Linguaggio-Potere: il nodo dell’interpretazione

This article focuses on the relation between language and power from the wider perspective of the problem of the constitution of a shared human life starting from the power of the bodies to produce images, to acquire habits, to build a memory, to stabilize meanings through usage. The Peircian concept of 'interpret', at the centre of this essay, is anticipated by Spinoza: the semiotic relation interpreter-sign-object is thought by Spinoza is thought by Spinoza as the constitutive dynamic of common practices that are the site of passivity and activity, subjection and resistance. The interpreter reveals his ambivalent nature: on the one hand, conceived as theological figure, he is exposed as 'desire of domination and disruption of the common body; on the other, he can affirm himself as the site of an emancipatory modification of the collective power and of a reversibility of the power relation. Therefore, if language is at the same time superior power of affirmation of the body of the multitude and matrix of illusion exploited by the violence of the theologians, the methodos of interpretation of the Scripture proposed by Spinoza can be seen as an attempt to bring back to Scripture its own words, and to restore a language capable of expressing the power of the multitude to organize itself

A propósito de Pieter Bruegel, O Quadro ou a esfera infinita. Por uma reforma teológico-política do entendimento:

Bruegel’s paintings stand at the beginning of a period of profound change, of which Spinoza experienced the final episode. The intrinsic unity of a historical period binds the painter and the philosopher together in the common struggle for the freedom of expression. This symmetry of the painter and the philosopher was initially historical. Yet it gave rise to the hypothesis of a different symmetry, this time epistemological, between image and concept. This double symmetry lies at the beginning of my research questions. As with Spinoza a century later, did Bruegel’s pictorial work already produce a particular theoretical device which, in its domain, reflected on – and from – the distinction between imagination and intellect? This question, together with the conviction of a cognitive activity of art, supported at the same time my working hypothesis and my epistemological motivations.L’oeuvre peint de Bruegel se situe au début d’une période de profonds bouleversementsdont Spinoza a vécu l’épisode final. L’unité intrinsèque d’une période historique relie ainsi lepeintre et le philosophe : c’est l’unité d’un combat pour la liberté d’expression. Cette symétrie,d’abord historique, du peintre et du philosophe, suscitait l’hypothèse d’une autre symétrie,épistémologique, entre l’image et le concept. Cette double symétrie est au principe demes interrogations. Comme un siècle plus tard, chez Spinoza, le travail pictural de Bruegelne produisait-il pas, déjà aussi, un dispositif théorique particulier qui, dans son domainepropre, réfléchissait « sur » – et à partir « de » – la distinction entre imagination et entendement? Cette question et la conviction d’une activité cognitive de l’art, enveloppaient, à lafois, une hypothèse de travail et mes motivations épistémologiques.A obra pintada de Bruegel se situa no início de um período de profundas comoções cujo episódio final, Spinoza viveu. A unidade intrínseca de um período histórico vincula, portanto, o pintor e o filósofo: é a unidade de uma luta pela liberdade de expressão. Essa simetria, antes, histórica, do pintor e do filósofo, suscitava a hipótese de outra simetria, epistemológica, entre a imagem e o conceito. Essa dupla simetria está no princípio das minhas interrogações. Será que, como um século mais tarde em Spinoza, o trabalho pictórico de Bruegel já não produzia um dispositivo teórico peculiar que, no seu domínio próprio, refletia “sobre” – e a partir “de” – a distinção entre imaginação e entendimento? Essa questão e a convicção de uma atividade cognitiva da arte envolviam ao mesmo tempo uma hipótese de trabalho e minhas motivações epistemológicas

Le désir et la prudence des corps chez Spinoza. De la métaphysique à l’histoire

Dans l’article de Laurent Bove, le problème de la liberté est pensé à partir de l’idée de la complexité du Réel comme relation. Donc, une chose est une réalité complexe et relationnelle, qu’affirme la puissance infinie de Dieu de manière positive et déterminée. Ainsi, le but de l’article est d’articuler l’idée de la complexité relationnelle à l’effort d’alliances et de résistance capable d’affirmer la dimension active des “modes singulières” que nous sommes.No artigo de Laurent Bove, o problema da liberdade é pensado a partir da ideia da complexidade do Real como relação. Então, uma coisa é uma realidade complexa e relacional, que afirma a potência infinita de Deus de maneira positiva e determinada. Sendo assim, o objetivo do artigo é articular a ideia de complexidade relacional ao esforço de alianças e de resistência capaz de afirmar a dimensão ativa dos “modos singulares” que nós somos

O desejo e a prudência dos corpos em Spinoza: da metafísica à história

Dans l’article de Laurent Bove, le problème de la liberté est pensé à partir de l’idée de la complexité du Réel comme relation. Donc, une chose est une réalité complexe et relationnelle, qu’affirme la puissance infinie de Dieu de manière positive et déterminée. Ainsi, le but de l’article est d’articuler l’idée de la complexité relationnelle à l’effort d’alliances et de résistance capable d’affirmer la dimension active des “modes singulières” que nous sommes.No artigo de Laurent Bove, o problema da liberdade é pensado a partir da ideia da complexidade do Real como relação. Então, uma coisa é uma realidade complexa e relacional, que afirma a potência infinita de Deus de maneira positiva e determinada. Sendo assim, o objetivo do artigo é articular a ideia de complexidade relacional ao esforço de alianças e de resistência capaz de afirmar a dimensão ativa dos “modos singulares” que nós somos

A Machine Checked Model of Idempotent MGU Axioms For Lists of Equational Constraints

We present formalized proofs verifying that the first-order unification algorithm defined over lists of satisfiable constraints generates a most general unifier (MGU), which also happens to be idempotent. All of our proofs have been formalized in the Coq theorem prover. Our proofs show that finite maps produced by the unification algorithm provide a model of the axioms characterizing idempotent MGUs of lists of constraints. The axioms that serve as the basis for our verification are derived from a standard set by extending them to lists of constraints. For us, constraints are equalities between terms in the language of simple types. Substitutions are formally modeled as finite maps using the Coq library Coq.FSets.FMapInterface. Coq's method of functional induction is the main proof technique used in proving many of the axioms.Comment: In Proceedings UNIF 2010, arXiv:1012.455