Navalhas Pendentes (portal da Glorinha Cohen)

Destacado

PRÉ-LANÇAMENTO DE “NAVALHAS PENDENTES”, O NOVO ROMANCE DE PAULO ROSENBAUM

Postado em 18 de setembro de 2021 Por admin FIQUE POR DENTRO, ROTATIVAS

“O romance Navalhas pendentes, de Paulo Rosenbaum, é, sobretudo, uma armadilha que, entre citações, ironias e referências intertextuais, arma e desarma a leitura. A trama põe em perspectiva a sanidade do narrador e a linearidade da história. Complô, ilusão e farsa fazem do enredo um labirinto e fazem multiplicar realidades instáveis ou fantasias existenciais de um protagonista que, aparentemente, não merece muita credibilidade. Desde o início, o leitor sabe que está pisando em solo movediço, afinal, amnésia é uma das palavras-chave que, intermitentes, funcionam como faróis precários no nevoeiro. O narrador, Homero Arp Montefiore, tal qual o seu homônimo grego, faz precipitar as certezas por um vórtice e, se Goya tinha razão e o sono/sonho da razão produz monstros, tanto um quanto o outro assombram o personagem com lâminas que se inscrevem na narrativa, como signos denunciadores. Sobre o herói e os crimes imputados ou cometidos por ele, pesam navalhas, facas, canivetes e outros fios mais sutis. Daí serem sempre pendentes tanto as ameaças e quanto as certezas. Nesse sentido, quando o personagem, revisor de textos e aprendiz de escritor, se corta com o gume de uma folha de papel, aguçam as lembranças do leitor estudos em vermelho, fisiologias da composição, punições para a inocência e mortes ao pé da letra. Uma gota de sangue sobre o papel não é rastro fácil de seguir. O narrador parece viver em um pesadelo, como nos enredos de Kafka, engendrado por um escritor que cria labirintos com inúmeras entradas e algumas saídas, todas inacessíveis. O leitor, como uma espécie de detetive que segue indícios, pistas e enigmas, por sua vez, se enovela numa história de crimes, facas e segredos.” – Lyslei Nascimento

“A Editora Filamentos faz parte do maior conglomerado
editorial do mundo. Desde que
foi absorvida pela gigante emergente KGF-
-Forster©️, viu suas vendas de livros dispararem.
Um de seus colaboradores, Homero Arp
Montefiore, ficou intrigado com a indústria de
best-sellers da editora, especialmente aqueles
assinados por um misterioso escritor chamado
Karel F. A curiosidade sobre a verdadeira
identidade desse autor tornou-se uma obsessão,
levando-o a uma investigação particular
sobre a vida do enigmático romancista. As
perturbadoras descobertas reveladas por
essa investigação tornaram-se cada vez mais
perigosas e, após determinado ponto, colocaram
sua vida em risco extremo. Acusado de
crimes que talvez não tenha cometido, ele se
torna um fugitivo empenhado em tentar provar
sua provável inocência. Se alguma chance
houver de isso acontecer, será descobrir a real
identidade de Karel F. e expor a conspiração
que subjaz a sua literatura.”

Berta Waldman

O autor, Paulo Rosenbaum, nasceu em São Paulo em 1959. É médico e escritor. Possui Mestrado em Medicina Preventiva, Doutorado em Ciências e Pós-doutorado em Medicina Preventiva pela USP, com mais de uma dezena de livros publicados na área. Escreve, regularmente, para o jornal Estado de São Paulo, no blog “Conto de notícia”. Roteirista e produtor de documentários, atuou como editor de revistas científicas no campo da saúde. É pesquisador na área de clínica médica, semiologia clínica, relação médico-paciente, prevenção e promoção da saúde e pesquisa de medicamentos. Além de ensaísta, é poeta, contista e romancista. Antes de Navalhas pendentes, publicou os romances: A verdade lançada ao solo (Record, 2010) e Céu subterrâneo (Perspectiva, 2016).

Para adquirir este livro em pré-lançamento a R$ 59,90, acesse: https://caravanagrupoeditorial.com.br/produto/navalhas-pendentes/embed/#?secret=J7MeWeBVAE

https://glorinhacohen.com.br/?p=58467

Hahnemann, 266 years later (Published in the Newspaper “O Estado de São Paulo”)

Destacado

Tags

Paulo Rosenbaum

Hahnemann, 266 years later

Born on April 10, 1755

“Man, considered as an animal, was created more helpless than all other animals. It has no congenital weapons for its defense like the bull, no speed to make it able to escape from its enemies like the deer, it has no wings, it has no feet with interdigital membrane, it does not have fins – it does not have impenetrable armor against violence like the land and freshwater turtle, nowhere to take refuge provided by nature because it is dominated by thousands of insects and worms for your safety .. Man is subject to a very large numbergreater disease than animals, which are born with a secret knowledge of healing methods for these invisible enemies of life, instinct, which man does not possess. The man alone painfully escapes his mother’s womb, smooth, soft, naked, helpless, helpless and deprived of everything that can make his existence bearable, deprived of everything that nature richly contemplates the earth’s worm to make his life happy.”

Samuel Hahnemann in “The Medicine of Experience”

The researcher and the thinker.  

First of all, I think it would be fair to explain what will not be prioritized in this work. We will not be concerned with the famous paragraphs of the “ Organon ”, or with the topics of “ Chronic Diseases ”, nor do the conventional revision of its tumultuous biography. We try to take the facts created by Hahnemann as ideas and from these search — using the bio-bibliographic parallels — the clues that led us to the process of creating his theories. Our character played at least two simultaneous and interdependent roles in the sphere of knowledge: researcher on the nature of health phenomena and thinker.

Due to a careful and intentional methodological option, we will not consider your works as finished and definitive pieces. There is never an end to real scientific constructions. On the contrary, we see in its corpus (frequently and naively exalted by its irreplaceable coherence) theoretical gaps, methodological gaps and operational contradictions . We will try to show that all these “inconsistencies” can lead us to interesting logical developments of the original propositions. Correctly assessed, contradictions allow for rediscoveries. Searched gaps and gaps favor the end the progress of clarifications, not the only one, but the last end of scientific knowledge. In this way, we, the descendants and legatees of this medical philosophy, will be able to penetrate each historical segment of their arguments.

We used authors like Koyre, Canguilhem and Khun to better situate Hahnemann’s attack against the normal science of his time, like that of a spirit that is mobilized to undertake and change the medicine of its time. We will weigh the socio-historical influences of the 18th and 19th centuries and seek to show that scientific changes often occur not only through empirical reforms, but mainly, through philosophical movements that redefine scientific horizons and make such reforms possible. In our case, we will see that both the romantic movement and natural philosophy are part of the theoretical trenches that expanded and built the support for transformations.

Backed by historical epistemology, we conclude, quoting Prof. Roberto Machado, that chronological anteriority is not always a logical inferiority. It is possible to apply such a concept in any science, including Hahnemannian work. I explain with an example familiar to our topic. We must consider the hypothesis that perhaps the sixth edition of Organon is not – although the author himself considers it the closest to perfection – the point of greatest evolution of the method. It is also possible to consider that the homeopathy that we do today is not necessarily a progress in relation to the practice of the pioneers. We can even suppose that many of the discussions that we have today, under the illusion of originality, are only faint echoes of what has already been exhaustively and creatively debated and practiced. 

From this perspective, we do not consider it any discredit, but proof of vitality to examine issues that have been surprisingly active for over two and a half centuries. This persistence denotes the tenacity of the Hahnemannian records. Studies that privilege critical bias are the only ones that honor the script of science, for if Hahnemann entered the historical debate it was precisely because of his ability to let himself be affected by the surprising phenomena that he was unveiling. Only in this way will we understand the historical-philosophical flow that underpinned it, with the multiple perspectives that its challenges have been launching in these two centuries of permanence.

The inaugural doubt can then be presented: once Hahnemann updates and incorporates scientific modernity in its inductive perspective, including the search for experimental validation , what would be its distinguishing mark in the investigation of medical phenomena? Just beyond that, what will be the point of your exhaustive research? It seems clear that by subscribing to the therapeutic reform originated in the objections of island (Sydenham, Hunter) and French (Bichat, Fodera) clinicians regarding the use of medical material and its therapeutic manipulation, our author puts himself in line with the empirical reform that was taking place. sketching.

Only afterwards did he subvert the order installed in the medical sciences and turn the traditional clinic into an uproar by proposing a very unique and original modernity, especially in relation to the use of drugs in their practical application.

Let’s go back to the end of the 18th century. The thick curtain of the methodological monopoly reigned in the era of the great medical systems. Hahnemann is engaged in what was considered the best medicine of his time. In the end, he did not envision any regeneration for the serious and recurring mistakes found. Let us understand his situation at once: he is a desperate doctor who can no longer act with what he had been trained (that is, treat patients) without serious damage to his conscience. It then restricts itself to adopting a relatively innovative hygienism. He begins to loathe the therapies he witnesses. He prefers to give up clinical practice. Fortunately, his intuition was refractory to his skepticism. He argued his intellectual distrust under the avalanche of uncertainties that obsessed him. He considered it better and admitted that there might be something to be done, notions that deserved to be revisited. Initially it imposes an induction, apparently inspired by the prerogatives of an author who, strangely, never mentioned: Francis Bacon.

We must see the enormous effort of his rescue. It seems clear that the traces left by the medical history for which it was based as a starting point have become its main epistemological guidelines. Hahnemann captures ideas that have not been preserved from the medical tradition, with a view to reincorporating them. When it is finally defined by a method it tests it. But it is certain that the usual methodological losses will not be condemned by the aphorisms of the Novum Organum . It also denies the very common acquisition of knowledge through the application of drugs to the sick (ab usage in morbis ). His interest moves to another research matrix. But where is she? Apparently in the study of the effects of poisoning and accidental poisoning on the healthy.

The year 1796 was decisive in its trajectory. After several smaller essays, published in the same Hufeland newspaper , H. writes a work that will carry a very ambitious title. There he claimed to have discovered nothing less than “a new principle for ascertaining the medicinal power of drugs”. However, how could he announce a novelty when much earlier, as he and even evoked from medical historiography, the principle of similars had already been seen and applied? Analogy and sympathies were marked as common grounds for similarity’s discursive constructions.[1] These were ancient resources, old acquaintances of the healing art. How then does he claim that he induced the birth of a new system of medical understanding when the medieval physician Rhazes and another famous scholar of illustration, Von Haller, already admitted the need to bring the experiment on the healthy to medicine?

What abuse of self-referential sources was he promoting when he claimed to be both an agent and a witness, that is to say, the main protagonist of an announced revolution?

There is perhaps one of those logics of scientific discoveries which, as Khun admits, are motivational, psychological, and therefore crucial. At the end of the 18th century, we would find Hahnemann extremely unhappy. He fueled a deep skepticism in the face of the inefficiency he contemplated. He distrusts his practice by denying the therapeutic successes enacted by his peers. It does not seem to admit that the scientific revolution had really installed itself in therapeutics. It also rebels against the comfort of the repetitions of the chairs. Randomly rummages through the pandora box of medicine. His curiosity generated a significant breakdown in his medical certainties. With intellectual boldness and determined intuition, she puts everything into perspective. Hahnemann is no longer a skeptic: he is already an iconoclast.

The Meissen guy dares to think. It is a true obsessive metaphor, the leit motiv that plagues certain subjects in certain temporal units. His rupture stems from a rational inspiration, fueled by a scientific curiosity that confirms his purpose of methodically reexperiencing and the assumption that he must expose his hypotheses to empirical tests. Tests that, to their own astonishment, are provisionally sanctioned.

The problem of identities and influences: hip ochratisms, animisms and vitalisms.

Much has been discussed about the Hahnemannian sources and it is true that thanks to this we have advanced in the understanding of the bases on which he ends up configuring the homeopathic method. There is still a lot to study. We chose to reduce our approach to the influences that, in our opinion, were the most consistent and original. The first to be highlighted is that of the Hippocratic work. There is no doubt that this influence is notable in addition to many times explained by Hahnemann. [two]

It is impossible to doubt the fascination that genuine Hippocratic writings had on him. The sobriety in describing the phenomena, his ability to peer and reveal without trying to explain what he did not know was among his main virtues. As you know, the Hippocratic doctor should be, first of all, a physiologist , that is, someone who is able to speak correctly about nature. In fact, the supreme virtue of Greek doctors was the establishment of accurate prognostic observations. Or, in this impossibility, say nothing about them.[3]

Many authors pointed to the coincidences between the medical positions of Hahnemann and Hippocrates, calculating that this was yet another reactivation of Greek wisdom.[4] As we know, clubbing simply bases medical history on medicine. Each case must be seen in its particularity and each individuality must be examined in the multiplicity of possible responses.[5] Hahnemann recognizes in the Kos tradition a less invasive, natural and rational, therefore better, medical rationality. He knows the therapeutic limits of hippocratism, so he recognizes the prognostic and diagnostic virtues , after all Hippocrates was the one who introduced the case study by comparison through anamneses.

For Hippocratic medicine that applied the Aristotelian concept of individualization, the important thing was to discern the various pathologies within the variability of individual profiles. Its purposes: to diagnose and predict better. For Hahnemann, foreshadowing the germ of his subsequent ruptures, the particularities of the subject’s biographical / pathographic events also begin to stand out , with eminently therapeutic purposes.

More than one author tried to establish a parallel between Hahnemann and the works of authors from different eras and trends such as, for example, Paracelsus, Von Haller, Claude Bernard, Pavlov and Freud. There is a possibility to justify all these influences and inspirations, but in this study we will take another direction. Other halos of influence need to be exposed.

Chronologically, it is worth mentioning some great previous adventures that have left their mark on the history of medicine. We will start with the Vesalius coverings founding the modern anatomy and establishing the correlation between anatomical form and function. Of course, the break created by Paracelsus and its developments in therapy cannot be neglected in any serious homeopathic study. Nor is Sydenham’s systematic empiricism, of evident hypocratic inspiration. Or even the perspectives of an animated anatomy introduced by Von Haller when he induces the first consistent physiological studies towards overcoming humoral-based pathology , a prolonged inheritance of Galenism. Not to mention the enormous repercussions on all medicine in the 18th century of Morgagni’s research when it correlated experimentally – in systematic autopsies – clinical history and anatomical lesion demonstrating the almost linear correspondence between the complaints and the morphological substrate of the pathology. 

Hahnemann studies and cites each of these authors, so it is impossible to doubt his option for empirical validation. The authorities he evoked are mostly clinicians and researchers of eminently experimental ballast. It is a phase in which Hahnemann is particularly interested in the study of chemistry, venereal diseases, and, of course, poisonings 

Despite renouncing the idea[6] , our author presents many similar traits to the founder of medical animism, Stahl.[7] Both excellent chemists. They are among the best of their generations, formed under the influence of the schools of Sylvius and Van Helmont[8] (iatrochemistry). Both are among the most reputable medical researchers in their respective periods. They share the same indignation at the irrational interventionism they witness. They test their hypotheses and redefine their activity: from chemistry to the investigation of the vital phenomenon. That was a moment of effervescence in the century of enlightenment: the emergence of empirical physiology was witnessed, Lavoisier founded a chemical revolution , Kant renewed continental philosophy, a romantic reaction to Cartesian mechanics was outlined. Given the proper proportions, it is not only in our time that the world changes rapidly. 

Hahnemann, like Stahl, notes that the priority was in the analysis of the vital phenomenon, too important to occupy an insignificant place. Vitalism’s identity had always been in danger of disappearing. However, it always reappeared when the clinic resumed empirical research. Animism and vitalism are progressively increasing in their scientific programs. Despite the agreement, the paths take different destinations. While Stahl takes up Aristotelian metaphysics in a very personal way, that is, shaped by the pietism with which he was involved, Hahn emann privileges Aristotelian logic as a method to solidify the constructs that are to give him the theoretical and experimental support necessary for the progress of the project .[9]

Nevertheless, Stahl mobilized the same themes in the 18th century as Hahnemann in the 19th. It fights the mechanism of the man-machine. He rebels against systematic medicine, starts to doubt the peremptory certainties of therapy, and gives an empirical tone to his treatments. In most of its therapeutic orientations , it adopts expectation as a technique.[10] He does this with great awareness because he considers it a less pernicious method than the available resources. An entire school will imitate him, after all, in the “first place, do no harm” ratifies a resumption of Hippocratic naturalism and, consequently, a return of confidence in the natural medicine . resurrecting the idea of ​​the regenerating power of the hypocratic medicinal nature, when physis would provide for the recovery of the sick. The first Hahnemann did not escape this trend. 

Roughly speaking, the Stahlian method, which also adheres to the principle of similarity, ends up in operational difficulties that are not negligible. There is no systematic treatment of the question of anima or how and under what circumstances the drug should be applied. Stahl intimately doubts the therapy, but has nothing better to offer. You only have the option of the expectant clinic. In its therapy, for the first time since the failure of Paracelsus’ psychiatry, we found a primitive psychotherapy – the fundamental disorders are rooted in the anima – which seemed to value the patient’s psycho-mental state, as well as the use of the always useful dietary resources. . Here it successfully imitates Barthez’s experimental tentamen , in any case therapeutically as not very operative as his, because they both had no medical instruments except those inherited from a tradition they had performed and tried to distance themselves from.

Hahnemann, on the other hand, creates a new path. He pursues the epistemological maturity that he slowly incorporates into his instrumental guide – Organon . This incorporation decisively affects its practice. He quickly moves from initial research, the embryo of his scientific program , to application in the sick. Again, he submits his hypothesis to the tests, increasing his casuistry with the traditional difficulties already familiar to everyone who knows his biography.

But what he gets goes far beyond what he initially assumed. He observes tangible results between the event (drug introduction) and the effects observed within a plausible time gradient. This intervention, he thinks, changes the natural evolution of the disease. This is the first step, he calculates. Careful, that r map your findings with caution. It is necessary to understand that originally he was prioritizing – until now he had not expressed his criticism of the inconjugability of nosologies – the pathological entity itself, the disease, as an object of study. Po ssivelmente was worried about a quick comparison of results.

Thus his pragmatism is reinforced by the verification that, with adjustments, he is even before a new path. It is not, strictly speaking, a new principle, but it is definitely one in our path here. Rota, which for many reasons will be terribly arid for the innovative doctor: the empirical school was undermined by the great medical systems (especially those of Hoffmann and Boerhaave), the study of the totality was being sacrificed by the principle of localization [11]

The symptoms (and with this the clinical history) were no longer so important because they had been restricted to “lesion slaves”[12] . Similitude was in disuse and was practically ignored by major medical schools. Nobody valued it, much less operationalized the tenuous medicines of Hippocratic medicine.[13] The romantic movement (as well as natural philosophy, Schelling’s “nathurphilososophie” ) that decisively influenced our author, did not exactly produce a scientific endorsement for the new researchers. Let us add to this panel the difficulties to challenge the hegemony of Newtonian physiology and its convincing mechanics applied to biology.

Furthermore, and most importantly, Montpellier’s vitalism was isolated and discredited by the advancement of the medical schools of Paris and of island medicine . In the medical field, the elision of vitalism was a fact. In this way, the environment – despite the fact that famous analysts saw the opposite – was inhospitable to what was about to unfold, to the theses that were about to be enunciated. Hahnemann, just as Galileo really acts against everything and everyone, or as Hilton Japiassú wants, referring to the famous stronome “despite everything and everyone”. Finally, it organizes a counter-thought and makes an epistemological cut in medical knowledge.

Again our inconoclast dares. He is not exactly concerned with “scientific coherence”, or “political articulations”, moreover, on the contrary, he is extremely unskilled in this sphere. He wears himself out excessively in the fight against rivals, he is defeated internally in his intention to keep homeopathy on the idealized route, he sees himself facing the constant threats of interdiction of the movement. All because he had well-defined priorities. He is stubborn with the idea of ​​the “new way”, which allows to progressively refine the theory. References to vitalism, up to the fourth edition of Organon , were quite incipient . It is developed by crossing information and refining medical knowledge with ideas arising from practice, that is: the totality-purpose, interactions between mind / body-medicines-environment. He begins to borrow concepts and ideas from the vitalist tradition, voluntarily or not, starting to resort to them to explain the phenomena he witnesses.   

Only during this period did he introduce the expression ” lebenskraft “, a vital force. Expression that will take on different characteristics in each school and that composes only one of the items of the conceptual structure of vitalist philosophy. However, what is most dear to the Hahnemannian corpus is not the “vital energy”, but the very concept of vitality “lato sensu”, as if defining a way in which the living organism operates. What started to matter, primarily, were the modes of operation of these organisms as non- mechanical, non-inertial totalities , especially analyzed in their operational functions: form / function / purpose. Hahnemann, like Stahl and Barthez, realizes the insufficiency of mechanistic principles to account for pathological and therapeutic phenomena.

With effect, vitalism can be placed more a consequence of these investigations and that the cause of these. It is also very important to show that the mechanism-vitalism polarity was never its starting point. It emerges as a natural result of research, which only increases its epistemological weight. Interpreting the results of the events, investing all his intellectual and deductive efforts, he ends up giving his newly conceived theory the status of method. Hahnemann reexplores a theory in which he can couple his findings. It is about reactivating an empirical vitalism replacing “wild” empiricism. Of course, as you realize how important and operative these assertions are, more positivity is added to the method. His research is becoming more and more oriented. He is increasingly determined to seek support for the enormous variety of hypotheses he raises.

Epistemological plans: from the induction of similarity to the deduction of singularity. 

Break with primitive similarity . Susceptibility, or the exalted peculiarity. The infinitesimal is nothing. The vitalist research program. An evil worse than the original: suppression. 

Thus, before trying to define the basic traits of his personality, or trace an outline of his historical costume, it is necessary to redefine the various traits of his work in the construction of his methodology.

In the first place, our thinker emerges as a doctor formed from conventional schools, whose main theoretical matrix was iatroquímica (Vienna, Leip zig, Erlarngen). His therapeutic vision is therefore centered on medical chemistry in the 18th century. Despite numerous proofs of his intellectual precocity and his refined intuitive ability, Hahnemann was unlikely to change his praxis in such a radical way. It would be less expected, given the absolute dominance and hegemony of that trend, that he would found a new medical school.

What takes you to your destination will probably remain ignored in the recesses of your most intimate metaphors, which I fear, we will never have satisfactorily clarifying access. It remained for us to follow the lead of their arguments. His primitive dissatisfaction with systematic medicine and his courage to denounce the lack of effectiveness of the medical systems to which he was exposed denote his first phase. Hermeneuts would call this their first application. But our problem remains the same. We have not yet been able to efficiently diagnose how and under what conditions he conceived his “new principle”.

By isolating himself and claiming to have abandoned medical art, as he confided: “I thought that art was doomed to nothing”, he sentenced himself to the search for something better. Once it has discarded the practice of its time, its next company will be to detect the failures of the great medical systems . These ended up becoming the great epistemic breach to objectify your doubt: there is something to be rethought, quickly and radically.

His research originates in the sphere of theoretical review, and between libraries and translations, among incunabula and folio s lost medical history records his rescue: Hippocratic similarity and model experimentation of the old empirical schools. Nowadays it would be equivalent to depreciating the genomic tendency and to resume, with extra-historiographic purposes, the recommendations of Hellenic medicine. He elaborates his own synthesis and sees the need to experiment on human bodies. [14] But it will not do so in the face of pathologies, it will be necessary “not sick” to obtain more reliable reports. At the same time, it is concerned with distinguishing its new formulation from Paracelsus’ correspondences and refutes, in advance, the possible attacks against what would come to disqualify it as naive empiricism. For the first, he recommends severe criticism, confronting the tradition of the markings , for the second, systematic studies against the “empirical accidents” recorded in historiography.

But, confirming what Canguilhem noticed, the sources matter less and the treatment given to them is much more important, and in this case , H. does this work in a very original way. It goes beyond medical texts and advances its research focus on works of natural history, of travelers and explorers who visited other peoples and cultures collecting therapeutic jobs and registering, almost journalistically, the medicinal habits and customs of the colonies of European countries. He is much more interested in clinical records than in books on doctrine and therapeutics. It was relatively common in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries for medical authors to transcribe their clinical cases, as if to publish their daily experiences, to write down their therapeutic successes (even those that Hahnemann will later demonstrate as suppressions), so that others could know what their behaviors were like in prá ethics.  

  1. it ingeniously takes advantage of this immense source of therapeutic imbroglios, contesting the axiom that the masters are always right. Gumpert was happy to refer to him as a hard-core rebel. It uses the authorities, in a legitimate movement of co- thought, to disallow them. Take advantage of only the symptoms that emerge from “wild” treatments and the intoxications that you identified in these records .[15]

Although Hahnemann recognized the enormous value of applied chemistry and that many substances were useful in palliating certain pathological states, he refused to admit that we would need to restrict their knowledge to their proximity to the “natural system”, or to their taxonomic kinship. He admits that there may be, in fact, analogies between the external, physical-morphological evidence of the substances and the medicinal effects. But he does not accept them – as the doctrine of signatures predicted – as a given reality. He wants a research program to prove it or refute it. In this sense, Hahnemann undermines the epistemology of “signatures”. However, as Foucault had detected, those who work with similarities also necessarily have to deal with the signs.  [16]

The difference is that the signatures (or markings) that interested Hahnemann were of a different nature, they could not be botanical because they were also subjective, they were experiences [17] , making it impossible for these to be correlated to organs, physiological systems or pathologies. He begins to look for methodical observation and experiment in the possibility of registering the manifestations of the human totality. 

He states that “botanical affinity” would never allow conclusive inferences about the similarity of the action since the “external similarities” were superficial and insufficient to know possible medicinal effects. Here his critique of primitive similarity and the doctrine of Paracelsian signatures, as well as the whole system of medical matter, appears again, and in a much more evident way.[18]

Hahnemann had a double influence: one of them was the great medical systems of his time, iatro-chemistry, and on the other hand he was deeply impressed by the empirical propositions. It is precisely in this mid-term between the tensions of a rational and empirical nature that he forges his proposals. For this reason, it is not possible to present only one facet of its concerns, since it is committed from the beginning to divisions that will permeate the entire project. It is the contradictions generated by them that move the history of their propositions.

It uses the concept of similarity, but adheres in this field to a new epistemic , modern, therefore analogical. In other words, during the experimentation process, it seeks to detect, from the point of view of the subjectivity and subjectivity of the subject, which expresses symptoms and the changes that the substance has inflicted on him.

These revisions give him the pejorative title of “book physician” from his enemies and the other scientists and historians of his time, the diagnosis of the founder of a ” pure metaphysical system “.[19] A little unfair to anyone who published a libel sanctioning the medicine of experience. Thus, the central role of all the controversy that Hahnemann is about to create only at this stage outlines more defined features. He is about to reach his next target: the “botanization” of diseases, or better, his taxonomization. In one of these passages, one asks: “Should we happen to trust a botanist who is restricted to dividing plants between herbs and shrubs?”. 

It should be noted that Hahnemann was not only concerned with the visible, potentially triggerable signs of medicinal substances. He begins to occupy himself with the totality of manifestations, such as experiences, dreams, sensations and all sorts of subjective symptoms , obtained from the medication. Its semiology is, to borrow an expression of propaedeutics, “in the open”. For this very reason it obtains for my medical matter a myriad of new symptoms: objective, constitutional and especially mental symptoms . It incorporates all sorts of subjective symptoms, usually overlooked by semiology.[20] Found a new model of clinical history.

It attacks the episteme that placed nosos as the main object of therapy. What it means to say: it shakes the building that had, and still has, the central role of all therapeutics, the framework even of Western typifying medicine. Here we come to something truly revolutionary. Here is the embryo of one of its epistemological ruptures. What he says to us means “no to typifications” and at the same time “to look for unpredictable symptoms”. It is worth asking why you do this?

Did he perceive the little scope of the symptoms taken only as confirmations of the anatomo-clinical pictures ? Or do you suspect the efficiency of the therapy under the semiological direction undertaken until then? All of these hypotheses are plausible, however, what Hahnemann foreshadows is the concept of nonspecific susceptibility, only officially formulated almost a century later. In other words, it discovers the semiological-therapeutic importance of modalized symptoms. It gives primacy to the rarity of the clinic. Unveils the manifestations that express the disturbances in an imprecise way. In other words, it discovers the value of the unexpected , of the unpredictable phenomena in natural illness.

Redundant to say the degree of innovation of this proposal. It starts to incorporate this orientation as an inseparable part of the method. From this guideline, it is natural to deduce that it is no longer possible to prescribe based semiologically on the predictable syndromic conditions. That is, following the Hahnemanian reasoning, the pathognomonic symptoms of diseases can no longer be taken as the only semiological guides for therapy. Unless these symptoms have a personal note, it is worth mentioning those that have idiosyncratic characteristics.[21]

Now, if your review can rescue similarity and experimentation, why not go further and do the complete job by demolishing the whole system of classifying nosologies? Here we will have to sharpen our discriminatory capacity: its primary target was not this. What he wanted to do was to anticipate the enormous insufficiency of that classifying system for the establishment of therapy . Knowing what it is, that is to say, knowing the name of the disease, does not necessarily give the diagnostician the predicate of prescribers, the notion of knowing how to treat.

But you cannot avoid the logic: why, if the experiences reveal susceptibilities and “sensitive fibers” of different qualities that respond to different amounts and stimuli, why consider only specific remedies? In fact, if the medication actions are diversified and affect the entire economy, why then the privilege of a diaphoretic, a revulsive, an astringent, emenagogues or sweat? If the illnesses are inconjugable why are the drug correspondences chosen by local affinities? Why not be suspicious of organotropisms that do not take into account the totality of manifestations in the subject? =

In addition, another rescue was imminent. After concluding that it is impossible to establish a therapy under the banner of pathology, Hahnemann is visibly concerned with the paths that these can take, when they are suppressed / modified in their natural path. His conclusions again coincide punctually with what he finds registered in medical historiography: he starts to check for substitutive pathologies. It promotes yet another resurrection, this time it is the turn of the old doctrine of “morbid metastases”. It finds that in the course of any therapeutic action, pathological versions worse than the original ones may appear. It implies that the expectation may be a lesser evil (since here the suppression would be in charge of the vis medicatrix ) of what is the therapy. At the same time, it finds that the analysis of the totality and the application of mild medications are more rational means to protect the subject, or at least minimize the risks of a possible harmful path, such as the one mentioned above.

Finally, the most indestructible epistemological question. What do you look for in attenuations: to optimize the action of the drug through a lesser medicinal effect? Get the subtle alchemical body of substances? Deviate from aggravations? Coercing the vital energy? It is possible for all questions to obtain affirmative answers simultaneously and successively. But let us judge by the beginning. Hahnemann, for familiarity or opportunity, begins his work with poisons: heleborism, arsenicals, mercurials, sulfur, zinc and other toxics fill his repertoire. Check the rules that lead toxics to produce their effects under strong and low doses. It notes that qualitatively those susceptible respond to doses well below the toxic threshold. That the action of drugs on subjects is extremely heterogeneous. Now, if the clinical and mental conditions reappear under different intoxications, the minimum amounts to awaken the symptoms can be different for each subject and much smaller than expected. What laws and clinical-pharmacological criteria do these phenomena obey? None satisfactorily known. There must be individual variability that induces subjects to non-homogeneous responses. How do you proceed? Dilute and try it, only in a second stage it dynamizes the drug, after all the simal infinite is nothing. 

The ethical imperative. =

“There are circumstances in which neither the like nor the opposite heal; it is what should heal ”

Hippocrates

In the years that followed his greatest research, Hahnemann now finds himself immersed in his experience, immersed in his work of caring for patients. They have been sketching and building an ethical corpus . He does all his work looking for a system that includes an action compatible with the delicacy that semiological and therapeutic work requires from the homeopathic project. And already knowing this, he fuses his expectation of curative purpose with a pedagogical-philosophical action that would also induce the subject to a more articulated action between nature and destiny, between spirit and body, between environment and work.

However, our author pears the creative with prudence in the statement of these propositions. He fears for the worst – rightly so – when he gives homeopathy a character of univocal universal philosophy, because if, on the one hand, he knows that the sectarians will always be pre-called to defend it at all odds , on the other, he realizes the danger of a fallacious aura that this double meaning can provide for a method that was intended to be articulated as a scientific practice.

At no time, however, does it state or denote that among the particularities of the drug’s action are an action in the spirit per se . The references to an immaterial action of the medications only match the idea of ​​”quasi-spirit” in a specific context: like us, he, despite noting the positive effects, ignored the mechanism of action of ultramolecular doses. Indeed, he sees that the medicine conveys generic, imprecise, “quasi-spirit” possibilities that are assumed as information by the set of organic systems (mind-body-environment complex) of the subject[22] can change your most intimate perspectives, but who can know for sure?

Thus, in parallel with the scientist Hahnemann, we have a thinker of completeness who stands in favor of ethics. So what would be the Hahnemanni ana ethics then ? Here we leave aside, at least for now, the methodological constructions and the induction that our author proposes. We will try to understand what is convenient for him for curative action.

First, Hahnemann does not judge, he only listens carefully to the subject in his narrative, which, as we know, presupposes unusual details in clinical histories. These are the usually negligible symptomatic “wastes” that contemporary clinic has renamed as “neuro-vegetative disorders” or, at best , subjective symptoms. What mattered to a clinic based on the names of the illnesses if vertigo made the subject recline to the right with cold, if perspiration produces ecstasy, if along with the headache a desperate desire for lemon arose or even if the crises of anxiety to break out at 17 o’clock on time? These ended up – here it is not possible to analyze why – because they turn into mere parasitic symptoms of the medical occupation. No previous clinician valued or transcribed the patients ‘ symptoms with such obsessive care. H. had learned how to apply them in practice. The truth is that even the best doctors from other periods, including those who recorded very complete medical histories like, for example, Sydenham, did not know how to treat material from detailed anamnesis.

Second, the analysis of the cases attended by Hahnemann shows the commitment to all symptoms. No pre-valuation. No anticipated hierarchical criteria. No schemes chosen beforehand. Just a motto: any peculiarity will be exalted . Whether in the “Archives of Stapf”, in the “Notebooks of patients” or in the various records such as, for example, those pointed out in the rescue of Genneper, these guidelines overlap, apparently not very methodological. What you can see in all your records is the meticulousness of the record: the original words, the type of music, the details in the dreams, the empirical verification of clairvoyance, the altered perceptions, the dream recesses, the perverted functions and the body in anguish.

So when he proposes to put sculapio on the scale he weighs his positivism against his metaphysics. He realizes that he cannot, even with the deepest personal effort, hide his polarity as Masi-Elizalde has so well shown. Ass ume that, if on the one hand he will give the scientific aspect of his propositions a logical-formal tone, on the other hand he will continue to affirm what he believes in, enunciating his deep philosophical-religious concern, focusing on the very meaning of existence. Hahnemann induces and deduces all the time. After all, he shows himself to be a researcher who cannot hide his motivations. In this case, at the same time that he uses ontological substantialism to define the properties of being, he rejects part of these characteristics a pr iori , which will be the object of further control, during the experiments.

Another important methodological criterion introduced by Hahnemann is found in the explicit and repeated recommendations that each drug should be used exclusively. The idea of non-mixing is yet another field of spistemological maturity in your medical system as it seeks to control the intervening variables with the most understandable of the arguments: two drugs together cause a third and unknown element that makes the analysis of the effects uncontrollable and very little need.

The use of inert substances should also be mentioned. It should be noted that this use is recommended in a strictly ethical context: the commitment to the other also involves the controversial act of apprehension of “not medicating”, namely, the use of the compliant medication. It is precisely because he understands that imprecision is inherent in the homeopathic method and its operational difficulties that Hahnemann allows and encourages the use of non-medicinal “something” when the need and / or indication of the verum is not clear. How impressive was his ability to perceive the need and importance of a therapeutic artifact, however pseudo-medicinal, as a step in the work that allows for a better research of the improvements, the worsens and the stability in a homeopathic treatment. 

The Hahnemannian version of “creative leisure” – as in the famous letter to the workaholic tailor “[23] – is one of the most auspicious and denotes the recognition that there is, after all, a scale of values, criteria and priorities. Work, it is clear, cannot be harmful. It should not be counted as a sacrifice to health. Faced with the epidemic front classified under the CID of RSI “injury by repetitive efforts”, once again our author foresees the worrying fate of organisms reduced to “bodies that produce”. To the perplexity of neo-pragmatism, Hahnemann’s complex axiological system never separates the construction of homeopathic science from its ethical commitments. Of these, a certain teleologism of the human statute that identifies the vital phenomenon with the inclusion of certain perspectives of refinement: cultural, affective, spiritual cannot be underestimated.  

Whether we like it or not, Hahnemann has no quibbles about spirituality, which he sees with a practical focus, that is, it is not in the sphere of alienation or in the turmoil of a contemplative asceticism. Nor is it a dogmatic metaphysics and still less the contemporary neo-esotericism freely associated with homeopathic doctrine. According to him, man has an internal system that allows him to detect the transcendent nature of his spirit, as well as his ability to recognize Gd. Even this certainty did not make him hostage to the Salvationist theses.

There is a sophisticated mix in our author: on the one hand, it adheres to a kind of personal synthesis of naturalist philosophy[24] which tends to a vitalism of a spiritualistic nature (Luz, 1988) with the perception that it must always be united to “being here”. On the other, it assumes scientific positivism as an incorruptible duty to the medical object. Perhaps, for this very reason, on purpose, he never intended to assemble a set of medical knowledge under a metaphysical safeguard of a mystical or religious nature. It is an insurrection against this prerogative. Waiving any form of sectarianism to put your hypotheses under question.

After recognizing the transcendent nature of man, the founder pleads for the scientific and conceptual clarity of homeopathy as a logical, pragmatic, scientific choice. First, the methodological choice. Then he admits a metaphysical-based ontology – warning that “all are kings” there – that he must undergo the tests of empirical evidence.

In other words, it admits an empirical metaphysics. Its accurate scale no longer weighs just sculápio. It weighs values, supports the search for a broader medical approach, emphasizes hygiene, the role of the environment, the need and finding references in existence. Hence his option – this is particularly interesting in his epistolary – for an existential religious spirit not linked or subordinate to schools or hermetic doctrines. Hahnemann prefers to subordinate this acquisition to the subject’s achievements, case by case. He deduces that there is a kind of tribute to the singular of each subject, as there is an unmistakable merit in personal discoveries: they are non-transferable and configure subjectivity.

If in this way each subject can obtain pedagogical, philosophical and homeopathic help, so much the better, since the high ends do not know the dimensions and the quality of existence cannot be measured, except by very peculiar measures: exactly from references of the very nature treated / cared for.

Hahnemann understood that it was exactly this nature that would allow man to refer any health project to a reconsideration of the importance of the status of mental status in therapy. The mood starts to be considered[25] not only as a semiological-therapeutic reference but, and mainly, as a kind of “marker” for the improvement of the subject’s general state. However, in order to refer this improvement to more sophisticated projects, Hahnemann recommends, in addition to the dynamized drug, a continuous personal effort that can be enhanced or not by a pedagogical-philosophical action through what he called “auxiliary mental regime”.

The posterity of the inheritance: in addition to the contradictory and simibilus principles, which is appropriate.

When we see the immense responsibility that homeopathy has as perhaps the last medical rationality that is truly divergent from hegemonic thinking, we are apprehensive and concerned about its future. The internal disagreements of the movement , the difficulty of the various schools in assuming their identity and the radicalizations about each of the Hahnemanian phases started to hinder the development as well as the goals of the homeopathic movement.

Many critics of homeopathy substantiate their criticisms of the lack of scientific curiosity of homeopaths who did not update the method in the light of a review of medical theories after Hahnemann. Despite the exaggeration and ideological bias embedded in it, there is a basis for these criticisms. We need to recognize the exaggerations, the flaws and the important elisions in his work. After all, it is not a revealed text. We have to admit that a certain programmed ingenuity permeates the homeopathic environment that expects nothing less than the perfection of a scientific construction. But here we also see the opposite bias: adapting uncritically to current research norms and standards can mean the rise of a pragmatic version of similarity and the ruin of a resistance that fought to preserve a set of knowledge and medical procedures that characterize a particular iatrophilosophy.

Hahnemann’s merits were many: preparing an immense terrain still unfinished, not only leaving faithful followers but contaminating critical passers-by , not having defined rigid strategies and living immersed in a fruitful resistance whose deep traces reach all the medicine of our time, marks epistemological issues that are making themselves felt even in other disciplines. However, it is no longer enough that we repeat the content architected by the Hahnemannian code to exhaustion. This has already served us, now it brings a scientific suspicion. The accusation of cult of personality is rekindled. It exposes us to the fragility of sameness. Stoic restatements embarrass us in the fragile era of immobility as warned us in different ways and in different historian-author versions like Dudgeon, Bradford, Haehl and Marcy and Fortier-Bernorville. The repetitions, the mere reaffirmation of our resistance, do not deserve to be taken by a positive heuristic .

Homeopathy does not have any special attribute that credits it as a different knowledge from the others. There are no innate or acquired invulnerabilities, there is no guarantee for anything. It is part of the game to submit to the refutations, to face the internal contradictions and to bow to the criteria of knowledge criticism required to be able to continue to be validated and thus remain as a practice. Homeopathic ideas need to circulate in order to be preserved. Their logic was challenged and put under question. We restrict ourselves to cheering only for increasingly clear evidence and for the expansion of the investigation.

Paradoxically to his strong doctrinal sense, Hahnemann positions himself as one of the first revisionists of homeopathy. Let us remember that his conversion from iatroquímica to a cosmic-synthetic vitalism, where he incorporates similarity as a method, was a direct consequence of a spirit willing to be affected by research. Only afterwards, seeing the insufficiency (or “excessive” sufficiency ) of the analogue as therapeutic reasoning, does it incorporate infinitezimalization as in order to obtain modified, subtle, but convenient responses.

And, in the end, when he did not need to risk his prestige, he resolved to bear the turbulent consequences by enunciating a sketch of medical anthropology, seeking a hidden malaise, a meta-meaning underlying the empirical-phenomenological of the symptoms. It is the phase that enunciates the psoric theory. In other words, there is everything in Hahneman’s reasoning, including contempt for a straight and cumulative coherence that exhaustively demands adherents and enemies.

Stick to the medical object to meet the demand for a more efficient clinic, namely, with the specific purpose of curing or controlling defined pathologies is an ancient problem of medicine. Here, too, our inventor imposes changes. In his ethics, the radical commitment to the other does not mean only being attentive to changes of a pathological character as the primacy of medical care. The originality here was to have pretended to be defined by an ethical-synthetic humanism, whose main attributes must be the solidarity and understanding of the suffering subject. Sufferings manifest through imaginary or real idiosyncrasies that the sick subject tells the doctor, seeking relief and support. Homeopathic help does not come (or could not come) only against the morphology of sick bodies, it will always come as an answer to the incomprehensible sensations, metaphors and allusions that invade and plague the subject.

Hahnemann finally builds a methodology in which it will always be necessary to ask “what ails you?” and “what do you suffer from?” to find out, in the end “who is it”? This dissolves, once and for all, the contemporary illusion of a future in which machines that detect vital qualities would replace medical action using electrodes that trigger the simile. At least for the Hahnemannian subject, the original perspective remains: the essence of the clinical spirit is the procedure of one man in front of another.

It is necessary to show that homeo patia conveys a therapeutic possibility of order and dimensions completely foreign to those of the fields of action defined by the causalist model of biomedicine as the only ones specific to the medical act. This distinction brings us directly to the scope that we see in homeopathy as an original proposal that must finally be taken as a way of making medicine. Homeopathy then needs to be identified as an iatrophilosophy. A subject medicine, an interactive medicine beyond the specifics of diseases. We build a healing art that is much broader than the application of similarity. Its fundamental distinction, which even highlights it from other medical rationalities, lodges itself elsewhere: it is in its “what to do”, when it understands man in his aspiration to be understood by the totality of manifestations.

Homeopathy already needed and had its martyrs, already experienced the taste of exile, the ban, banishment. Homeopaths fought (and fought) with doctors from other traditions and between themselves endless disputes , both long and useless. Whether we are going to prolong this strife or finally dedicate ourselves to what matters is an option exclusively under our yoke.

So, let’s talk about the impropriety of the always mistaken question “what would Hahnemann say”? Impossible to know how he would behave. The inferences of his scientific testament show that we should foresee doses of rationality and moderation. We are pleased to note that the influences of romanticism were not, in the end, negligible items in the analyzed influence hall. since, as is known, this movement was extremely important in the subject’s rescue route. Therefore, after these prolonged disputes, we would expect a relaxation of doctrinal inflexibility so that everyone really interested in the renewal of medicine could adhere to the third Hippocratic principle. No prior hegemony. No methodological monopoly. Only intellectual openness as a premise, doubt as a compass. In view of the current immensity of modern medical possibilities, neither the opposite nor the similar as univocal concepts, just what suits each patient.

Finally, what we recognize as genius in Hahnemann is spread throughout the corpus . Notable as an original thinker , revolutionary as an epistemologist of medicine, generous as a doctor. He sealed his contribution to knowledge as an inducer, deductor and inventor. Challenges that will still occupy several generations and that should produce developments that will expand to have access to those more complex traits of the human spirit and its sufferings. However, all these efforts will be recognized as a single duration and as long as we are able to recycle the notion of progress we want. They will remain true and efficient as long as we are able to recap – which necessarily means selecting and maturing – the contents of this great cornerstone of knowledge that we call medicine, and one of its therapeutic arms that we call homeopathy.  

Grades

[1] Cf. Foucault, M. “The four similarities” in “The words and the things” 1966.

[2] “We have never been closer to the discovery of the science of medicine than in the time of Hippocrates. This thoughtful unsophisticated observer sought nature in nature. He saw and described diseases before he precisely, without addition, without coloring, without speculation. ” Hahnemann, Lesser Writtings, 1852.

[3] “In the faculty of pure observation he was not surpassed by any other doctor who came after him. Only an important part of medical art was this favored son of nature deprived: – besides that he was a complete teacher in his art – in the knowledge of the rivers and their application. But he did not simulate such knowledge – he recognized his disability by the fact that he gave almost no medicine (because he knew them very imperfectly) and relied almost entirely on the diet. ” Hahnemann, S Lesser Writti ngs, 1852

[4] We know the aphorism that has guided many generations of medical historians: “the natural history of medicine is a successive sequence of returns to Hippocrates”

[5] This conception of the medical school in Kos was briefly taken up by the dream of merging horizons represented by the legendary school in Salerno with its aegretidines diagnosis . Cf. Homeopathy and Vitalism. 1996

[6] Critically criticizes Stahl’s idea of ​​”animal soul”. He does the same with the supposed influences of paracelcism on his work.

[7] Cf. Coulter, HL Divided legacy. op. cit. Vol II.

[8] Jean Baptista Van Helmont , a systematic physician and Belgian chemist, was the first to distinguish gases from air (he invented the word gas) he and Silvius are the first to recommend, based on the idea of fermentatio fermentation) use of acidifying and alkalizing to improve abnormal digestive performance.

[9] The sparks of Kant’s critical philosophy can be seen here.

[10] According to Entralgo, his therapy was basically restricted to the use of tonics and purgatives. Cf. Entralgo, PL Historia de la Medicina, Modern and Contemporary Medicine. Los Grandes Sistemáticos. 1954. p. 245  

[11] Subsequently explained by Virchow.

[12] As Morgagni pointed out in his “De Sedibus”

[13] Even when attempting to reissue it in the low doses of Van Helmont.

[14] For Koyré, scientific revolutions are due more to the mutation of philosophical ideas than to empirical discoveries. Cf. Koyre, A. Pensar La Ciência. p. 27. 

[15] This is basically the spirit of his first medical subject: Fragmenta, from 1805.

[16] Here is what Hahnemann points out: “Due to the fact that the cinchona cortex has a bitter and astringent taste, therefore the bitter and astringent cortexes of ash, horse chestnut, willow, etc., were considered to have the same action. that the cinchona cortex, – as if the taste could determine the action! Due to the fact that some plants have a bitter taste, especially gentiana centaureum, called fel terrae, for this reason only professionals were convinced that they could not act as substitutes for the bile! Since the arenaria carex root has an external resemblance to the sarsaparilla root, it was deduced that the former must have the same properties as the latter ”Hahnemann, S. Lesser Writtings, 1856

[17] Cf. Rosenbaum. P. Homeopathy: interactive medicine. Imago Editora. Rio de Janeiro, 2000 (Publication of the Master ‘s dissertation in the Department of Preventive Medicine – FMUSP “Homeopathy as Medicine of the subject, historical roots, epistemological frontiers”)  

[18] “Therapists attributed to star anise the same expectant qualities that are possessed by anise seeds, merely because the latter have a similarity in taste and odor to the seed capsules of the former and even some parts of the tree (iliceum anisatum ) that produces these capsules is used in the Philippine Islands as a poison for suicidal purposes. – This is what I call the philosophical and experimental origin of medical matter! ” Hahnemann, S. Lesser Writtings. 1852

[19] More contemporaneously Entralgo came to classify homeopathy as “free medicine” .Cf. Entralgo, PL Historia de La Medicina. Modern and Contemporary Medicine. Madrid, 1954

[20] With the exception of substances classically producing changes in the psyche, such as opiates , alcohol and other medicines of plant origin such as cannabis indica, cannabis sativa and others – in the compilations that he scrutinized. 

[21] For example: in the case of mental illnesses, pathognomonic psychic symptoms must be excluded from the scrutiny since they are expected in a framework, the main characteristic of which is precisely the disturbances of the mental sphere. Ditto for the expected symptoms of any pathology.   

[22] For the Hahnemanian man a substantial compound is inseparable.

[23] This is advice that Hahnemann sends to a patient, a tailor, in which he warns him about the risks of overwork and the need to put other priorities in his life.

[24] Since it criticizes nathurphilosophie

[25] This was one of the important differences between Stahl’s and Barthez’s projects. Cf Homeopathy, Interactive Medicine . op. cit.

https://brasil.estadao.com.br/blogs/conto-de-noticia/hahnemann-sera-atual-266-anos-depois/

Antissionismo é Antissemitismo 2 – Bilhete da Memória (Blog Estadão)

Destacado

Antissionismo é Antissemitismo 2 – Bilhete da Memória

“A tolerância torna-se um crime quando aplicada ao mal”

Thomas Mann (A Montanha Mágica)

A assembleia nacional francesa depois de uma discussão que durou mais de uma década passou uma resolução e decidiu que o antissionismo (o ódio à Israel)  é antissemitismo.

“A Assembleia Nacional… acredita que a definição operacional usada pela International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance permite a designação mais precisa do que é o anti-semitismo contemporâneo ”, lê-se parcialmente o texto da resolução:

“Considera-o um instrumento eficaz de combate ao antissemitismo em sua forma moderna e renovada, na medida em que engloba manifestações de ódio ao Estado de Israel justificadas apenas pela percepção deste como um coletivo judeu.” (Times of Israel, 03, 12, 2019)

E não é difícil compreender porque assim fizeram os franceses, e seria de se esperar que todos os Países civilizados os seguissem como um exemplo de respeito à civilização e de decência intelectual.

Menos de 75 anos do final da Segunda Guerra Mundial, o mundo testemunha uma crescente onda de xenofobia.  O antissemitismo foi o preconceito étnico que mais cresceu nos últimos anos. Record de ataques contra judeus foram registrados no ano de 2019. O número das agressões foi inclusive muito maior do até então considerado ápice da intolerância, pouco antes do início do grande conflito que terminou em 1945. Somente nos EUA foram reportados 2100 incidentes violentos.

Portanto volto a um assunto que já foi tema de um extenso artigo anterior publicado aqui neste mesmo Blog Conto de Notícia. Um dos candidatos a prefeito de uma das maiores cidades do mundo pertence a um partido, o Psol, cuja plataforma – e não apenas seus membros isoladamente — declara explicitamente, contra todas as evidencias disponíveis, que Israel é um Estado que pratica genocídio contra o povo palestino.

Para além do exagero retórico do partido do atual candidato do Psol a prefeitura de São Paulo citamos declaração contida em sua plataforma – “o governo de Bush foi quem mais ostensivamente o praticou, declarando apoio a Israel e a seu massacre, dizendo que o Hamas é terrorista” conforme artigo retirado do próprio site do partido do partido em 2018. A verdade, porém, é que há consenso da comunidade internacional de que após prolongadas investigações contando com experts civis e militares de várias nacionalidades de que não há nenhuma prova de que houve “massacre”e de que o Hamas é uma organização terrorista e como tal foi classificada pelos Estados Unidos, União Europeia e a maioria dos países civilizados.

O site do partido é repleto de exortação ao ódio e notícias falsas, como as publicadas no mesmo veiculo em janeiro de 2019, a verdade é que comparar o holocausto com supostas carnificinas cometidas pelas forças de defesa de Israel com os massacres promovidos pelo exército nazista, está para bem além de ser patética. O nacional socialismo alemão e seus sócios responsáveis pela política sistemática de extermínio dentro e fora dos campos de concentração assassinou 6 milhões de judeus.

Já o partido em questão adota palavras de ordem ameaçadoras, votos de ódio e hostilidade sem contexto ou equivalência moral, e uma provocação particularmente mentirosa:

Em outro trecho do “artigo”(sic) a verdade é mais uma vez torturada com slogans como classificar o regime israelense de “neonazista” (sic). Neste caso é a realidade que protesta já que ao contrário do que afirmam os militantes escribas do partido, a legitimidade e apoio ao Estado de Israel é crescente inclusive no mundo árabe e o exército de Israel está entre os mais éticos do mundo, conforme arquivos da própria ONU.

“Em Israel, tal como foi na Alemanha do terceiro Reich, se trata de um estado que somente pode sustentar-se sobre a base de um militarismo genocida e racista”. Eis mais uma anedota de um partido que nem tenta ocultar sua beligerância anti- Israel e, portanto, contra todos os judeus que encontraram lá paz e refúgio depois da Shoah. E acharam proteção e acolhimento não só naquele País, mas também em lugares como o Brasil, onde os povos estão acostumados a viver em harmonia e mútua aceitação. Convivência pacífica que parece  incomodar o núcleo duro da agremiação.

Estes são apenas alguns exemplos de desinformação irresponsável, com potencial para incitar crimes de ódio, sempre sob o álibi de apoio ao povo palestino e o argumento maniqueísta da generalização. Sequer se enrubescem quando apoiam o regime teocrático e homofóbico iraniano e embarcam na psicose anti norte americana que ainda assombra  parcela significativa da esquerda. Não é uma cegueira seletiva. Não é ingenuidade. Trata-se no máximo de uma modalidade perversa da síndrome de Hiroo Onoda, soldado do exército imperial japonês, que até 1974 viveu escondido nas selvas das Filipinas sem saber que a guerra havia acabado. No caso deste partido, fica mais do que evidente a manipulação e a desonestidade intelectual com finalidade de propaganda política.

Apesar do candidato ter se esquivado das indagações feitas para ele durante a campanha, cristãos, evangélicos, judeus e toda a opinião pública teriam muito interesse em ouvir da boca do candidato que aspira governar a cidade no qual habitam. O que afinal ele realmente pensa sobre tudo isso? E não foi por falta de perguntas ou oportunidade para oferecer suas respostas. Parece, entretanto, que o sujeito optou por um silêncio tácito quando se trata de manifestar seu viés anti-Israel. Vale dizer, só deverá se pronunciar — o que seu partido já faz aos quatro ventos — apenas quando as urnas eletrônicas estiverem lacradas.

A plataforma de acusações do Psol contra o Estado hebreu é muito mais extensa e inclui queimar a bandeira de Israel e dos EUA (Manifestação no Rio de Janeiro, 2012), ameaça de expulsão de membros do próprio partido que não seguissem a cartilha anti-Israel, acusar Shimon Peres de “genocida”, além da sequência de acusações infundadas como vimos acima. Tudo isso divulgado de forma incólume, sem que os checadores de fatos tenham verificado os fatos, como aliás acontece sempre que os fatos não desmentem a ideologia que os checadores defendem.

Recentemente, um pequeno grupo de pessoas que dizia representar a comunidade, judaica elaborou um vídeo declarando apoio ao candidato deste partido. O problema é que o fizeram de forma furtiva, dando a entender que falavam em nome de todos. Surgiram polêmicas e respostas circularam nas mídias sociais. Mas este é apenas um efeito colateral de algo muito maior: o poder desagregador da retórica do ódio camuflado de libelo político.

Felizmente, os judeus são, constitutivamente, um povo plural, no qual cabem várias correntes de pensamento, preferências e até mesmo múltiplas ideologias. Foi a memória acumulativa das perseguições, e a densidade quase genética que se revela não só no psiquismo, mas no próprio corpo, que tem orientado o sentido desta experiência de sobrevivência. Como a experiência é uma sensação individual as sensações — de perseverança e afirmação da identidade — acabam se manifestando de uma forma muito particular em cada espírito. E portanto, como Freud observou em relação aos judeus: uma resistência admirável associada à capacidade peculiar de sobreviver às intempéries.

Mas mesmo em meio a tanta diversidade, tem havido pelo menos um consenso agregador entre os adeptos da tradição mosaica: não há, nunca houve, tolerância com a intolerância.

Nem com os intolerantes.

Essa percepção não veio somente através da leitura, da cultura e nem mesmo pela educação parental, emergiu da vivência e amadureceu através desta experiência de seis milênios, já que um povo tão antigo tem a obrigação moral de se conservar como arquivo vivo. E assim, usar suas memórias como bilhetes auto endereçados ao futuro. Estes devem ser lidos em momentos mais agudos a fim de evitar tragédias e enfrentar com coragem as vicissitudes da história.

O psol, seu candidato e colaboradores merecem algum agradecimento, já que provaram à revelia, mas com todas as cores, a tese de que antissionismo — ou ódio a Israel — é, de fato, uma manifestação vicariante do ódio antissemita.

E ai, recorro ao bilhete da memória onde está escrito com tinta rutilante:  “não deixaremos acontecer, nunca mais”.

Anti- Zionism is Anti-Semitism 2 English Version – Memory Ticket

Under the threat of having an overtly anti-Semitic mayor in the city of São Paulo, Brazil, with the support of the mass media, I thought it important to publish this article in English as a denunciation of what is happening in the country.

Destacado

In a lecture recently held at the Bait Jewish Center, the poet, essayist and writer Nelson Ascher focused on a theme that is often banned or superficially addressed: is anti- Zionism anti-Semitism? The blog News Tale gave an overview of his remarks and added reflections that also involved the problem of reliability of the news and the fake news , the political turmoil in Europe, the role of mass immigration and Islamo -fascismo, who is not left is right or maybe just “non-left”?

Ascher started by using an absolutely synthetic statement to answer his own question

“Why does anti-Semitism exist and endure?”

“Because it always worked”

How does it work and what is the past and contemporary meaning of its effectiveness?

In stating that Zionism was a kind of “second-degree nationalism ” and that there are other “Zionisms” being gestated in Europe due to a lack of identification between the social democracy practiced by the European parliament and the countries it governs. It follows that “second-degree nationalism” can be understood as a reactivity of peoples to attempts to interfere with their customs beyond territorial and financial unity. In this sense, is Europe soon to be threatened by several movements similar to Brexit ?  

In 2018 we had a disturbing record for the number of anti-Semitic attacks in Germany, France and more recently in the United States. If there is no European unlink the current status quo of the refugee crisis that allowed the entry of nearly 2 million people (countries of immigrants from North Africa – the vast majority, frise- are not refugees) coming from intolerant cultures violently anti-Semitic. The problem therefore is more in immigration policy, which seems to have no clear criteria than immigrants themselves. 

The debate has been banned by the systematic evocation of terms prohibited by a censoring euphemism better known as “politically correct”. Any mention of the wild immigration flow has been labeled ” Islamophobic “. It is also self-evident because the expression ” Judeophobia ” is not given the same treatment . The insistence of a large part of the media to condemn Israel a prioristically, in the headlines and in the declarations, attests to this. In the recent crises with the Gaza Strip ruled by the terrorist organization Hamas – and its Iranian proxies – the headlines show the nonsense and prejudiced bias of a significant part of the news media. “Israel attacks Gaza” is the most common call, this after Israel received almost 500 rockets against civilian populations in less than 48 hours. Importantly, as has been emphasized more than once that such terrorist organizations have nothing to do with the the official government of the Palestinians and its president. They are illegal fronts, which actually oppress and hold the people of Gaza hostage. 

According to Ascher, there is a particularity in the case of European anti-Semitism, which often uses the justificationism of the anti-Zionist alibi. It is essential to analyze the role – direct or indirect – played by Angela Merkel and other leaders on that continent. 

Still according to his analysis, some of these self-titled governments of social democracies, regularly pay tribute to Jews killed in the Shoah (Holocaust) and in fact publicly condemn anti-Semitism, which has been outlawed. However, while giving funeral speeches under self-lashes, they neglect the dramatic and explicit aggressive climate against Jewish communities. While other countries seem to do the reverse. In the case of Hungary – a country that you follow the policy with particular attention – we have an example of this apparent paradox: there we have a government classified as extreme right (sic), but it is, at the same time, one of the places where contemporary Jews they seem to be safer when compared to the situation in other European countries. The paradox is only apparent: while a significant part of the left-wing parties chooses to cluster around old anti – Jewish conspiracy theories – formerly the monopoly of the extreme right – there is now a new and incendiary component to be accounted for: as defined by Umberto Eco , it is the Islamo -fascismo.

How can it be explained then that nations that even make the mea culpa frequent for their responsibilities in the genocide practiced by the Nazis with the participation of several other countries, but remain inert in the face of the epidemic of anti-Jewish intolerance that today sweeps Europe, if not with impunity, counting with the omissiveness of governments.

Ascher then recommends the following inflection: what is the “Democratic Rule of Law”. The former president Mubarak for example was directly undermined by Obama’s foreign policy and sequence the Muslim Brotherhood won the elections in Egypt. As we know, the “Brotherhood” is one of the oldest radical Islamic associations. A strategic ally of the Nazi party is today an admittedly jihadist entity . He won by a large margin defeating all moderate parties in what would be one of the first elections in the Arab country in decades. Shortly afterwards, the population itself understood the error and took to the streets – in an event that was wrongly classified as “Arab Spring” – asking for the deposition of the newly elected, which effectively ended up through a military coup led by General Sissi. 

At the time, several analysts attributed the phenomenon of the election of Morsi – recently killed by a heart attack – to an error in the timing of the democratic process: IM was the only organization to keep its structure intact during the subsequent dictatorships that lasted and, therefore, the only one able to compete in the election as an almost exclusive option in that suffrage of a plebiscitary character. Considering the episode, what is the Democratic Rule of Law anyway?

If only an understanding of the historical-political context can define it, what is its consistency?

Right and left have their wild vices and classifications. In turn, those who do not fit the postulates of the left are liable to be labeled right or extreme right. Only “not left” or “not right” is not allowed. Many members of the North American Democratic Party and the English Labor Party – centered on the figure of Corbyn – have instrumented the discourse of the struggle for Palestinian rights by sacrificing historical principles by openly defending anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic stances. This includes standing in defense of the aitolás theocratic regime and defending jihadist organizations – officially recognized by the European Parliament as terrorist entities – such as Hamas and Hezbollah. These are complaints that come from within the English labor party itself.

What would be the ideological and tactical significance of this political tour?

It is disturbing to know that many journalists have started to act in a militant manner. Selecting news according to more ideological standards than reporting facts. It seems obvious that the hermeneutic bias has taken on a much more powerful form than the facts. Even if neutrality is an idealized function, wouldn’t the original role of journalism be closer to encouraging the reader to make his own decisions than to doctrine it ? Not nowadays, when the fake news that comes from official sources are much more compromising – because they are supposedly unsuspected or less suspicious – than those advertised on social networks – always subject to double checking by the most careful users.

After the episode of the accusations of the defeated candidate for the presidency of the Republic, Ciro Gomes, who externalized his prejudice when he evoked “corrupts of the Jewish community”, the most recent Brazilian case of a statement accusing the Jews fell to the magazine “Isto É”. The broadsheet published unfortunate article explicitly anti-Semitic – with the pretext to accuse the current government communications secretary – using the motto compares it to the propaganda chief, Josef Goebbels’s infamous, marquetólogo the fuhrer . The magazine also used the accusatory term to fabulate and identify the enemy, again, “the Jewish community”. The title of the libelo would dispense with further explanations “O Goebbels do Planalto”.

In this sense, the attempt to sabotage the right of any subject of a certain ethnic group to work or act politically for a government that the columnist and the editorial direction of the pamphlet considers inappropriate is evident. In the absence of consistent arguments, the accusation will always fall on the ethnic condition that is most at hand. It sounds more often against Jews.

It is at this moment that we are very close to the impeachment of citizenship. And the suspension of the idea of ​​the secular state by those who should defend it . And so it was possible once again to evoke the myth, this one clearly neo-Nazi, that there would be a “Jewish plot”. Now, there are Jews of all political currents and nuances and the ethnic- religious condition could never be used as an alibi to generalize anything. Unless it is clear that the journalist or writer is already in the fragile intellectual condition of post-analysis . That is, what matters in any story is your personal beliefs and the starting point is already the ending point. Groundless generalizations such as those that routinely appear always start from an ideological, devotional, that is to say, fanatic bias. 

Is there not one of the roots of the discredit today attributed to regulated media in general? The manufacture of disinformation – increasingly identified by the speed and expansion of access to the diversity of information media – is not the very genealogy of false news? News that is now spreading with the magic of the web with frightening resourcefulness? Does this occur while it is possible to observe paradoxically a considerable advance of confidence in what is transmitted through social networks?

After all, what are ” fake news “? And what is its impact on the national and international political scene? Especially in the case of Israel that suffers a considerable number of attacks with financed media and paid blogs to spread, for example, hate speech and intolerance.

In this sense, it can be said that modern anti-Semitism has dressed up as an occasion for anti – Zionism . However , it is an improvised outfit. Under the demountable cloak that deserves to be demystified by serious journalism, there is selective respect for freedom of expression.

Just over 74 years after the end of World War II and the death of more than 60 million people, including 6 million and 250 thousand Jews (these dead after the end of the war when they tried to return to their European homes), the reality only reaffirms the vital importance of the existence of the State of Israel for the Jewish people and their security in the current historical moment. And despite the threats and the revival of the virulent wave of intolerance against the Hebrews, there has never been a time in human history when so few Jews died in massacres. The anti-Zionism then finally is revealed as just another veiled face of one of the most primitive archetypes and recurrent humanity.

Perhaps the great frustration of preachers of hate is that this time the scapegoat has a way of defending itself.

https://brasil.estadao.com.br/blogs/conto-de-noticia/antissionismo-e-antissemitismo-1/

Diário do apartamento 6 – O risco da esperança (Blog Estadão)

Destacado

Ilustração – Nilda Raw – O.s.t 2018 “Tree of life”

O asteroide de 15 kilometros de diâmetro que há 66 milhões de anos atingiu a península de Yucatan no México extinguiu os dinossauros e quase toda a vida na superfície do Planeta. Segundo muitos, estamos aos 0,6 do início da segunda maior ameaça a vida, desta vez é a humanidade que será apagada. Até os não negacionistas sabem, que voltar ao trabalho não é uma escolha. É pedir muito voltar a aceitar uma condição que se remonta ao Gênesis e nos impôs que o sustento deveria ser obtido através do esforço? Ontem foi inevitável voltar a ter uma rotina fora de casa. Busquei disfarçar e tive que conter a satisfação enquanto caminhava até o escritório. Estava chegando no prédio quando fui interpelado por uma moça toda encapotada: — E essa cara feliz? Pego de surpresa, teria uma estranha capturado alguma euforia ignorada? –Pois é, estou retomando a rotina, primeiro dia. E até consegui esboçar um sorriso amistoso. –Ah, voltando a trabalhar? Ela aplicou um leve tom de censura à pergunta. — Uma hora teria que acontecer, minimizei. — Olha. Não sei não! E ela franziu as sobrancelhas. — O que é que você não sabe? E depois de ter me ensopado de álcool gelatinoso, já com o antebraço enfiado na porta de entrada, reflui dando um passo atrás. — Sei lá, o Sr. não é mais nenhum jovem, é grupo de risco, não acha que é muita ousadia? — Amiga, é aceitar o jogo e ir em frente, nos proteger, e, como dizem os ingleses, “espere pelo melhor”. E virei para seguir minha jornada. Ela não desistiu. — Está brincando? Neste caos no qual estamos metidos? É sério que você acha que vale a pena se arriscar? Eu se fosse você… Pois é. Ela não era eu, portanto não respondi e determinado, entrei no prédio para subir e começar a atender as pessoas que já estavam a minha espera. Pensei na facilidade com que a interpeladora me abordou para fazer observações não solicitadas. E cheguei a conclusão de que faz parte de uma mentalidade que tem virado epidêmica, todos devem estar disponíveis todo o tempo, todos são devassáveis, todos podem ser julgados e interpretados. Sabe-se que a palavra otimismo vem assumindo uma conotação pejorativa. O termo tem variado muito de significado, entre “ingênuo” e “cândido” e evoluiu rapidamente à “trouxa” e “imbecil”, podendo sempre descer mais, quando palavras menos nobres serão utilizadas. Chegamos a pensar seriamente que compreendíamos para onde caminhávamos. Mas, por pura incompetência, cessaram as fantasias de que seríamos reféns da tecnologia. E olhem que não esbarramos nos limites das órbitas distantes, na temível singularidade dos buracos negros, nem nas dimensões de estrelas que pelo tamanho escapam de toda estimativa matemática: a história registrará que entramos num estado de animação suspensa diante de um animalículo. O vírus (do latim,veneno) não se contentou em ser só mais um fenômeno da natureza. Transformou-se numa escatologia programada. Mas, antes, deu descomunal poder a quem nunca soube usa-lo da única forma que tornaria uma democracia realmente sustentável: benevolência e genuíno interesse pelos governados. Como disse em março o ex-juiz da Suprema Corte do Reino Unido, Sir Lord Jonathan Sumption, referindo-se a um evento que reprimiu pessoas que desafiaram o lockdown: “Eis a aparência de um Estado Policial”. No mundo todo o fato é que para mostrar serviço quando os governos não sabiam qual serviço mostrar, o poder e seus agentes impuseram, tergiversaram, emitiram versões paradoxais, criaram regras marciais, prenderam críticos e soltaram criminosos, aturdiram, espalharam desconhecimento, desorganizaram os incautos, mudaram leis, transformaram a medicina em armamento ideológico, e, finalmente, respaldados por extrapolações epidemiológicas a toque de caixa estão na iminência de prescrever soluções mágicas, apelidadas de experimentais. E o principal: deixaram quem mais precisava relegados a um lockdown espiritual intermitente. Aqueles que vem acusando o poder de promover bullyings de Estado contra os cidadãos podem ser etiquecados como desejarem , mas, sem dúvida é deles a coragem que falta às instituições. Acham exagero denunciar o drama? Tanto quanto transformar uma moléstia em mito e espalhar o pavor. No lugar da mínima responsabilidade testemunhamos o autoritarismo sendo aperfeiçoado usando o slogan do risco. Isto tudo sob a licenciosidade das mídias que, se livres, escolheram ser sócias voluntárias dos governantes contra os governados e a opinião pública. Ouviu-se mais de um ancora de TV cochichar nos bastidores a mesmíssima frase “tem mais é que apavorar mesmo”. Sob a indecência das mordaças psicológicas, com a previsível corrosão da linguagem, não foi difícil imaginar por que é que todos fomos calados, sem que nenhuma boca se insurgisse. De fato, insurreições foram registradas, sempre por causas parasitas, periféricas, sublevações secundárias, motins autoritários, fúteis e até engraçados diante da superficialidade das reivindicações. Então surgiram os “anti”, aqueles que só se importam com a vida de alguns — e ocasionalmente defendem suprimir as demais se for para melhor testar suas teses. E, finalmente, emergiram aqueles que usaram as múltiplas fantasias conspiratórias para desconstruir as verdadeiras ameaças. Não sou otimista nem pessimista. É que as vezes sou tomado por uma estranha credulidade: cultuo a alegria imotivada. Soa imperdoável? Para desespero de muitos hoje a pandemia — assim como seus instrumentadores — está saindo de foco. A pressão evolutiva sobre o vírus está resultando em menos mortes, ele ainda se espalha, mas a gravidade da doença se arrefece e não só porque hoje já há alguns tratamentos eficientes. Recorro ao sempre presente Professor Titular de Patologia Walter E. Maffei: “o vírus não quer matar o paciente”, precisa se propagar. Mas há uma analogia pedagógica merece ser mencionada: o veneno, assim como parte significativa dos políticos, também aprendeu a fórmula para permanecer entre nós: vão continuar nos dando dor de cabeça sem nos aniquilar completamente. E como num zoom out, as piores cenas, ainda bem, vão ficando cada vez mais distantes. Sob as usinas de lives, as telas com poluição visual de rostos justapostos vinham criando uma estética mortificadora. O único sinal externo de que a anormalidade insiste em tornar-se normativa são as máscaras e as fantasias por trás de cada uma delas. Afinal, quem ordenou tudo isso? E quem foi que nos acusou de não estamos gratos por continuar vivos? Podemos estar solidários com quem sofreu e ao mesmo tempo declarar emancipação das políticas governamentais. Nossa sobrevivência não pode ser mais creditada ao Estado provedor, aos populistas confessos ou aos saqueadores da subjetividade à espreita da próxima crise. A desumanização começa com a uniformização e termina com a arte e cultura reféns da ideologia. Quando superarmos esta fase será graças aos esforços individuais, ao sacrifício silencioso das maiorias torturadas pela tirania de ofício. Infelizmente nem mesmo o rodízio no poder, a última salvaguarda para a democracia, parece ter deixado claro o que precisamos. O que os bem pensantes nunca imaginariam — e detestam a sensação, pois é um território que não conseguem entender — é que eles perderam a hegemonia. Se há um risco que vale a pena correr — em oposição ao determinismo dos cultores do apocalipse — é precisamente o risco da esperança. — É que na tradição judaica — eu deveria ter tentado explicar à moça encapotada — a árvore que nos habita abriga mais de um tipo de papiro, com fibras que misturam prudência com ousadia. Propositalmente artesanal, o papel é temperado para que a tinta do Único sele, carimbe e nos inscreva no livro da vida.  

https://brasil.estadao.com.br/blogs/conto-de-noticia/diario-do-apartamento-6-o-risco-da-esperanca/

“As navalhas de Rosenbaum”resenha de “Navalhas Pendentes” por Cintia Moscovitch (Jornal Zero Hora)

Com gratidão e alegria apresento esta resenha da escritora Cíntia Moscovich sobre meu livro “Navalhas Pendentes” publicada no Jornal Gaúcho Zero Hora As Navalhas de Rosenbaum por Cíntia Moscovich “Navalhas Pendentes” é um livro sobre livros Editora Caravana
Naquele domingo, Homero Montefiore acordou com a casa completamente revirada e com tudo o que nela havia — inclusive o próprio corpo — coberto de sangue já coagulado. Colaborador da Filamentos, o maior conglomerado editorial do mundo, ele se vê dentro de um mistério que envolve os interesses das grandes organizações e que, de forma trepidante, dá partida ao romance Navalhas Pendentes (Caravana), novo livro do escritor Paulo Rosenbaum.
Valendo-se de referências metalinguísticas, com incursões ao mundo digital e à inteligência artificial, numa narrativa espiralada que se ata e desata, Rosenbaum desenvolve um livro sobre livros, volume que vai se desdobrando como um thriller no melhor estilo dos policiais noir. Narrado em primeira pessoa por esse rapaz muito esquisito e doente — tem traços de gigantismo, articulações excessivamente elásticas e sinais de envelhecimento mitigados —, Rosenbaum compõe, entre sangue e lâminas, o retrato da enfermidade e dos bastidores das usinas de best-sellers, imagens desconcertantes porém perfeitamente verossímeis.

Navalhas Pendentes

Tendo chegado a um posto de prestígio na Filamentos, Montefiore se intriga com a identidade de Karel F., misterioso e mais rentável autor da casa. Inicia, assim, uma investigação que o leva a descobertas cada vez mais ousadas e perigosas, a tal ponto que, quando dá por si, já é acusado de crimes que talvez nunca tenha cometido. Desesperado e em estado quase lisérgico, sua única opção é tentar, por todos os meios, provar sua inocência.


Nascido em São Paulo, atuando como médico, Paulo Rosenbaum tem uma prosa muito elegante e envolvente, com uma precisão de cortes entre capítulos excepcional, virtudes que ele já havia demonstrado em A Verdade Lançada ao Solo e Céu Subterrâneo, suas publicações anteriores.


Aqui, em Navalhas…, além de oferecer uma história surpreendente, na qual seus conhecimentos médicos são utilíssimos, o autor coloca em xeque a liberdade autoral, a liberdade dos leitores e a dimensão por vezes esquemática das narrativas em que estamos todos mergulhados. Grande livro e grande projeto gráfico.

“Pendant Razors”, the novel. If you write, you should read this book.

“The novel “Pendant Razors” by Paulo Rosenbaum, is, above all, a trap that, among quotations, ironies and intertextual references, arms and disarms reading. The plot puts the narrator's sanity and the story's linearity in perspective. Plot, illusion and farce turn the plot into a labyrinth and multiply unstable realities or existential fantasies of a protagonist who, apparently, does not deserve much credibility. From the beginning, the reader knows that he is treading on shaky ground, after all, amnesia is one of the key words that, intermittently, work as precarious beacons in the fog. The narrator, Homer Arp Montefiore, like his Greek namesake, makes certainties precipitate through a vortex and, if Goya was right and the sleep/dream of reason produces monsters, both haunt the character with inscribed blades in the narrative, as denouncing signs. Over the hero and the crimes imputed or committed by him, razors, knives, pocketknives and other finer lines weigh heavily. Hence, both threats and certainties are always pending. In this sense, when the character, proofreader and writer's apprentice, cuts himself with the edge of a sheet of paper, the reader's memories sharpen studies in red, composition physiologies, punishments for innocence and death to the letter. A drop of blood on the paper is not an easy trail to follow. The narrator seems to live in a nightmare, as in Kafka's plots, engendered by a writer who creates labyrinths with countless entrances and some exits, all inaccessible. The reader, as a kind of detective who follows clues, clues and enigmas, in turn, becomes entangled in a story of crimes, knives and secrets.” – Lyslei Nascimento

“Filamentos” publishing house is part of the largest
publishing conglomerate in the world. Since
being absorbed by the emerging giant KGF-
Forster©️, it has seen its book sales soar.
One of its collaborators, Homer Arp
Montefiore, was intrigued by the publisher’s industry of
bestsellers, especially those
signed by a mysterious writer named
Karel F. Curiosity about
this author’s identity became an obsession,
leading him to a particular investigation
into the life of the enigmatic novelist. The
disturbing findings revealed by
this investigation became increasingly
dangerous and, after a certain point, placed
his life at extreme risk. Accused of
crimes he may not have committed, he
becomes a fugitive bent on trying to prove
his probable innocence. If there
is any chance of that happening, it will be to discover the real
identity of Karel F. and expose the conspiracy
that underlies his literature.”

Berta Waldman

O Direito entre a ficção e a realidade – Sobre Navalhas Pendentes (Por Flávio Goldberg – Revista Jurídica “Migalhas”)

Este conteúdo pode ser compartilhado na íntegra desde que, obrigatoriamente, seja citado o link: https://www.migalhas.com.br/depeso/352837/o-direito-entre-a-ficcao-e-a-realidade

O Direito entre a ficção e a realidade

Flavio Goldberg


No Brasil se destaca pela singularidade a obra do romancista e médico Paulo Rosenbaum que no seu mais recente livro “Navalhas pendentes” entrelaça todos os elementos de perquirição erudita como insólitos devaneios que a concretude registra em narrativa perturbadora.

sexta-feira, 8 de outubro de 2021

Na literatura sempre a temática do crime, da polícia, dos tribunais, o conflito entre a Ética e o Horror, fascina o escritor e o leitor. Conan Doyle provocou a imaginação obrigando os fatos cotidianos a tomarem a proporção da estética que a palavra cobre e descobre numa interminável investigação na busca duma verdade ilusória tanto nos cartórios como nos escaninhos da alma.

No Brasil se destaca pela singularidade a obra do romancista e médico Paulo Rosenbaum que no seu mais recente livro “Navalhas pendentes” entrelaça todos os elementos de perquirição erudita como insólitos devaneios que a concretude registra em narrativa perturbadora.

O livro faz parte de uma vasta arquitetura cultural do autor na qual se inclui desde uma filosofia médica até os artigos publicados na mídia e cuja configuração se distingue por uma percepção sensorial cósmica da existência.

Paulo Rosenbaum não se intimida na inspiração judaica de sua criação que por isto mesmo, mergulha nas raízes brasileiras as profundas, num resultado surpreendente.

Salomão, Barthes, Huxley convidam o leitor de início a um passeio mágico no compasso de Kafka.

A perturbadora paisagem do livro se introduz de forma chocante “Como faz tempo que parei de ler ficção, naquela madrugada havia adormecido folheando uma velha coletânea de artigos científicos intitulada O mero respirar. Foi lá que descobri a existência de um estado mental peculiar e que, na ausência de uma outra classificação, estava sendo chamado provisoriamente de “chave dupla onírica”.

O autor que alinhava é um genuíno quebra-cabeça que qualquer advogado ou policial pode encontrar num inquérito sinuoso sobre um crime misterioso ou então nos devaneios perturbados que se abriga como oásis no deserto da loucura.

Por tudo isto, paradoxal e contraditoriamente, se entende uma ponderação sensata como remédio caseiro para o leitor “Tenha menos coisas”.

Talvez uma lição cabalística de um médico caipira do Grande Sertão de nosso outro romancista, tanto quanto, Guimarães Rosa, médico e filósofo.

Atualizado em: 7/10/2021 16:47

Navalhas Pendentes (trechos)

“Um cidadão belga, ourives de Antuérpia, sonhou que fora atacado por aranhas e amanheceu gravemente enfermo, intoxicado e com falência renal aguda. Os exames laboratoriais indicavam envenenamento. Intrigados, os médicos reviraram o paciente numa intensa investigação clínica. Analisado o sangue, isolou-se o veneno responsável pelo quadro de sintomas: a estrutura química era de uma peçonha pouco plausível, pois provinha da aranha marrom, Loxosceles reclusa, também conhecida como “aranha violino”, só existente da região sul da América do Norte até o México. Finalmente, nenhum vestígio de picada ou da presença da aranha foi encontrado. O que os pesquisadores se perguntavam era se o organismo teria a capacidade de sintetizar e replicar moléculas de uma proteína necrosante. A ciência ainda não consegue explicar o fenômeno.”

(Trecho do romance “Navalhas pendentes”, de Paulo Rosenbaum).

No Último Poema de 5781

https://brasil.estadao.com.br/blogs/conto-de-noticia/no-ultimo-poema-de-5781/

https://brasil.estadao.com.br/blogs/conto-de-noticia/wp-content/uploads/sites/74/2021/09/d5450bcd67b6494ca16149abafbd588c_060920212503.png

Paulo Rosenbaum. Eis que no ultimo poema do ano

leremos os sinais, aqueles que ocultamos,

nos objetos ritualísticos,

na matéria que parece irrelevante

Durante o último poema do ano

Em visões sucessivas, projetaremos, em céus particulares

nas telas internas, e nos menores símbolos

os rostos daqueles que sumiram,

que nos escaparam por um fio

ceifados sem que soubéssemos,

ou déssemos conta de suas partidas sem aviso

aqueles que estavam em distâncias intransponíveis,

Neste último poema do presente ano

é mister aspirar pelo regresso dos que amamos,

mas, também, dos que deveríamos ter aprendido a tolerar

Enquanto lemos o último poema do ano

os corações, que normalmente balançam sob tumultos

Fazem revisões, desfilam à exposição das vulnerabilidades

recolhem-se, estoicos, à passagem das turbulências

sem ceder ao caos das aparências

No último poema do ano

Estaremos todos juntos, aqui, ali, ou em Jerusalém

Aqui, ou nos desafios que não poderemos mais numerar

Como os decretos, incognoscíveis,

Que não sendo apenas humanos,

Vem do Alto, e com eles, esticamos a peneira da colheita

Durante o último poema do ano

Ficaremos próximos, pela paz

Mas também sentinelas, atentos às lutas

Solidários como quem soube

Que estamos sempre perto do risco

E das transformações perigosas

Enquanto passamos através deste último poema do ano

Podemos enxergar o grande tecido, a coisa extensa

Aquela que contém a totalidade das pessoas

E que  nos ajeita no mesmo tapete

que oscila, sob a inconstância do vento

E no capricho errático do tempo

Neste último poema do ano

Não há só o shofar, nem só o som do chifre do carneiro

Mas, fragmentos musicais

que, de ouvido, decompomos para formar hinos

O hino que disputa a vida

Contra as forças do atraso e da violência

Que estão por todos os lados

e fizeram sumir o meridiano dos centros

Ainda no último poema do ano

A liberdade mostra-se arredia

E merece um penúltimo esforço

Uma miríade de canais abertos que irrigam

com sementes as tempestades sem controle

E no ultimo poema do ano

O aniversario da humanidade fará emergir

o sopro de vida que neutraliza pulsões e tiranias.

Dentro do último poema do ano

encontram-se liberdades em expansão,

dúvidas sobre o extensão do livre arbítrio,

bem-aventuranças em estado de hibernação,

e, se desconhecemos o porvir do multiverso

temos uma e a mesma certeza

a correnteza é o solo que temos em comum

e, que neste último poema do ano

Às vésperas de 5782,

os igarapés formem uma confluência imprevisível

no irretorquível livro da vida, a árvore que nunca termina,

Quando as lembranças dos nossos queridos

formarão uma galeria dos afetos

em permanente e ininterrupta exposição.

Shaná Tová!

https://brasil.estadao.com.br/blogs/conto-de-noticia/no-ultimo-poema-de-5781/

Um Médico chamado Matheus Marim (Blog Estadão)

Um Médico chamado Matheus Marim

Médico, professor de medicina, homeopata por escolha, um sujeito que nunca se rendeu aos dogmas, nem às doutrinas pétreas, e tinha na atitude científica genuína uma morada. Porém não a qualquer ciência, mas aquela que questiona o cientificismo e privilegia a visão experimental e vitalista. É verdade que tem muita gente muito mais próxima dele e que o conheceu de forma mais intima. Amigos e colegas médicos que poderiam falar melhor sobre ele, discursar com mais conhecimento sobre suas características e qualidades.

Só ouso fazê-lo porque o meu contato foi baseado na intensidade e sob a pressão dos momentos agudos e críticos. O suficiente para conhecer a ética e o rigor pessoal com que ele a aplicava. E por saber, ou intuir pouco importa, o rumo de seu leitmotiv. É improcedente falar do que era consensual em sua personalidade, mas é essencial ressaltar o que dele emanava: uma tranquilidade peculiar, que se infiltrava mesmo à revelia do interlocutor. Testemunhei por várias vezes seu atuar calmo em meio à turbulência, e suas palavras que se assentavam, sutis, mesmo em meio às situações dramáticas. Nunca houve uma mudança de tom, nenhuma exasperação, zero afobação. Sua intensidade fazia-se pela firme constância e pela responsabilidade com que tomava e assistia seus casos clínicos.

Seria ele um adepto de uma versão do estoicismo moderno? Talvez. Decerto um workaholic convicto. Seu heroísmo nunca foi acidental, tanto no combate à peste como às mazelas humanas, e este é um esforço que merece um registro especial. Assim como de tantos e tantos médicos, enfermeiros e equipes de saúde que tombaram frente a uma onda de patologia sem ainda nenhum sinal de desfecho. Muito provavelmente a melhor definição de seu atuar como médico que ajudou milhares de pessoas através da clínica da similitude, é lembrar de uma qualidade evocada pelo fundador da homeopatia, uma virtude que Samuel Hahnemann julgava fundamental num cuidador.

O terapeuta pode ser solidário, deve ser empático, mas deve também exercer uma “muda comiseração” durante as entrevistas médicas.

E era essa sua forma particular de interagir com os enfermos. Relatos mostram um médico que agia como uma pessoa frente à outra. Um clínico que, enquanto ouvia as queixas, polia as lentes dos óculos dos seus pacientes idosos, que se preocupava em jamais renunciar a um pedido de alguém precisando de seus serviços. Sua mera presença, com seu indisfarçável e longo avental branco, impunha uma espécie de respeito tácito, isso mesmo quando se encontrava em meios hostis ao tipo de medicina que praticava. De alguém que se entregava ao inegável talento na arte de cuidar, muitas vezes em detrimento dos interesses pessoais. Às vezes, para acolher um relato de sofrimento da pessoa tratada, mas, muitas vezes, dos familiares destas pessoas também. Às vezes, por horas, às vezes durante a madrugada.

Matheus apostava, como Gregório Maragnon, que a homeopatia seria, um dia, redescoberta em laboratórios. Na verdade, ela já foi redescoberta pela ciência e validada pela sociedade, apesar de todas as tentativas de interdita-la, na maior parte das vezes por motivações alheias à saúde dos homens e contra os interesses da humanidade. Independentemente de seu atuar clínico e de pai e avô atento aos seus, encontrava ainda tempo para produzir experimentações de novos medicamentos (como, por exemplo, Botrophs jararacuçu e Brosimum Gaudichaudii), procurar bons interlocutores dentro das ciências da saúde, articular eventos, promover cursos, e, talvez, o motor número um de sua trajetória vital: sua defesa de uma forma ímpar de praticar a medicina.

Matheus, por tudo isso e, gracias a la vida, sua marca no mundo estará garantida, aqui, agora, mas também num futuro longínquo e lá fora.

Obrigado por tudo, grazie mille: é a Medicina que te agradece.

https://brasil.estadao.com.br/blogs/conto-de-noticia/um-medico-chamado-matheus-marim/

A Physician named Matheus Marim ( Article Newspaper “O Estado de São Paulo”)

A Physician named Matheus Marim

A doctor, researcher, professor of medicine, a homeopath by choice, a guy who never surrendered to dogmas, nor to stony doctrines, and had a home in the genuine scientific attitude. But not just any science, but one that questions scientism and privileges the experimental and vitalist view. It’s true that there are many people much closer to him and who got to know him more intimately. Friends and medical colleagues who could talk better about him, speak more knowledgeably about his characteristics and qualities.

I only dare to do it because my contact was based on the intensity and pressure of acute and critical moments. Enough to know the ethics and the personal rigor with which he applied it. And because you know, or intuit, the direction of your leitmotiv matters little . It is unfounded to speak of what was consensual in his personality, but it is essential to emphasize what emanated from him: a peculiar tranquility, which infiltrated even without the interlocutor’s appearance. I witnessed his acting calm in the midst of turmoil several times, and his words settling in, subtle, even in the midst of dramatic situations. There was never a change of tone, no exasperation, no rush. Its intensity was due to the firm constancy and responsibility with which it took and assisted its clinical cases.

Was he an adherent of a version of modern Stoicism? Perhaps. Certainly a committed workaholic. His heroism was never accidental, both in combating the plague and human ailments, and this is an effort that deserves special mention. As well as so many doctors, nurses and health teams who fell in front of a wave of pathology with still no sign of an outcome. Probably the best definition of his role as a doctor who has helped thousands of people through the clinic of similarity is to remember a quality evoked by the founder of homeopathy, a virtue that Samuel Hahnemann considered fundamental in a caregiver.

The therapist can be supportive, must be empathetic, but must also exercise “mute compassion” during medical interviews.

And that was his particular way of interacting with the sick. Accounts show a doctor who acted like one person in front of another. A clinician who, while listening to complaints, polished the lenses of his elderly patients’ spectacles, who worried that he would never give up a request from someone in need of his services. His mere presence, with his undisguised and long white coat, commanded a kind of unspoken respect, even when he found himself in environments hostile to the type of medicine he practiced. From someone who surrendered to the undeniable talent in the art of caring, often to the detriment of personal interests. Sometimes, to receive a report of suffering from the person treated, but often from the family members of these people as well. Sometimes for hours, sometimes during the night.

Matheus was betting, like Gregório Maragnon, that homeopathy would one day be rediscovered in laboratories. In fact, it has already been rediscovered by science and validated by society, despite all attempts to ban it, most often for reasons beyond the health of men and against the interests of humanity. Regardless of his clinical role and father and grandfather attentive to his own, he still found time to experiment with new medicines (such as Botrophs jararacuçu and Brosimum Gaudichaudii), look for good interlocutors within the health sciences, articulate events, promote courses , and, perhaps, the number one engine of his vital trajectory: his defense of a unique way of practicing medicine.

Matheus, for all this and, gracias a la vida , your mark in the world will be guaranteed, here, now, but also in the distant future and abroad.

Thank you for everything, grazie mille: it is Medicine that thanks you.

https://brasil.estadao.com.br/blogs/conto-de-noticia/um-medico-chamado-matheus-marim/

Devekut, verdade da verdade, ou o aprendizado com Deus

Paulo Rosenbaum

Um dos maiores mistérios de “A Verdade Lançada ao Solo” é o manuscrito deixado por Zult Talb. Nele, o rabino filósofo escreve sobre suas experiências com a devekut (adesão, apego, proximidade a Deus). Ele fala, não somente do ponto de vista teórico ou filosófico, fala do que experimentou.

Como ele aprendeu a técnica? Através de alguém que já vivenciou a experiência. Portanto a devekut é infecciosa, transmissível. 

Para Zult a “adesão”não é fruto de catarse, não é o resultado de meditação, ou bônus espiritual que se alcança com mantras ou com a erudição biblica. A devekut é um professor com alta proficiência pois ensina a partir de uma fonte quase inaccessível. Aparentemente. O mais incrível é que ela jamais promete para quem a experimenta.

Zult quer deixar esse testamento aos homens de nossa época porque intuiu o que virá. Sabe o que nascerá. Parece que o mundo migrará para um esvaziamento da vida subjetiva…

Ver o post original 82 mais palavras