HOME

PREFACE BY THE AUTHOR

The Italian language as weapon of total distruction.  

    The difference between the relation we establish with dialect and e what we construct with Italian is, respectively, as the link existing with own parents and the link that one establish with a stranger or person we know for some time. The familiar link can be visceral, conflictual, impossible; a  relation with stranger can be good, intrigant, correct, etc. 
   Writing  in dialect is like to ribuild a mosaic of wich we have got all its tesserae; but they are scattered  everywhere, here and there, on places of mind, but, for all, very easy for find it because they are part of us, as us.  

A idea for several years has been fluttering on my mind: to write a sanmartinese dialect grammar. Our dialect, in the same manner of all the others (especialy the minor dialects), is going to lose it. It's already lost. Is it a damage? Is it a good? is it perhaps nostalgic sensation?...  The new generations deceive themselves - happy youth! - with good bad-faith, to speak better in italian, with a distorted inflexion and pet phrase lacking of any animal nature, what instead any dialect has got it. The dialect  grew as spontaneous vegetation, like stones and plants growing on the same place; It has got a past, a story, a legend... a myth... and so... I find again myself to face the problems that already Pier Paolo Pasolini was looking for to solve, by the way he put down a ticklish question, a sacrosanct criticism: the dialect are coming to be abandoned for one language, literary (elitish, if we want say it so) as it is just the italian; It was born as a literary event. Literary but not popular. 
   If it's right to learn the italian language, in the best possible way, also right it seems to me recognize this wide dialectal variety insular-peninsular. People speak abaout crisis of the values but perhaps, isn't the lost of the dialect the lost of the most important value?... Losing the dialect they will come be lacking even many others values linked to it. It's a historical disintegration process already in use for a long time ago, from forever. Since thirty years ago it had still sense to speak it. Improvident about the future that will have abandoned it. That ancient little world that was been telling itself, that was been telling to itself, now it is disintegrate. Almost the dialect hasn't any sense, it seems so... In a short time it will be just an archeo-philological-linguistic re-discovery that it will have trust (now, vanishing people who spoke it) only through some find-document, leaved by inheritance to posterity: The Sassi's poems, the Zurro's little dictionary .... 
   The dialect has been forge us a life that is inexplicably linked to it. It has been take us for many years, in good and in evil, and it is part of us that inevitably we confront us, losers, with the savage globalization.
   About traditions, I always tell it, people take their worse side and get away the best. In the near future, not so faraway, there will be the minor dialects funeral rites, after all there will be that major's: Neapolitan, Sicilian, Sardinian, Roman, Venetian, Genoese, Milanese, Friulan, ecc...
   It's a global process, because now, the only things that are OK are the economic rules. And according to this egalitarian-standardized philosophy they asks implicitly some essential questions: a What serve the dialect ?... What serve the art?... What serve the traditions?... What serve the religion?... What serve God?... etc... The obvious derived answers can be summarize with the Andy Warhol saying, that is: "a good bargain is the maximum of all arts". If we should be need that God  exists, it must be convenience, it must be a good bargain, otherwise... why does makes it to exist?
   The dialects (of my generation or older) belongs us, or more precisely: we belong to dialect. It is part of our physiology, of our imaginary, in good and in evil, so it's more difficult to renounce at own way of thinking, at own way of being and observing the surrounding space, otherwise one fall down into the artfulness, into the ostentation. 

   Why the dialect then?... Because it has been take us, it has been format us, we say so, since our birth and perhaps even before our prenatal life. Then it represents the deeper substratum of us, the base of our truer language, our immediate [not-mediate] relation with the world. It isn't nostalgia (remembering the past, melancholy, digging-digging oneself looking for a lost world) but a sense of justice, truth, objectivity, a sense of to be ourselves, loyalty before all. Until we live [at least for us of the last dialectal generation], willing or unwilling, the dialect will be the base of every our initiative, purpose... The dialectal language has been forging, teaching, calling, admonishing, rewarding, etc...  Since our first crying, our first word "mum!...", our first familiar and full of meaning words they has indeliblely marked our future life. 
   Sometimes we can notice strongly italianize persons, in critical or difficult moment, curse in dialect... Goodness why! And it isn't a little thing!... 
   Carmelo Bene says about Italian as an inexistent language except in its insular and peninsular crushing, a vast melting pot of dialect then, from northern (Ligurian, Piedmontese, Milanese, Venetian, Friulan, ladin, ...) to Tuscan, till to the centre-southern dialect (Roman, from Marche, Neapolitan, Calabrian-Salentin-Sicilian, Sardinian, ...). We can compare this immeasurably dialectal Italian wealth to biodiversity and the Italian language to GMO (genetically modified organism) or to homologation.
   Maybe Italian will be spoken by the future generation, all over the Italy, spontaneously enough, almost it would be a dialect. I have some strong doubts, about spontaneity... Instead, in the menatime we have the enterprise to sail this lived past because it is always present. The dialect is also our refuge. 
   The new generation [without any yearning to assume me in a prophetic feeling of whom declaims "in my old times"] haven't a base home linguistics. The dialect inflexion remain, even if not always in the diction. 
    The dialect was born, it came building and evolving itself in the ambit of the rustic civilization; every word, every sign, every inflexion fully mirrored the spirit of that place. If we listen the intonations of the sentences, we perceive the difficult to translate it (if not artificially) through another any language (written or oral) as it can be for instance the Italian. That translated it is therefore the abstract sentence, uprooted from the context of the tradition, from its history, from its paralinguism. To write in dialect is a subtraction to that immediate reality, spontaneously in harmony, meaningful, that is, and above all it was, the spoken language. I say language and not dialect (definition rather restrictive). What does the bastard Italian of the new generation miss it therefore?... A soul, an animality, the spontaneity, the immediateness. 

    Once the dialect language developed and realized itself within an effective reality, done of job,  engagements, sacrifices, etc... and it was an identity. 

We identified us through the language; and it identified us; it gave name to all the things, recognizing-us the surrounding world that fully expressed it. The example was given and tied up to that reality, it conditioned and it made itself condition from its language. Now the example is given  by mass-media, an informative language, technologized, abstract, by now uprooted from the rustic-dialect context. Quiz, telenovelas, newscasts, tele-invasions... If we speak then about globalization, it needs to consider seriously, among the loss of the values, the value of the dialect and its language (the most important value). 

The real and effective place comes to replace itself with an imaginary mass-media. The rustic civilization disappearing and so with it disappears its language, its soul.

================

   If we give a glance to the single words, we realize how dialect are more sensible and colored.
Ex: Bbomme and Bomba (it.). In the dialect there are the doubling of the labial-explosive initial [bb] and the doubling of m [mm] that it do feel us onomatopoeically the explosion more than the Italian term of bomba.  
  The dialect is very elliptic and effecacious, pruning the linguistic structure up to the essential, without frills.
  As we know, the sanmartinese is a very closed dialect because it do an enormous use of the closed vowels, contracted: ê, î, â, û, ô. There is a saving, we say so, of breath, as it happens for the Arabic and English language (whose syllables atonic lose much the vowel opening). Besides in the dialect spoken double the initial consonants, it often use the aphaeresis, elision, syncopation, change the final and/or initial vowel of words. They are things that leastly happen in the Italian language, if not specifically in the Italian classical poetry. This fact colors the dialect with an expressiveness, a looseness, a fluidity, unknown to Italian (besides forced to articulate all the opening and closing of the vowels). 

Therefore the dialect is above all a spocken language and one can write it preserving so a lot of its freshness and color. While Italian, we can say, it is started from an inverse process: its leterariness come be institutionalized as a spoken language. One can note the evident effort. Although the written dialect is certainly more poor of the spoken one (because the intonation, the way of speaking, the raising and the lowering of tone, cannot be transcribed) it is certainly admirable for this:

A Primmavere ce rennove 'u monne
de sciure ce reveste la cambagne.

[In Spring the world again renews it, 
the country with flowers is dressed]

The dialect is more poetic because it is born from what one speaks and not from what one writes. A lightning of that country civilization illuminates us. Something that seems lost. Now, for renewal people intends something of different. It is a spiritual renovation, internal, that it belongs to the soul, to the people staying in the same place where dialect is spoken. So Federico García Lorca gave to be born its cante jondo from the popular, that expressly is not popular tradition but from it springs and it feeds itself, there, where it gushes out its soul-animal.
   Therefore the dialect is a minor language in the meaning that Gilles Deleuze gives to the term: "to be foreign in own language". A such language allows us to escape the homologation of a language generalist, arrogant, inconsistent... etc...  
   Equally Carmelo Bene gives a sonorous slap ['L mal de' fiori] to Italian des-individualize it in a dialect plurality. An essential pluriliguism, made of literary-linguistic vagabondage, whith an idiolect  that everything includes (although excluded by a process of pre-established recognition), belonging by now to the things that never been. 
   Few are those people who speak Italian and they speak badly it, not because they don't know it to speak but really because it is not possible to speak Italian (it haven't a substratum of tradition, an individual process, phylogenetic, of a innate biunique belonging to language-being speaking).

   It is not admissible that to the prophets Dante, Petrarca and Boccaccio is arrogated the right (posthumous) establishing in that way it is had to speak, taking a fragmentary language, which a beautiful day they thinks (wrongly) to have invented (stealing here and there). [It is not a criticism mine to the great aforementioned]. Messer Lionardo da Vinci comes then defining himself omo sanza lettere. Magnificent! An any language is elaborated, developed, instinctively sieved (up to the bone) by people that are essentially fragmented [territorially], and cannot do anything else other than to produce dialect, dialect language, slang, idiolects and not a general language but a minor language.
   Equally Pino Daniele is frequented by the Neapolitan (a minor language, perhaps the most important, vast, for tradition, of those Italian). The Italian language doesn't exist but  only the Italian languages. It is like to go back from the general to the to particular, from the collective to the individual and its environment, from the major to the minor.
   We stay so with the essential needs of the man, the daily objects, to eat, to sleep, to communicate in own family world, etc... Italian is a necessity that it is originated and  imposed from the external [from the parliament, damned!] while the dialect and all that is minor, originate from the internal, from the most ancient recesses, in a word: soul. Soul, animal, animalità, animism, here... one always starts from here.

    A curious thing is this: all people of a specified place know and speak correctly their dialect and if they had known also write it (like they speak it) it would be already a language... Instead Italian is difficult to learn it, and, if we don't go to school, grammatical errors are often committed (morphological, phonemic, syntactic, pragmatic, etc...) that the dialect doesn't it: because it already knows, it is born, for so to say, learned [it. imparato] ... Yes, I would say imbarato.

The horror vacui that gripped Pier Paolo Pasolini are also ours, for that concern the ineluctable process of the consumption, slow and inexorable, of this multiplicity of idioms, slang.

Words, words, words!.. The words condition us in a incredible manner...
   There is a storm, but we don't feel [hear] thunders but vummete... vummete e selustre, and l'acqua a mmene come Dî chemmanne. We remember the fact that the dialect term vummete is more onomatopoeic than the Italian thunder. Here we are pushing there in our i-dialect, idialect [fire, little fire] that it is our internal language, mixed of the dialect form, made of flesh and bones as us, of silences, memoirs, dreams, fears, anguishes, loves, affections... We feel to have to recover the value without of which there could be no values. The primordial sound, the first laughter, the first smile, the first word, etc... all that is first will be later too.
   If I stumble, î 'ngepolle but, even if I fall down, I don't go down because casch'a n' derre and, when me reàveze, I don't feel me numbed but tutte žghjequelate. If someone makes us become rabid us we are not angry but 'rrajâte and s'u 'nghiappâme, the author of our anger, 'i facéme 'nu cûle tande; and if... when in the future we will see him again, we will tell him (even only mentally) a beautiful vaffangûle and not vaffanculo [it.].
    If we are careful to what we feel and to what we say, we realize there that Italian is already a translation from the dialect. Sende ca me ggir 'a còcce but I have to translate the feeling [this is the social-collective imposition] if I want to be understood, to be approved... and not to end up making the figure of the illiterate [?]. Cock!... m' a mme me ggire pruopej' a còcce. Com' ejja fa?... Me stejènghe zzitt' e bbaste!... 
    The dialect is immediate and not mediate, it is spontaneous, elliptic, essential and efficacious ... We are born with the dialect and every experience of ours of life it is indissolubly tied to it.
Madonne che pahure!... me sejènghe jjettecâte dénd 'u sònne. We don't think certainly that who has suddenly wakened up from a noise or from a nightmare, he says: " Mother mine what fear! ... I am me [here I don't even succeed to findi a term that replaces jjettecàte] bewildered... no, better to say... wakened up suddenly... from the sleep... no... from the sleep it is pleonastic. The sleeper have lost himself along the road ! But after all I me sejènghe only sbauttîte dénd 'u sònne.
It is not nostalgia but what we are... really. Paraphrasing Carmelo Bene the dialect trip up the Italian... and so we in spite of the destro(y-instru)ction scolastisca...
    Teném 'i requòrde de quande javâme na' scóle... ce stâv 'u majéstre Ciambrône 'na prim'  elemendâre...  dòppe na' tèrze (se me recorde bbone) ce stâve Musacchie e na' quinde âme tenût 'u  majéstre Bevilacque. Pu n'i scóle mèdeje ce stâv 'u prefessóre Tanghe che ce facév' italejâne,  stori'  e ggeografî... 
   Oddly dialect and language are intersected up to confuse themselves; our history has been forged by all of this: from the past and we are only our past, we belong to the things that were never been. We are done of experiences, of circumstances therefore, of past and of present that increases it. It is obvious that here we are speaking of the internal dialect, interiorized, since our prenatal life, although of it we don't have any defined and/or definable remembrance. It needs to live the present!... it is an astute lie. The present is constituted by the past. Need to remove! Let's say well it: it needs to live. We say it even better: to live. TO LIVE. But IT is already passed!... We doesn't ever depart from now but from the nothing; from where?... There is never a point from which we depart and a point where we arrive. "There is everything inflicted by the circumstances! " We suffer the life and, equally, the significant of the dialect language. The sense of this is inexplicable by words but it speaks of itself as when "we whistles a song without know the motive."

As it is not produced ontogenetically, Italian is a language without future as any other language that it want to impose as institution. We would need learn it from the birth, but who could learn it, if nobody is been able to speak it? And when I say to speak I want to say to communicate, to feel, to think by language, that is: fusion of idiom and language. The affectation, lack of spontaneity create some linguistic monstrosities, nightmare inflexions. Italian doesn't have if not the horrifying communicativeness of mass.
   Here is the League [Lega] that it cut us in two. Justly. It needs that Italy stays shattered for holding it united. Thing that the political man don't know and they will never understand. Unity doesn't mean homologation but federation of unity, of fragments as it can be a body that is united from an infinity of cells diversified according to their function. We can perfectly see the world as a harmonic biodiversity without centrality. The world doesn't have centrality. God, for the one whom believes, or we can say: the nature has its natural order that we can realize only perceiving it but not to modify manipulating it. This way it teaches us the Taoism.

   The League [Lega] and other autonomistiches tendencies, are not perhaps the sign that something doesn't go to the homologation? A sanmartinese that he now lives in Milan, told me, the frustration not to feel to speak in Milanese dialect anymore, as it did once, it is terrible. And he is sanmartinese!... What he should care about of the Milanese dialect? It is obvious that the dialect is a symptom that expresses well other. It is a depersonalization. The idiom-language of the dialect is the most important value in comparison to the other values as the first thing that we perceive it is the sound, the maternal voice. The sound, as Carmelo Bene would say, it precedes the image in spite of the speed of the light that will come later always. At the beginning it was the sound. We born blind after all.

Removing the dialect, we obtain the possibility to condition better, as they can be conditioned the homeless [and Pavlov had understood it  long time ago] but with the result to get a lacerated society, prey to the in-civil anarchy of the [dis] values.

If we learn to study well the dialect, we learn better also to speak in Italian language because to learn is especially a process of comparison where they are examined the differences, the simile and that we are already acquired. A rivisiting-discovery.

Equally, as it happen in [almost?] all the Italian regions, the dialect have lost big part of its own archaic physiognomy and is near more and more to Italian. Also for me it is difficult to speak it and at times it is strange for me to intend the peculiar difference of the fact that we should be said tembe and not tempe; pajesce and not paese; tonne and not tonde; bbomme and not bombe; candà and not cantà... For this we understand that the dialect is already moribund, in Extreme Unction, because it is already losing its dialect characteristic that countersigns it... and would not it have then more sense to speak it?...

A remote possibility [perhaps the only one] to make to relive a dialect, would be that to make it alive, giving back its implicit and creative linguistics strength through the invention, the adaptation, not remaining in the thoughtful and nostalgic state of whom looking at the past he loses himself in it.

SUPPOSITIONS ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF THE DIALECT >>>

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

IDENTITY IS INDIFFERENCE

In the dialect there is the whole tradition, the uses and customs of a people, and is not banal! While the official language is made for the organization, the popularization of the philosophy of regime, the homologation, etc...
The tradition strongly has the tendency to keep itself to not to change, to avoid and to oppose the creative influences that can modify it in the good and in the evil. It is the reverse of the medal. The anxious thing is that about of tradition, however, we preserve only the values that can be consistent with the actual and social-globalistic philosophy. The arrogance of the roots grafts it so on the tree, already luxuriant, of the consumerism and of the homologation so that the system still draws more strength through it. It is a recycling of the tradition.

   In the tradition it is not even obvious its goodness. We remember the Phoenician as other people] that they ritually used to sacrifice innocent children. Equally in it there can be a gratuitous violence. In the folklore the justice  it is not even obvious and the history proves it. In the tradition there is an esoteric halo, a mixture of pagan and religious, a quid of mystical exaltation, and we feel ourselves disorderly ...
   Of such spirit of exaltation pagan-mysticism is for ex. the historical carnival from Ivrea with the traditional "Battle of the Oranges", the "Raced of the Candles" from Gubbio [15 May], The "Palio di Siena" [2 July and 16 August], and so many other local demonstrations obviously included the "Corze d'i Carre" sanmartinese. Probably, going back to the time, all these recreational activities of the human spirit will certainly have been more violent. They are, in short, the restitution of the ineffable vital puff of the soul-animal that it perhaps dresses of religion for not to seem so.
   The animalistis protest, they peep for the atrocities committed against the beasts. But the animalistis are the most atrocious animals of the creation, second only at the politicians. They don't konw that the animal man wants its part of blood: removing from him this liberty it opens an apocalyptic scenery; from predator he becomes prey and ready to sacrifice himself to any God that proposes him the best offer. Nazism, Communism, catafascism [sic]. In this way the satanic congreghe spring for everywhere [children or beasts], neonazism, anti-Semitisme, etc. that they find fertile and manured soil with organic substances, that they are created from the putrefaction of the local traditions. The fact of not recognize themselves in these, imply a move of attention, of devotion, toward the outside, creating so a strong request that, for the merciless law of market, it will have one his offer (even if it is not explicit and defined) .
    If the tradition is criticizable [and it introduces its inevitable flaws] however we are not able to eradicated it and if it has lasted during the centuries, surviving even to the great historical shakings, there will be always a motive too, not logical but intuitable.
   Now we are to an alternative and the spirit of the tradition is divided in two principal stumps: that of the past [by now no more present to itself] belonging to the historical process. That acquired and modified for the actual and future use. But an account is the genuineness of the rituality and another its practical application studied theoretically for a purpose that is not the same tradition [that it doesn't have a purpose]. The tradition is, first of all, a physiological need of the social groups, as it can be a physical need for the human being. The need must be completed and we doesn't wonder us if it is correct to do it or less. We does it. All of this goes against to the critical spirit, to the individual sense, and to the social equality.
   The loss of the identity [tradition] it is a missed possibility to sublime, to process, a status of latent violence, that flows for this in an indefinite form of racism, a priori, [apparently not motivated] toward all that diverge. The crisis of identity, in such situation, it implies the fear for something that is lost [or we feel that it is going to lose it ineluctably] identifying it [identifying us] in the tradition. Here that local physiology is deteriorated and it is deteriorating favouring the corruptrice centrality.

TRADITION AND CREATIVENESS

The tradition by itself doesn't create but it establishes, it commands and it doesn't accept comparisons. The individual, by himself, creates inequality, disparity, mines the status quo of the tradition.

The scheme of the tradition and the liberality of the creativeness are two rock-cliffs to face and, in effects, the local use that we make of it, fault for lack of creative regeneration, the only thing that could save it from the actual disaster. The folklore tende to oppose and to suppress any creative action even if it had origin from its inside, always turning to the past and never to the present. The tradition for definition is popular, of mass therefore [even if located], susceptible to be homologated by the general that already englobes it.
   The tradition has two faces, we can say, an intimate, not definable but intuitable; The other one is that of the external routine, of the sacrificial rite (because by it always we sacrifice something, at least the individuality). From the external change we could be understood what changes happen or they have happened to its inside. This would make to suppose, falsely, a hidden creativeness, inherent in the home folklore. Nothing of all this. Only the general modified it where it is included (or we like it or not). A creativeness, we say, suffered. Which is a contradiction. Creativeness is not suffered but it is realized in direction inside-external, it is born from the stimulus to reach to its probable realization.

THE TRADITION VEER TOWARDS THE GLOBALIZATION

[...] Marxism presides as a judge of the history or at a court of the people that it also result more anxious than the others. (Gilles Deleuze)

That we want to propose is this: the tradition [manipulated by the general] creates globalization. In other terms: the traditions are the fondant bricks with which the latter builts and expands itself. it can seem a paradox but the two terms, traditional and global, they are not so equidistant. The global is the sum of the traditions. We propose a practical example.

Someone wants to do a pastry cook, making however traditional sweets, with ancient methods and therefore old by now. It begins to do it but, as of routine, people start to think the thing... and that the nostalgic guy (out of place and of out time) has some small wheel out of place... and they starts to take an interest for the case. Then somehow they look for to convince him the absurdity of that work that he insists to make. Then the family make the rest, even only for not to be shamed. First and not last torpedo. If the incriminated pastry cook doesn't stop his job (he put his head in a right place!) very probably he will have an ugly end, at least economic; He will be banished more or less in explicit way, with various quibbles, subterfuges, etc... He don't yields!

This is an example of the tradition undoubled in two plans, we say, that he turns against itself, it banishes the plan of the home past but it fully accepts another of it: the economic level. If the same pastry cook, for instance, begin to do another job, less craftmade (and not ancient as he do) he would be seen with good eye and the preceding situation he would capsize. In this he yields!... What has happened then?... The local mentality, arrogant and conceited, serve in the military among the lines of the capital, there where there is greater profit and interest. A folkloric and typical side of the human being, the most inhuman after all. Obout tradition remains that it is useful to the capital, to the progress, we say: the common denominator. What it unites better than the money... when we known that there is poor people, ready to prostitute themselves and to make prostitute their darlings, only to have an economic improvement, ready to sell themselves to the best offerer. Between tradition and necessity it prevails this last. We go over: the state of necessity is the greatest business for the process of globalization. There where necessity there is, there will be a cheap hand of work, it is possible to blackmail, to bend the tradition, we says in this way, from the most consistent side...

In our zone (and altogether in the South) the economic boom is initiated not long time ago, as soon as a few decades ago; and we can say that, for the majority of the peasant population, the things are not changed much for centuries (and for some side also for millennia). If once there is a tradition, it fully preserve it without afterthoughts or meaningful changes. The arrogance made part, positively, of a local rituality, before being used for other less connected purposes. With this, we don't want defend it with sword in hand but it is certainly we want mean a physiological-traditional function of it.

Equally the local rituality is subjected to an any structure of system, as it can be that psychiatric. Not many decades ago, it was sufficient to indicate with the finger one person and so make him to hospitalize, even to alienate forever him. It is a perfect example of symbiosis; if before a person was relegated, banished by the (in the) village, now it is globally absent, not recognized. The global gives a weapon of mass destruction to the tradition so that it suicide itself or suicide a part of itself, not essential to... etc... That is it suicide itself! We would say more: the tradition is feel as protagonist of itself but really it is only plagiarized. What we do preserve of it therefore?...
The tradition is not (not would be) the external side but if through of it manifests it. Give to it a face, or better, a mask, to hold it tied and  to be able to use it.

Money doesn't have odor. In the good. In the evil. This coin that I am exchanging, really now... what it will have served, perhaps to finance the commerce of weapons, to kill, etc... The globalization, therefore, is a sum of traditions but they are given in their side that all it unites them: the interest. From the local to the global. It is here the arrogance becomes cynicism, couldn't-care-less attitude, perversity, etc. instead of being physiological. The human beast so torn to pieces it will look for a revenge.

Turn and run!
Nothing can stop them,
Around every river and canal their power is growing. 
Stamp them out! We must destroy them, 
They infiltrate each city with their thick dark warning odour. 

They are invincible, 
They seem immune to all our herbicidal battering. (Genesis)

TO BE, TO HAVE AND TO BE POSSESSED

The tradition possesses right of priority on the individuality, willing or unwilling. However common mentality has to compare it to the not-united, to identify it, to judge it and, therefore, to find a suitable solution that is: to isolate it, to marginalize it, to recover it [?], to insert again it [?], to imprison it, to destroy it, etc... What is common, it is norm and who doesn't adjust him... ouch ouch!... etc... The dream of the norm becomes nightmare for the divergence, because also this it passes through that inquiring and homologating eye. Nino, for instance, don't found the line of escape from the jail of attentions that was created around him and he was wrong with the intent, that had a deprecable result: instead of kill [in figured sense: the figures] he killed himself. the tradition kills anymore that the sword. This is the tragedy: all that is very bad in it we preserve and use it [the arrogance, the violence, the interest, the mafia...].

HOME