Moral(i)a

Plutarh a fost contemporan cu J. Nu stiu daca si reciproca e valabila. Nu cred.

Citeam ieri in The Obsolescence of Oracles a grecului:

“The father of Aemilianus the orator, to whom some of you have listened, was Epitherses, who lived in our town and was my teacher in grammar. He said that once upon a time in making a voyage to Italy he embarked on a ship carrying freight and many passengers. It was already evening when, near the Echinades Islands, the wind dropped, and the ship drifted near Paxi. Almost everybody was awake, and a good many had not finished their after-dinner wine. Suddenly from the island of Paxi was heard the voice of someone loudly calling Thamus, so that all were amazed. Thamus was an Egyptian pilot, not known by name even to many on board. Twice he was called and made no reply, but the third time he answered; and the caller, raising his voice, said, “When you come opposite to Palodes, announce that Great Pan is dead.” On hearing this, all, said Epitherses, were astounded and reasoned among themselves whether it were better to carry out the order or to refuse to meddle and let the matter go. Under the circumstances Thamus made up his mind that if there should be a breeze, he would sail past and keep quiet, but with no wind and a smooth sea about the place he would announce what he had heard. So, when he came opposite Palodes, and there was neither wind nor wave, Thamus from the stern, looking toward the land, said the words as he had heard them: “Great Pan is dead.” Even before he had finished there was a great cry of lamentation, not of one person, but of many, mingled with exclamations of amazement.”

Acum, nu’s eu nici primul, nici ultimul destept care sa ofere interpretari la textul de mai sus: s-a inceput cam cu Eusebiu al Cezareei (sec. 4) si s-a ajuns pana pe la Thomas Browne (sec. 17) si chiar mult mai tarziu (Elizabeth Barrett Browning).

Eu iau textul de mai sus ca pe o sugestie, o aluzie. Pan a fost Zeul padurilor, a naturii, a salbaticiei, a pastorilor. Pan era Totul, suflarea de viata. Pan era transformarea, era muzica, era suieratul, fluieratul. Era stapanul pastorilor si a turmelor. Tot ceea ce vroia sa i se sustraga – sa fie singur, individual – pierea. Murea, sau se preschimba: Syrinx, Echo, Pitys…

Iata insa ca de la Rasarit pandea primejdia: YHWH. Pe unde trecea, totul se usca sub rasuflarea torida a desertului. “Sa nu-ti faci chip ciolit” devenea urletul si ranjetul de lupta a oilor trimise impotriva lupilor. “Sa nu ai alti dumnezei afara de Mine!” Lumea se intorcea pe dos, masacrul incepea. In plin sec. 19, unul din cei mai iubiti sfinti ai ortodoxiei (si nu numai…), Ioan din Kronstadt, scria in “Viata mea in Hristos” (1894) despre o Creatie fara suflet, fara Viata, fara Pan:

“the soulless earth, the soulless grass, the soulless matter and the unintelligent animals. The soulless, inanimate elements. Heaven and earth […] are soulless, inert, inactive, and powerless matter.” [aici]

Odata cu nasterea Fiului, Pan ho megas tethneke…

6 thoughts on “Moral(i)a

  1. Am remarcat in mod deosebit calitatea postarilor despre Epicur si Plutarh. Intelegand nostalgia fata de mitul lui Pan, care strabate subversiv ultimele doua milenii, o asociez, pana la un punct, evident, nostalgiei fata de Paradisul pierdut, astfel incat cele doua Weltanschauung-uri, desi aparent incompatibile, pot fi interpretate sub semnul analogicului.

  2. Nu, nu cred ca m-ai mai intrebat. Nu-l stiu. Am auzit de el, dar nu am citit nimic din ce a scris.

    Btw, superb citatul din Hegel de la tine de pe blog: “the stars are only a gleaming leprosy in the sky.”

  3. merci. wikipedia rulz. am ezitat mult intre ala si

    The secret of Hegel’s dialectic lies ultimately in this alone, that it negates theology through philosophy in order then to negate philosophy through theology. Both the beginning and the end are constituted by theology; philosophy stands in the middle as the negation of the first positedness, but the negation of the negation is again theology.

    Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach, Principles of Philosophy of the Future, § 21.

  4. Si dupa Browning vine Crowley :D

    @ ODG: da, uite ca eu nu sunt de acord cu viziunile de genul asta à la scoala traditionalista: pana la urma totul e o analogie, totul se confunda pe undeva, exista doar un Adevar, un fir rosu care uneste toate balariile spirituale ale omenirii, prisca theologia etc. bla bla bla. nope. BS.

  5. Admit ca, epistemologic, orice hermeneutica este, in ultima instanta, arbitrara, relativista, nascatoare de aporii si sofisme. Totusi, ceea ce este mai greu de contestat e unitatea umanului, in pofida diversitatii de toate tipurile. Platon are referiri magistrale, in ,,Parmenide”, la raportul metafizic dintre Unu si Multiplu.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>