Author Archives: David

The logical ballerinas: “Art”.




What appears in the sky of this phrase is a photograph (a copy; How many copies are possible?) of a painting by Leonardo da Vinci called Salvator Mundi.  An avatar of God mirrored by an artist who has been divinized by the History of our civilization. It is said that somebody has paid for this object 450 million dollars. Perhaps we are facing the most expensive bulk of matter in the universe. A painting. An outcome of something that we call “Art”: Matter transformed by the human hand, by the human heart: mutated matter willing to produce exceptional states of consciousness to those who observe it. [See “Matter”].

Art. My purpose is to approach this logical ballerina from two perspectives: metaphysical (philosophical) and physical.

From Metaphysics [See “Metaphysics” in Spanish] arise, at least, these questions: What is Art, what function does it have within the great dynamics of the whole? Is it possible to draw a model of totality big enough to grasp the phenomenon of Art? Is Art a crucial phenomenon, a privileged experience, to undertake a really deep and unfettered Physics, or Anthropology, or Biology, or even Theology, not limited by the rules of the current models that make their task easier and more communicable?

From the current (ever changing) models of Physics arise fascinating questions [See here “Physics” in Spanish]: How to visualize, from a radically physical, or materialist point of view, the phenomenon of Art: inspiration, creation, communication of the created, alteration of the state of consciousness of the recipient of the work? What is, purely physically, molecularly, even quantumly if you want, a work of Art such as Salvator Mundi of Leonardo da Vinci? How to visualize, simultaneously, how to introduce in a single system, the creator of that work, the work itself -vibrant, bewitching,  being not exactly from this world- and its receiver, me for example? Or, to put it more bluntly: What happens to matter, to my matter (the matter of my brain and of my skin if you want) when I am taken, physically, by that artificial being created by Leonardo da Vinci?

At this point, I would like to recommend some readings:

1.- Plato. I recommend reading all his works as many times as possible, even if you don’t share his ideas (actually I do not share many of them). The rejection of Art. According to Plato, the Demiurge (the creator of this world) is a failed craftsman. Human artists in the world are even worse than the Demiurge: they provide copies of copies of the eternal ideas, only accesible if we get out of the world, of the cavern, of the ignorance.

2.- Novalis. Read Novalis Werke. Gerhard Schulz (edit.). Munich 2013 (In German). In English I recommend: Mahoney, M.: Novalis. Philosophical Writings. Albany 1997. It is also a great pleasure to read this book of Rüdiger Safranski: Romantik. Eine deutsche Affäre [Romanticism. A German affair], Frankfurt am Main 2010. And you can read my post in Spanish about Safranski [here].

3.- Hegel. It is a surprising pleasure to read his work Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik (Lectures on Aesthetics). Don’t miss it.

4.- Schopenhauer [See here in German]. The artist copies ideas better than Nature; and offers to the human being moments in which he no longer suffers the torture of desire. Music as a copy of the heart of the world. The musician is the best philosopher because he can really communicate de essence of the reality.

5.- Nietzsche. Read The Birth of Tragedy. Do it.

6.- Simone Weil [See here in Spanish]. “The beauty of the world is the tender smile of Christ towards us through matter”. Read La Pesanteur et la grâce.

7.- Deleuze/Félix Guattari. The Philosophy as creation of concepts. Read What’s Philosophy? And you can read my post in Spanish about Deleuze [here].

And this is what happens in my mind if I let the logical ballerina  “Art” dance inside it:

1.- The fundamental problem of the artistic phenomenon is that of creativity and, therefore, that of freedom. If individual freedom is logically unsustainable [See “Freedom” in Spanish], we can only think of a primordial artist, an omnipotence without essence (“God”, “Nothing”, whatever you want) acting through the hands and through the neurons and through the hearts of all possible human and non human artists. In the History of Art there are no absolutely creative and innovative moments: what is presented to us is a kind of millimetric evolution of aesthetic species, interpenetrating and fecundating themselves ubiquitously. Each artist is nourished by the environment, he adds small modifications to what others did, always within paradigms in which he can not help but drink… and be drunk by others, with the garden of his mind and his soul overpopulated with seeds which are brought by, lets say, not yet studied (or even considered) winds. It is difficult, or perhaps impossible, to see pure multi-individual creation. Leonardo da Vinci did not innovate. I was subjected to influences that could be visualized from a deterministic perspective. But there is, however, surprisingly, the phenomenon of inspiration, of sudden possession, which Hegel describes with mastery. It is a phenomenon beyond human control: it can not be started; it can not be stopped. We could talk about something like “Grace”.

2.- Leonardo da Vinci´s picture is, from a purely “physical” point of view, a bulk of Matter. Thus, the buyer of that  sublimated bulk knows that he possesses, retains, a unique portion of the solid of the universe: a concrete trimming of that great fabric of atoms that, according to a simplistic but useful perspective, constitutes the cosmos. But we are told by the physicians that such solidity is only apparent, or “exterior” (it is something like a veil). Salvator Mundi might be boiling in that “nothing” that, just barely, tries to mathematise the current Physics. Salvator Mundi might be open inside, open to a physical dimension where you do not know very well if you can go on talking about “the physical” (the objective) or the “psychical” (subjective … human? Divine? … We get lost there). It may be accepted nowadays that the subatomic entities that constitute Salvator Mundi appear and disappear, change, exist and don’t exist… But, surprisingly, the picture of Leonardo da Vinci seems to remain the same, as if its matter, it’s physical flesh, didn’t change. But it does. Permanently.

3.- The previous thoughts oblige us to consider that a work of Art is an idea, in a Platonic sense (an archetype, an instruction to mold matter). The work of Art would be an idea, in principle immutable and inmaterial, that needs matter to exist. To live. We could say, in part from Schopenhauer, that the work of Art is a living being (permanence of form with permanent change of matter). This perspective is more evident in the case of music. The musical genius creates a way (an idea, instructions if you want) to modify the natural vibration of the acoustic environment surrounding the perceiver. The musical work is not the score, but an idea (inmaterial, not yet belonging to this world) expressed in such score. And every time that idea is fulfilled, every time the matter is taken by the idea of the creator, the work of Art takes life, flesh: it finally becomes existence in the phenomenal world. It could be said that the ideas created by a creative musician can even transform the neuronal matter of a human being and, there, reach its plenitude.

4.- Art. Its very possibility poses a purely metaphysical question: Why does it exist at all? What ontological status does it have in the totality of the real? It could be said that there is something that supplies itself contents of consciousness from its infinite points. Such “self-supply” of artistic realities could explain the very fact of the existence of a world. Art, the work of Art, when it achieves its objective, generates plenitudes, moments in which an absolute yes, a yes more affirmative than Nietzsche’s own yes, echoes through all corners of the whole Being.

5.- From the deterministic materialism the phenomenon of Art appears like something really fabulous: a group of organized atoms (that of the artist) generates a law, or algorithm, able to modify the structure of their environment (think again about a musical work, or even of painting, which can be copied infinite times). And there is another group of atoms (the viewer of the work of Art) that perceives these programmed alterations of his environment, which in turn alters their own being (think of the rises in heart rate, the rapture, the loss of the ego-consciousness because of the excessive beauty of a painting, the quasi-lethal awe that can produce a poetic work or a song or a sculpture). Therefore matter, according to materialism, generates from itself forms of modification of itself, thus producing the glorious shudder of Art. It is undoubtedly matter (that divinity to which the materialists worship) a fascinating divinity. And it is also something utterly impossible to understand. I mean seriously understand.

6.- It is likely that we, human beings, when we die, we die of beauty. The less “ego-consciousness“ in the world, the more beauty surrounding (and being) the perceiver of that world.

7.- It is therefore necessary to make an equivalence between the rapture produced by the work of Art and death itself. The Stendhal syndrome would perhaps be a convulsion caused by an excess of Creation: something like if God, the Creator, had gone too far with his Creation. In fact, the Creation can be only for himself. It is logically impossible to overcome radical metaphysical monism.

8.- Some years ago I taught in Madrid a course entitled “Masterpieces of philosophical Art” because I thought we could contemplate the great philosophical systems as works of Art, not only poetic, but also architectural: great buildings of concepts and words that (fortunately always unsuccessfully) claim to mirror the totality. Some of them, nevertheless, not only offer huge logical and grammatical beauty, but also windows, huge windows, and even vertiginous spaceships, to approach and somehow feel the unsayable. Those philosophical systems are true unlimited jewels whose mere contemplation (study) offers one of the most sublime human experiences. 

Schopenhauer offered one of those huge systematic jewels; and he affirmed that music, the music of genius, expresses directly the essence of the world: what moves everything that moves inside the world (its intimate heart, so to speak). In the video that I offer below you can see, therefore, the open heart of the world, like if it were lying on a surgery table. In that video we can also see a master piece of Music embodied, taking the matter of a group of human beings, yearning to be, to have, life in their flesh. I suggest to contemplate the video keeping in mind the Schopenhauerian idea that in alive beings takes place a constant change of matter with maintenance of the form. I would like you to see that living being that is Bach’s St Matthew Passion taking the matter of a coordinated group of human beings: moving the muscles of their faces, of their hands, drawing predetermined neuronal connections in the immensity of their brains… You may have a wonderful and terrifying vision at the same time: a living being (created, not on freedom, by Bach) living inside another: a cathedral, which is another work of Art, another bulk of matter taken by the idea of ​​an artist (remember that a cathedral is being permanently restored following a model, an arquitectural idea created by a human artist).

I beg you to contemplate simultaneously those two living beings that were created (not on freedom) by artistic human beings. One inside another: a master piece of music existing for a while inside a master piece of architecture. And all that, inside many other (invisible) artistic structures that form the whole Creation, or the whole Reality if you want, which is, anyway, something glorious. The recording belongs to the Brandenburg Consort.



* You can find a brilliant debate about art and morality in this conversation between Hanno Rauterberg and Yves Bossart broadcasted (in German) by SRF: [Should art be politically correct?].


David López

The logical ballerinas: “apara vidya”.




apara vidya

I found this logical ballerina of the old Indian Philosophy while walking though this beautiful book: The Upanishads [introduction and translation of Swami Nikilanada], Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center, New York 1949.

And this is the forest glade where I saw her dancing, for the fist time in my life  (Op. cit. vol. I, p. 78):

“We have already spoken of the two aspects of Brahman: Nirguna and Saguna. Nirguna Brahman is characterized by an absence of all attributes. It is Pure Consciousness and the immutable foundation of the universe. Again, in association with maya, Brahman appears as Saguna Brahman, which, from the standpoint of the Absolute, is mutable and impermanent. The knowledge of the former is called the Higher Knowledge, and that of the later, the lower knowledge. The Higher Knowledge brings about immediate Liberation, resulting in the utter cessation of all suffering and the attainment of supreme Bliss. The lower knowledge leads to the realization of the position of Brahma and thus paves the way for ultimate Liberation. It offers the highest happiness in the material world. But still it is not Immortality. The attainment of the Higher Knowledge, or Para Vidya, is the goal of the spiritual life. But the lower knowledge, or apara vidya, is not to be neglected or despicted. As long as man is conscious of the ego and the outside worlds, and as long as he takes these for real, so long must he cultivate this knowledge. The Bhagavad Gita says that if a man who is identified with the body follows the way of the Unmanifest, he only courts misery. The Mundaka Upanishad exhorts the pupil to cultivate both the Higher Knowledge and the lower knowledge.”

My intention in this text is to figure out the metaphysical-systemic meaning of the very fact of the existence  of that alleged “inferior wisdom”: the very fact that there is something – life, world, or whatever you want to call it – where, if you have certain very precious knowledge, you can be happy. How and why was our world designed in that challenging way? Is it a moral, mighty video-game? Or was the world not designed that way (there is no design at all) and are we now dealing with false philosophical problems?

Anyway, since we are now not supposed to be in that Vedantic “superior wisdom” (actually if we were there, there would not be an “I” that writes and another “I” that reads), we can contemplate and enjoy the awesome intellectual storm of increasing and unresolved doubts. Let’s start asking. Lets fully open and peek out every conceivable windows of our mind and of any mind. Let’s start loving, yearning, what we don’t know, “that” whose mere existence we can not imagine. Let’s start enjoying the sublime (and harsh) pleasure of Philosophy.

But do we really want to resolve all doubts? Do we really want the absolute cessation of all suffering? Do we want immortality? Do we yearn, like Schopenhauer, an eternal, beatific nothing?

Apara vidya is the wisdom for those who don’t want to escape from life, for those who do not mind to go on loving the world (the whole reality if you want) without really understanding it. It could also be called “wisdom of life.” Or wisdom “of the dream”, if we see our life as a dream (it is, in fact, a dream: a sacred dream). But who/what dreams?

And, especially: How is it possible the very existence of ignorance within the Being? Is not the ignorance a miracle?

More questions: Can we be more or less happy in our life depending on the knowledge that can be achieved in it? Is it worth being wise here inside? Is the wise happier? Are we free inside this world to decide and achieve the scope of our wisdom and happiness? How much knowledge and happiness are available?

Do we have – the “human beings” – power enough to transform our life (Our mind? Our consciousness?) into a work of art, into something wonderful… according to our own model of what is and what is not wonderful?

Is it worth our effort, our daily struggle, our telephone call this very morning to that person whom one day we decided to hate forever, or the daily care and respect for our body, or our unconfessed prayers to… we do not know very well what omnipotences, or our sleeplessness caused by our financial problems, or our trembling fight against our darkest shadows? Is it worthwhile to educate our children, to manage our economy with diligence, to vote good governments?

In summary: Is it worth this very world, this life, even if it is a dream, even if it is an ephemeral ripple of the mind of Something unnameable?

Yes, it is. Sorry Schopenhauer.

But what am I referring to, specifically, with the expression “this life”? And where lives my life?

Schopenhauer [See here in German], subjugated by some models of the Mystic tradition, and tortured by his own psychological and familiar hell, proposed a radical abandonment of the world (his world). Nietzsche (who was radically loved by his parents) even though he suffered much more than Schopenhauer,  proposed just the opposite: a radical and passionate permanence in the world, in that world in which we so much doubt, tremble and suffer (and enjoy) and die: heroic permanence, with all the senses activated, exposed (not drugged), introducing our hands and thoughts in all the muds and in all the tears and in all the possible and impossible stars so as transform our life into a great work of art. The goal would not be happiness, but art (bewitching, designed, artificial contents of consciousness).

For what then the superior wisdom, the Para Vidya? Why then to escape from this unsayable prodigy that we call life? Are we going to escape from it only on the grounds of stopping our suffering? And do we not endure the idea of dying? Why not? Is not the idea of finitude (death) as fascinating and unthinkable as the infinitude?

Last question: Is it possible to make use of the Higher Knowledge and (refusing the advise of the Bhagavad Gita) put it at the service of life?

Some of my ideas (of my feelings):

1.- I suspect, I verify almost every day, that we have an overwhelming influence in the unfolding of what we call “our life”.

2.- I believe that, if we become aware of what we are, of the power that we have, we can see the world in the palm of our hands, ready to be our Creation. Thus, the Para Vidya (the superior knowledge, the one that allows us to know that we are the bottom of all the worlds and of all the gods) allows us to love life (the Creation, what presents itself inside our consciousness) with the feeling of being its creators. I am referring to an infinite love, but also to an infinite distance, regarding the dance of reality. From that infinite love and distance we can contemplate (and sublimate, and sacralize) our apparent individual self (the one which has a name): a creature (an avatar) that we can love -and care for- without completely confusing ourselves with it.

3.- Our huge efforts are worth it. We can make amazing alchemies: we can transform any hell (exterior and interior) into a paradise. Surprising levels of beauty around us can be unfold. We are extremely powerful.

4.- But before the existence of any transformable hell, or any desirable type of light, a cosmos (order, structures, ideas) must have been installed in our consciousness. When we fight for the beauty of our world, we always do it fully spellbound by ideas. The idea of ​​love, of son, of friend, of old man who can be taken to heaven with a single smile, of idyllic nature, of economic growth, of whatever. And we will kill a cockroach, or a bacterium, or we will put a criminal in jail, or we will scold a child, or we will expropriate a bank, if with that we believe that it can be sustained, in the metamorphic immensity of the Being, our beloved world according to “our” ideas of beauty. We constantly strive to materialize ideas of beauty. Thats the only thing we really do.

5. Para Vidya. Superior wisdom. At least as proposed by the Vedanta, it would allow us to know what we really are. It would allow us to live inside a dream knowing that we are the creators of that dream. The dreamed person, the consciousness that has been finitized, individualized there, knows that its being is not confined there, in that precious, deliquescent, ontologically vacuous mask (the person). Higher knowledge offers an awakening, within the dream, without deactivating the dream.

6 .- The history of human thought and feeling offers us a huge catalog of inferior wisdom (apara vidya). One of the most outstanding offers of lower wisdom (wisdom of life) is offered by Hatha Yoga. There stands out the (Aristotelian) idea that we can only be happy and virtuous at the same time. The world, the reality of our life, is connected to our mind, but also to our whole body. A simple bowel cleansing influences the intensity of the blue of the sky and diminishes the apparent badness of a neighbour. A gesture of affection for those who for years have embittered our life embellishes the streets and purifies our viscera. Mind, body, consciousness, world… everything merges into a prodigious machine where true magic can be made: a prodigious machine that allows to feel -and be- the sacred.

7.- Another feeling: The worlds love those who love them. It is impressive to see how sensitive the Thing is. It could be said that “the matter” (What is that?) that surrounds us and constitutes us, at least at this level of consciousness, is raw, lets say as sensitive as human, living flesh… without skin. The virtuous human being discovers that everything is known in all corners of the Whole, that matter reads his thoughts, that “the other” – the other human being – is himself: another one of his avatars, another one of his masks.

8.- From the precious jail of the language it is possible to try something like this: There is Something, omnipotent, free, of infinite fertility, that is capable of self-diffraction in infinite worlds and in infinite levels and forms of consciousness. In each of them that sacred monster knows what he needs to know, what he wants to know and the happiness or suffering he wants to feel. We should not be surprised. Is not all this, and infinitely more, possible for an omnipotent being?

9.- All knowledge is always inferior. Also the one that the Upanishads calls “superior”. All knowledge is ignorance, because the final destiny of all wisdom is to discover that “knowledge” is a spell, that it is essentially false. The basic presupposition of all knowledge (that of the existence of a subject and an object) is falsehood (a sacred falsehood). “Advaita”: with this Vedantic symbol it is intended to be said that the Whole Thing can become aware of its being in one of it created forest glades (for instance a human mind). Heidegger spoke of advent [See in Spanish]. In Christianity there are those who speak of Grace. Master Eckhart affirmed that the divinity reveals itself when it wants … within itself. What other place can there be?

10.- Is there nothing to do then from here, from inside an individual life? Quite the opposite. I see it every day. Paracelsus believed that magic does not like slackers. I know people who have fought fiercely, and quietly, to keep clean, like jewels, the invisible conduits that united the members of their family. And they have achieved it. Keys that these people have given to me (they are two old women who do not know each other): avoid slander, do not gossip, do give example, never stop loving, do not complain, be very strong (very resistant to suffering and hope), pray… The two old women believe that life (other´s life mainly) are very worthwhile. They believe that life can be very beautiful or very ugly depending on how we take care of it, and depending on our level of virtue, lets say the level of beauty of our deeds and thoughts.  Both old women, by the way, love gardening.

11.- We seem to be involved in very profound and mysterious information flows. We are in something much bigger and more prodigious than any wisdom can ever know. We read and learn what we need.

12.- Matrix: From the model of totality that emerged from our logical dancer (apara vidya) we could say that we are, at the same time, the slaves of the Matrix and the architects of the worlds that are inoculated in those enslaved minds. To know it would be superior knowledge. To know it would mean to assume absolute creativity, and a huge responsibility.

13.- I feel more and more surprised by the plasticity of life. I love this life. I love this dream because there are beings in it who I love without limit. Beings -not just humans— that, to me, justify any effort that I had to make so that this dream, this Maya, does not dissolve in the enormous bonfire of the infinite. Two of these beings appear in the image that floats over these phrases. In it you can see my brother Alfonso teaching a Yoga class, and also my son Nicolás, listening.

14.- I perceive, from the most radical empiricism that can be practiced -William James [See in Spanish]– that something/someone assists us from out there to fight for this dream. And, in silence (only in silence), that huge Thing, apparently external to our self and our universe, tells us how to turn our life into a wonderful spectacle. We just have to be quiet -radically silent- and listen attentive. We are not alone. Nothing is alone.

Well, this is what occurs in the dancehall of my mind if I let the logical ballerina “apara vida” dance freely, naked, wild, inside it.

David López

August 22, 2018.

The logical ballerinas. Introduction.




I proceed to translate into English the 59 logical ballerinas that are now dancing (in Spanish) inside this website and maybe beyond. I hope to pour their philosophical mystery in this vibrant, powerful  language: in this grammatical flesh.

In the Rig Veda there is a hymn (10.125) that has been laughing and dazzling for more than three thousand years. In that hymn the word itself (a bewitching, almighty Goddess named Vak) speaks of itself and of every conceivable reality. In fact “reality” is a word, and “word” is another word. Lets listen to the Goddess Vak in a translation from the Sanskrit made by Wendy Donniger O´Flaherty (The Rig Veda, New York 1981):

“The one who eats food, who really sees, who breathes, who hears what is said, does so through me. Though they do not realize it, they dwell in me”.

Michel Foucault said millennia later:

“It is not men who make speeches, but speeches who make men” [See Michel Foucault in Spanish].

This mutant dictionary is called “The logical ballerinas”. And all its words/dancers are united by “hands” or “superstrings” that, to my surprise, are weaving, slowly, passionately, a growing organism whose future dimensions and mutations I can not foresee now.

All the texts in this dictionary demand and will always demand a new wording. They are provisional, and they will always be. I do not want any wording -any grammatical image of the fertile, inaccesible inner infinity of each word and world- to ever be definitive (finite, final, dead). I love life, even though I don’t understand it. I love the always changing, unmeasurable ,  challenging, ineffable life (maybe even more than Nietzsche himself), and I also love the artificial life of those powerful creatures that I have called “logical ballerinas”.

I hope to be able to share with you my amazement at the great dance show, at the metaphysical and bewitching dance offered by the words chosen in this dictionary. My intention is to let them dance in the unlimited dancehall of our mind ( Is it ours? Are we hers? What is exactly a mind beyond what it can think about itself? Is not “mind” a simple but very bewitching word?). And I also want to let them dance, as free and wild and naked as possible, in the unlimited dancehall of our heart, and just contemplate, quietly, their bodies, their beauty, their shuddering power, their amazing capacity to create artificial worlds in our consciousness. Eventually every  world, every reality, is artificial.

And, perhaps, in some transparent nooks of the dancing flesh of the logical ballerinas there may be a glimpse of the sacred nothingness that shines on the bottom of every reality.

I see that shine in the photograph of the ballerina Wilfride Piollet that flies in the sky of this text. No real beauty is possible without huge effort, without very intense creative suffering, of a conscious individual being. And beauty is the ultimate reason of everything.

I will publish the first logical ballerina (the one named “apara aidya”) very soon. And I will follow their alphabetical order.

David López

Las bailarinas lógicas



En el Rig Veda hay un himno (el 10.125) que ríe y deslumbra desde hace más de tres mil años. En ese himno es la propia palabra la que habla de sí misma y de todo: “Aunque ellos no lo saben, habitan en mí”. Michel Foucault dijo milenios después: “No son los hombres los que hacen los discursos, sino los discursos los que hacen a los hombres” [Véase].

Este diccionario lleva por nombre “Las bailarinas lógicas”. Y todas sus palabras/bailarinas están unidas por “manos” o “supercuerdas” que, ante mi sorpresa, están tejiendo, lentamente, apasionadamente, un organismo cuyas dimensiones no puedo prever ahora.

Supongo que dedicaré mi vida entera a este diccionario. A este organismo lógico.

Los textos que he escrito sobre cada palabra son, en muchos casos,  simples presentaciones de conferencias y, en otros, no más que borradores de artículos. Todas las entradas de mi diccionario reclaman una redacción que sea, al menos, provisional. Pero no quisiera que esa redacción -esa imagen del fértil infinito interior de cada palabra- llegara nunca a ser definitiva (finita; final por tanto). Amo la vida (la vida infinita e inefable): y también amo la vida de estas criaturas.

Espero estar siendo capaz de compartir mi estupor maravillado ante  el gran espectáculo de baile que ofrecen las bailarinas lógicas. De baile metafísico si se quiere. Mi intención es dejar que bailen muchas palabras en la pista infinita de nuestra mente. Y de nuestro corazón.

Y creo que en algunos lugares de este diccionario se puede vislumbrar la transparencia -la sublime y casi omnipotente nada- de los cuerpos de estos seres prodigiosos: su temblor ontológico.

Creo que en la fotografía que hay en el cielo de este texto se aprecia esa transparencia. La bailarina que aparece es Wilfride Piollet.

* * * *

Y las bailarinas lógicas que ya viven y sueñan en este diccionario filosófico son las siguientes:


Continue reading

El mito de Europa.



Europa. Más Europa. Es el único camino. Precioso camino por cierto, aunque ahora no lo parezca. Así lo dicen, creo yo, los mitos de la Grecia Antigua.

Vivimos momentos históricos, fascinantes, hipercreativos, peligrosos también. Estamos contemplando, hoy mismo, el nacimiento de algo grande, excepcionalmente fecundo e ilusionador. Hay que poner todas nuestras factorías de sueños al servicio de esa ilusión: al servicio de Europa: un futuro gran país.

Hace algunos días me estremecí leyendo los mitos de los que brotó eso de “Europa”. Y, lo confieso: me sacudió la brisa del misterio, de lo imposible, de ese océano mágico cuyo olor imprega todo lo que pasa, ahí, en “el mundo objetivo”. O “dentro de nuestra conciencia”. Es igual. El caso es que me estremecí hasta el punto de no poder moverme, de no poder hablar, durante horas.

Continue reading







Estoy perdidamente enamorado de esta bailarina lógica. Desde hace más de treinta años. Y ya para siempre. Eternamente, espero.

La conocí en 1978. Yo tenía catorce años y ella varios miles. Ocurrió en el instituto Jaime Ferrán de Villalba (Madrid). A partir de entonces el mundo, y mi mente, y quizás mi corazón, iniciaron una expansión infinita. O, mejor dicho, un regreso a Inmensidades que sentí cuando era un niño de pocos años (no más de seis).

Continue reading

Ha sido un gran honor





El pasado lunes trece de julio finalicé un vuelo de once años que he compartido, desde el estupor, con mis queridos alumnos/amigos de Ámbito Cultural de Madrid.

Ha sido un gran honor para mí: un milagro extra-académico del que han salido, entre otras cosas, “las bailarinas lógicas”[Véanse aquí],  los “filósofos míticos del mítico siglo XX” [Véanse aquí]  y los “pensadores vivos”.

Este último proyecto ha ocupado dos años: un arduo trabajo de pura y deliciosa Filosofía que me ha servido para contemplar el pensamiento de algunas personas cuyos cerebros están hoy físicamente vivos: filósofos, físicos, biólogos, sociólogos…

Paracelso afirmó: “Los pensamientos son libres y nadie los domina. En ellos reposa la libertad del hombre, y ellos aventajan la luz de la Naturaleza”.

Nada habría por tanto más poderoso que esa misteriosa actividad humana, si es que es simplemente humana. Pero… ¿qué es, exactamente, pensar? ¿Cabe pensar el pensamiento? ¿Desde dónde? ¿Dónde? ¿Cabe pensar en libertad? ¿No creyó Paracelso que Dios controlaba el pensar humano, que pensaba en el fondo de ese pensar?

Continue reading

Pensadores vivos: E.O. Wilson





En este texto expongo parte de  lo que ha ocurrido en ¿mi? pensamiento al leer la obra de E. O. Wilson que lleva por título The Social Conquest of Earth, publicada en España por la editorial Debate bajo el título La conquista social de la tierra.

Se trata de una obra de gran belleza en la que el reputadísimo biólogo de Harvard (el “señor de las hormigas”) ofrece lo que él cree que espera recibir aquel que se hace las clásicas preguntas “¿De dónde venimos?”, “¿Quiénes somos?” y “¿Adónde vamos?”. Preguntas éstas que, como todas, llevan ya dentro la presuposición de que se comparte un modelo estático de metafísica (de la estructura visible e invisible donde se cree que está el que las formula).

Continue reading

Pensadores vivos: Martha Nussbaum


Martha Nussbaum


Martha Nussbaum.

En este artículo trataré de exponer lo que me ha hecho pensar y sentir su última obra: Political Emotions. Why Love Matters for Justice. Este texto termina abierto hacia arriba con una cita de Walt Whitman:

“América, eso solo somos tú y yo.”

Y dice entonces Martha Nussbaum:

“No deberíamos aspirar a nada menor”.

¿Qué aspiración es esa exactamente? Martha Nussbaum afirma que tiene la idea vaga de una sociedad capaz de utilizar el Arte al servicio de una especie de consenso emocional en el que se consagrara la emoción humana más sublime: el amor (algo así como “respeto caliente”).

Continue reading

Pensadores vivos: Moisés Naím



Moisés Naim


Este artículo está dentro de mi intento de contemplar -y calibrar- eso que sea el pensamiento actual: por así decirlo, los cerebros que estén emitiendo ideas, visiones, incluso sentimientos, con especial fuerza, con especial lucidez. Ahora.

A comienzos de este año leí en el texto infinito que nos envuelve (y que intenta definirnos) que el “poderoso” dueño de FaceBook (Zuckerberg) ha decidido crear un club de lectura. Para ello tenía Zuckerberg que elegir un libro/un autor. Y los agraciados por esa decisión quasi-divina han sido Moisés Naím y su obra El fin del poder. 

He entrado en esta obra con gran interés, a pesar de que no soy asiduo a los ensayos sobre política (o geopolítica, o economía política, o socio-economía-política, o como queramos llamarles).

Y he leído en Internet que Moisés Naím nació en Libia, de padres judíos que emigraron a Venezuela. Que en este país llegó a ser ministro de Fomento. Que ha sido también director del Banco Mundial y director de la revista Foreign Policy. Que se doctoró en el MIT. Que ha recibido el Premio Ortega y Gasset de periodismo… Y él mismo se presenta en la introducción del libro afirmando que conoció y conoce los lugares donde se reúnen los “poderosos” (?): Davos, FMI, Bildenberg, etc. Hay que escucharle.

Continue reading