling is always already there )

Following the text of Quignard from which is extracted what I named, it was rather the language at which one aimed: would while speaking, by thinking of the world with words therefore by becoming in a way entirely human, the original sin would nest which exiled us from the initial Paradise.

I would share this hypothesis readily.

bah
undoubtedly

Written by Jean Baudrillard:

At the bottom, it would be possible to get it (technology, simulation, virtual) as a challenge from the natural perfection of the given world a challenge to God who gave it to us if they want. To take back by this metaphor the fundamental symbolic rule which wants that unilateral donation is unbearable, and that all that is given must be returned. There is not original innocence therefore, and the world such as it is is not innocent. It is a poisoned chalice, and we cannot accept it as it. We cannot either take responsibility, because debt would be too heavy. It is however the strategy of God that to make us responsible, or to buy back debt (or to pretend, by the sacrifice of his son), what makes us even more debit and scourges us even more. Therefore, it is necessary to avert this natural world, and to answer our hands by the made world, the world required and conceived by us. True answer is in challenge, in no way in idea of being "free " or "responsible". It is in challenge that responsibility is complete, and that it is solved. In this sense, the firm of susbtituer the made world by our hands in the given world is well a metaphysical challenge and which answers symbolism somewhere with a ruler (it is always necessary to think of it in the critical valuation of technology).

(The Exiles of dialogue, Galileo, on 2005)

The firm of susbtituer the made world by our hands in the given world is well a metaphysical challenge .

This text of Baudrillard could illustrate the article just as much on The small Eden des Holzer.

It is also an appealing point of view, indeed But to conceive human adventure as a challenge to God and to nature by creating the world nothing that to be human being and to our fancy seems to me to give a lot to be able to this God and this nature since it is then a question of inventing another world in our measure as the only means to liberate us from this bulky tutelage. I am not sure that this proposal gives much more advantages and could feed a really more exciting phantasm.

I would have the same tendency to consider that this attitude leans on a conception very ancient testament of God the father which it is necessary to outbrave to free itself from his authority while (if they stay in the Christian model which seems to influence it), the New Testament and its conception of Jesus sculpted Christ son of God and son of the man, opens us already for more than two thousand years the idea of a creative collaboration between the man and his origin. There is nothing more and anybody to outbrave since so God confesses him even to us what is more without our free collaboration it cannot be any more big thing. We are therefore well the creators of our world of the Earth and I do not see well the interest either to reappraise tools and laws of its prior functioning, or to want to outbrave them or to invent others while there is so much to be to create from what we have.

And therefore, rather than to want to outbrave all laws of nature and to invent at all costs the antith tique world who will collapse willy-nilly sooner or later by refusing the rules which govern her, the attitude which tries first of all to notice these laws attentively and to search a disposition of harmonious collaboration seems to me much more sensible and fecund for the gift and the future.

In this direction the effort of this couple of farmers seems to me much more promising than that of all these sorcerer's apprentices who fabricate us this green Hell where we get stuck inexorably.

But I have an impression that similarly than single Tchernobyl not having obviously enough for awakening general conscience, we will need quite a lot of lethal ecological disasters so that this collective irresponsibility is finally stopped as for the "management" (which horrible word) of nature.

Because I will not be made believe that a landscape of human desert and machines vandalizing the earth, slaughtering fauna and flora such I can notice it every day by my window, can constitute a viable and interesting proposal of agriculture and of human plan which goes with. I see there simply something monstrous that shows moreover an immoderate taste for a monolithic and totalitarian conception of the human societies, far from this diversity which governs any enchantment, any poetic reality about which we all dream and nature of which gives us however so generously example every day. Undoubtedly sums to us still too stupid and appalled against I do not know who and I do not know what to refuse to act with a little more wisdom.

I am undoubtedly going be told myself that to feed all human beings that we are, is well needed this hard mechanisation and this industrial conception of agriculture.

Certainly, certainly. except that I also think that there is indeed another much more reasonable way of using these marvellous machines, leave even to use them in collaboration with the animals, and only when they prove to be irreplaceable.

I pr f rerais widely to see by my window and food among broad and abundant one population of farmers having care of their patch of land and their animals, being attentive to ambient wild nature, rather than to live in this rural desert without seeing either anything or anybody of others than these some unhappy farmhands overexploited in the steering wheel of their monstrous machines And in bonus, a little farther, in the very close city, this poor queue of unemployed persons in search of less poor one job.

They are not going to make believe me who they have no means to work intelligently and with less effort than in time formerly thanks to the beneficial effects of all this technology, and when it is not possible to imagine a form of society a little more attentive to the human beings who constitute it.

All this science and this technology brought into service really by a conception much more opened to diversity and to complementarity, and so capable of resisting the phantasm of any power more, seems to me completely capable of feeding easily and much better than cannot make it current industrial agriculture (who uses more energy than she restores it) all planetary population.

"Challenge" that Baudrillard clocks in is not within the province of reasonable and voluntary, free decision, that he would display as a plan of society but a reflex act, according to the immemorial symbolic rule of the don/contre donation, functioning of which he is only determining, following Marcel Mauss.

It would this time be present just as much in the gesture of Holzer who seems to have done again everything of the hand as a challenge against the agricultural world such as it presented itself to them (it was the sense of my comment 46).

Baudrillard speaks about the given world but it gives to understand that it is not simply about the one who is found by arriving and who the men transformed continuously, but of the one whom God created, that nature created: therefore, it is necessary to avert this natural world, and to answer by the world made by our hands, the world required and conceived by us (and not by God).

There is a nuance of size there which you seem to me to elude in your comment.

Holzer puts on well in challenge to transform the world, but first that fabricated by agricultural industry rather based on that fabricated by "God". And it is not in this sense there that speaks Baudrillard.

Independently of the explanation of text, I think that the natural is conceived so as to justify us just, since we return all that was given to us to our children, and on top of that, sublimated by the infinite love which is poured out on them.
Of course, everybody does not have children, but "natural" logic wants that there is it, and the "natural" attitude encourages us to be productive to everything to them without counting, always by giving more, and forgotten oneself.
I do not believe in this idea of original guilt.

It is another very subjective opinion, but in my sense, feelings of faintness, feelings of unsuitability, lack of comfort, just come into sight when the natural fluxes are blocked.
Guilt, feeling to be coupablement debtor, are not natural. They are born of the not respect for the flux of donation, such as it was conceived to exist. And donation does not exist out of love. This joins the idea of paradise-Hell recalled yesterday with Vincent: a Hell of guilt was seen when they are unable to like.
subjective and categorical, I accept it :-).

I think that this idea of omnipresent donation and of love was subjacent in your last comments, isidore, in a sense, since the world which you disparage and that of the moimoimoimoimoimoimoi, the one who makes us others forget and break this natural flux of donation, of transmission, of exchange and of love in the broad sense.

a ptite question earths up in earth:
they make how to get the buckets of seeds of any varieties which they show in the film?

ah flute I made a mistake about place

when they give in qqun that they like not, it is willy-nilly calculated?

it is possible to give also because they want not to cause, no?

Written by Jean Baudrillard:

Other hypothesis: the world is given to us. And yet according to the symbolic rule, what is given, it is necessary to be able to return him.

Formerly, it was possible to return favour somehow, to God or to any authority, to answer donation by the sacrifice.

From now on, we have no more anybody to whom to return favour, since any transcendence disappeared. And if we can give nothing in exchange for this world, it is unacceptable.

That's how it is going to be necessary to liquidate the natural world, and substitutes to it the artificial world the world constructs any rooms, as which we will have count to be returned to nobody.

Where from this colossal enteprise technology of elimination of the natural world under all the forms. All that is natural will be disclaimed, in more or less long-term, by virtue of this forced substitution. The Virtual appears as final solution to the impossible exchange of the world.

But affair is not regulated therefore. Because we will not avoid this new debt, contacted this time towards ourselves. How to dismiss us of this technical world and this artificial omnipotence?

It is therefore needed us, there also, not being able to be able to exchange him (against what?), destroy this world or disclaim it. Where from, at the same time as we advance in the edification of this artificial world, the huge counters negative transfer towards this Entire Reality which we invented.

Denial in depth today everywhere introduces and about which we do not know which will take it, of this overpowering firm or of this violent abraction.

(The Pact of lucidity or the intelligence of the Trouble, Galileo, on 2004)

Hypothesis (in my sense, they cannot any more pertinent) from Baudrillard is more clear in this text there, Isidore?

Holzer goes certainly to the other sense, but would however be driven in a way by the same engine.

I really find the hypothesis of clear Baudrillard and always so appealing rationally without her managing however to draw away to me in the wake (or the logic).

Indeed I confess for my part, really not to feel in an infinite debt regarding all what is given to me by the world, nor to have to create a completely artificial to liberate me from this unbearable debt.

It is so perhaps because Baudrillard postulates the disappearance of any transcendence and because I feel the opposite exactly. And it is not even by mind of contradiction.

I feel in a report of exchange balanced with the world which is based not on a rational calculation of giving giving, but on a feeling of internal balance which can admit infallibly its slightest disturbances in a sense or in other one. I try then hard to restore this balance each time I smell it faulty and I feel satisfied in general when I reach it and this stops there.

I also, in the reading of the extract of Baudrillard, it is "appealing" who came to mind to me as word. But nothing furthermore. It is appealing and this makes me laugh. But this has got nothing to do with what I feel. Nor even with what I think of! As Isidore, I am rather regulated to my balance or internal rocking (what I saw in form of flux). Rt once again this idea of original debt is perfectly foreign to me And you Isidore?

Yes, this idea of " original debt " does not speak to me much either.

I would not take the liberty of passing a judgment on your appr cation, but perhaps it could be useful in (possible) debate that I specify what it is for me of question there.

He seems to me who misunderstanding (or at least the difference of perception) concerns not this question of " original debt " but of " symbolic rule ". Because all pertinence of this hypothesis of Baudrillard is based on this anthropological foundation which is very safe giving rational giving calculation recalled by Isidore.

They are going have to talk one day in detail about Trial on the donation of Marcel Mauss because what was discovered seems to me not only to hyper " Pr histo " but, beyond, of a key importance for the understanding of the human being. Anyway, for my part, I since do not cease determining a bit everywhere the (deaf) functioning of this symbolic rule of the potlach. I learn even to use it, to lean over (as well in my work as in the association of district in which I participate). One might as well say that this "foundation" makes no more too much doubt for me (but I want to suppose that I delude myself or at least others do not share this position).

Baudrillard, in the fact that I believe I receive it, leaves also this symbolic rule discovered and described by Mauss. Every every job, then, was only a research of (theoretical) consequences which it is possible to draw.

What he makes there (in both named extracts), in his very last works, is a try of application of this rule (of which they are far from having penetrated into all mysteries) at bluntly "metaphysical level. It is daring, confusing, astounding. Appealing, the same, if you want. But it is openly a simple "hypothesis". To be able to judge it definitely, it is necessary, it seems to me, to take the time to enter more the obscurities of our instinctive functionings (where acts this famous and still mysterious r gle symbolism ). It my appears a long process.

For my part, therefore, I prefer keeping opened hypothesis (based on an authentic anthropological foundation, it is certainly confusing but far from being absurd) and continue digging subject.

With this new lighting, question really takes another turn, and I well feel like thinking about it

it seems to me, but I have already said it, that the only misunderstanding, anyway personally speaking, is based on the basic postulate. Continuation, is completely suitable for me; besides it is hardly debatable

The basic postulate of symbolic rule or of original debt ?

It is true that a too much balanced, too objective approach of exchanges (of giving giving style) does not give an account of their reality such as I can live them. In the same way, with very life, there is a side "game", "challenge" which constitutes a foundation and without that she loses all her taste and her mystery. Too much balance abolishes movement finally. All this would go well to the sense of what you express there, really.

But I would have tendency to live this process of "higher bid" not in the sense of an infinite debt impossible to pay off (where from primordial guilt, the initial subject of this article), but rather on a cheerful and play mode of challenge in the existence which gives me at the same time the measure of my freedom of action and the sense of a dignity in touch with responsible position to assert so being actor of my own destiny.

And I have an impression that it is the position itself of the challenge to the life which makes possible claim so shown to be creator of my own destiny. That I manage or not to accomplish what I cast has less importance than to make it nevertheless, as a probably impossible and delusive challenge, but capable nevertheless of weaving with life a particular relation which makes it to me desirable and mysterious. It's as if create, or even live simply, an impossible bet was, an objectively eloquent absurd challenge, which just finds its force to be and to come true in this masterly boasting.

And I as have an impression as for the food merrily and without too much anxiety it is better to be cleared out from the feeling of infinite debt regarding life (and of the guilt which goes with).

All that is undoubtedly very presumptuous and badly expressed but it is only an additional challenge in your hilarious patience.

That of original debt. But I say it since the beginning.

I get closer to your point of view, Isidore, notably in the idea of movement and of gratuitous acts. I think that it is the cynicism which prevents from seeing donation otherwise than in exchange. There are undoubtedly people who live in the principle of pure exchange (that there is higher bid in donation return or not - it seems to me that it is well this, the game of the potlasch, no?), and then others which donation is a movement enough for itself, independently of any return.

Perhaps that Isidore and I sums rather of the second category, and that it is for this that the deaf guilt of an absolute original debt is foreign to us?

All this is really sure to soften: if I do not believe in perfect exchange, free donation has its borders also: too much donation without ever back can drive to a short the bowl and the feeling of bitterness that could be readjusted by more exchange!!

The game of the potlach (in the fact that I understand it) is a symbolic challenge based on animal aggressiveness, I would dare to advance where to die is less serious than to lose the face .

All culture, civilisation and notably the system of rational exchange are tries to move aside the power of this archaic engine.

But all that is little efficient: dispel the natural by the door, it indeed returns, as everything forced back, by windows!

In this logic (that I share), free donation does not exist.
You will see "cynicism" there undoubtedly, Am lie. I p f re to name "realism" this.

willy-nilly

Damage Yats that you develop subject only on msn as usual to you make the third way

I do not have too much phantasm as for the notion of " free donation ". If I hear him in term of donation which does not wait for direct reciprocity, I can accept it in nuance near that it seems to me completely clear that this unwarranted nature is not so unselfish as this.

Either she is satisfied with the virtuous position shown often ostentatiously, or it reconnait simply all accepted donations which did not make either the object of any return. Feeling of balanced exchanges is capable of staying except a strict arithmetic between partners of reciprocal donation.

I have an impression that the only free donation of which they are really capable is the one who is unaware to have been able completely to accomplish. As soon as a light of conscience tries to take it over to reveal him to himself, he loses immediately the innocence of this unwarranted nature and becomes bluntly suspicious if he persists in wanting to become identified suchlike.

You are right. But I continue to believe in it, at least in relation parent-child

As for what I identify as free donation in ordinary life, it is the one who is spontaneously born, without prior calculation back on investment.

Or even a very common knack: I have a girlfriend without morale, me give him u small bunch of flowers. It is well a free donation, no? What I earn it? his smile? satisfaction to have momentarily relieved his grief? you really think that this constitutes an exchange, this?
(I chose a very common example between girlfriends)

It is a free donation which is nevertheless satisfied with the personal pleasure of having made a small gesture to cheer up the girlfriend. This takes nothing away besides from value, effectiveness and in the beauty of gesture, but I would have tendency to say that exchange is nevertheless made across the intensity with which are received these small flowers.

As for relation parent-child, I do not doubt the intensity of possible free donation. But I also think that he is in measure (not always certainly) of the one who was also lived when the parent was child.

But I am also wary of the blackmail which it is possible to make to the children with this idea of sacrifice of the parents. The excess of donation can lock other up in an infinite debt than he will be able never to pay off and who assures an eternal domination of the one who exercises him. In that case there, the true donor it is the one who supports the excess of donation until the instant when he has the courage to send to waltz his "benefactor".

I remain persuaded that what is indeed given it is what is unaware of to give. There it is perhaps possible to speak about free donation. I even have an impression what is more what there is of better to give they especially do not feel like giving it and what is more it is necessary to tear it off to us manu-militari.

Free donation is therefore well a reality

you go a bit quickly on the parental sacrifice It is possible to give without deduction and without calculation to his children without its being about a sacrifice Besides I consider that everything IS OWED them.

OK! Everything, really? I am not sure that this is not the best way to put them in an infinite debt which he will be never possible pay off and that will put them in working order of dependency all their life. It is as better as they also know in what they need them and what they give us also by refusing to give them what does not belong to the parents to give them But I can make a mistake and badly interpret this infinite donation about which you speak as loving mother.

I do not believe, I find that it is simple and that it goes without saying. Remark had been made me pure my daughter when it was baby. They said that I gave him too much. Obviously they made a mistake. I pensee that as for children, lack is more dangerous than satiety.
But they deflect

I think that rather than to be in a debt infinity, they will be capable of giving in their turn, without deduction nor calculation it is already what they make, in their ladder of small children

You will point out however, Am lie, that everything to "his children (therefore to oneself, by proxy) much more than to those of others (there alone is more easily given where could define itself a free donation ), no?

If that was the case, there would be no ill-treated, abandoned children etc Really I find this easy. Who said that unwarranted nature was worth only if she was difficult?

If what you give to your children is duplicated by the number of children who give in their turn to their children this makes exponential donation!

In agreement with Isi: a "donation" if it exists cannot be qualified as "donation", even by qualifying it as "free".

Something else: the game of the donation / contredon of the symbolic rule cannot be completely assimilated with an "exchange" (even if they speak sometimes excessively of " symbolic exchange " regarding the potlach). She comes out again rather of a kind of duel or of (not willy-nilly conscious) challenge, what is in no way the same register.

Finally (in rebound on the comment 85 of Am lie): according to the symbolic rule, really, having more hushed up about "deals to your daughter, more she will be forced "to give" in return. This symbolic rule, which you consider "cynical" at first sight, is much more virtuous in fact than he appears to it (and it is not undoubtedly a chance if millions of years of evolution kept it)

simple fact to link "donation" and "pressure" seems to me surrealist

Do not make believe me that you are insensible to this logic of "challenge" (or answer instinctive is beyond, or there - de a, of any moral judgement), Am lie. Not you!

I am deeply saddened by this debate and what it makes foresee.

On the contrary, I really think that some donations can be lived as a true pressure, even if they are chosen in full knowledge of reason and that they are made "for love ". Take care for example of his old infirm parents with whom relational difficulties of a whole life are perpetuated, and to prefer this choice there to any form of abandonment. It is possible to call this of duty but it is also possible to call this of difficult, painful and restrictive donation.

OK? Bluntly "upsetting ?

The movement of "dices-idealisation" is certainly a bit sometimes destabilising but the new soil on which to dance then becomes quickly, at least it seems to me, rather triumphant. No?

(Comte-Sponville well enough showed, in the first works, how beatitude was "behind " despair)

Why are hushed up saddened, Am lie? this makes me sad.

Yes Isidore, you are right.

As for original debt :

Even regarding your parents, Am lie and Isidore, who brought you into the world, then, otherwise educated, at least allowed to live until today, you therefore do not feel it?

Nor for all generations which preceded us and left, more or less consciously, to us such a precious inheritance?

Am I really only "Zombi" not to be taken for a self made man not owing anything of what I belong in anybody?

You have completely every reason to show this aspect there of original debt . But that's true that this debt there, that I saw entirely as much regarding my family in the broad sense, as regarding all those who allowed me to be built, including our good old French Republic, it is a liberating debt, that gives me exhilarating feeling to belong to a human history and that stimulates me tremendously. She never weighs me as could make it an abstract and infinite debt regarding "Life" or "God", as I had received in priori the subject of this original debt recalled in the article. It is also interesting to approach subject from that point of view there really.

In any case he is sure that seen under this angle, this debt which seems to me incontestable, never provokes guilt feelings. It is so undoubtedly the engine what expresses Am lie when she says that everything to his own children is owed (having accepted everything from our own parents). but this donation there, I have never thought he is heavy because it is a donation which enriches in any case the one who gives because it is really the movement of the life which becomes lively itself by enlivening all those who give themselves up to it by giving or by accepting his beneficial effects.

This last development makes me become aware of an aspect of question which had not come to mind to me during dialogue yet. It is about the deep divergence existing between our conception of the economy of exchanges such as they are practiced in our societies where a penny is a penny in a mode of exchange arithmetically giving giving, and the one that it is possible to notice in the functioning of nature where everything goes about things by excess and higher bid in a movement of exchange of vital energy which seems inexhaustible.

It is not especially the principle of output such that we conceive it, who governs these exchanges. It is enough to think of the quantity of reproductrices seeds fabricated for the conception of the single individual for example to illustrate these purpose.

He appears to me while there is a movement of life where exchanges go about things by higher bid of abundance, where the one who gives becomes rich as much as the one who accepts, where to be able to receive the donation of other one is also important as to be able to give. And all this to favour and to stimulate a process of exchange which is only growing hyperboliquement in an inexhaustible abundance. It's as if finally more they give and they accept, more they have to give and to accept. And this, it is life in its normal exponential deployment.

In the the opposite, in a process which wants to fan out except this conception of things, our economic vision of exchanges has tendency to consider that treasures are puisables and that we have only a quantity limited by material and by energy to be exchanged. In that case there, the rich man is the one who hoards most material and possible energy and who distributes in count its booty drips, by limiting itself to the visible role of donor and of powerful which seems more prestige.

By acting so they enter a phenomenon of general pauperisation in reality as much as the dynamics of the process while living on exchanges who is hindered. By blocking on principle of illegal securement and accumulation material treasures which are only the material form of a movement in motion, they prevent process living to fan out freely and they lock themselves little by little in an accounting economy of restriction and of poverty, completely opposite to the natural movement of the living being.

And I have an impression that to find this faculty to participate in the abundance of exchanges when they are enlivened by the inexhaustible breath of the living being, to abandon the prestige position of the donor to start to learn about that of the ticket collector is necessary. It is an art to be able to receive what is given but too often I have an impression that they prefer giving and that for lack of being able to accept they end up impoverishing exchanges. In a process living on exchanges, to give and to accept belong both to a process of mutual enrichment, without true differentiation.

And it is only when they come back into an accounting conception of exchanges which they manage to take out from this shared abundance and which is entered in a process of collective pauperisation, at all levels.

Since I abandoned the idea of earning my rind (and this begins making a lease), thinking that there was better to be during this life that to focalize me on this absurd belief and to participate in this process of material and spiritual collective impoverishment, I have never lacked anything and situations arrange in often very surprising and even sometimes miraculous a way as long as I manage to remain centered on what always appeared to me essential: human exchanges.

Idea of " original debt ", such as I conceive it, is rather close to that of necessary prior reception which you develop here.

As for the concept of excess in the foundation of exchanges of the living being, if j epeux to allow me, I could not too much return you to that of " accursed part " of Battle which digs, refines and develops, it seems to me, this intuition.

Otherwise, for the economic vision of exchange trying to oppose (and reaching original "Potlach" hardly) there, of course: Baudrillard.