“Cervelli in fuga”? Assenza di lavoro, oppure …

Posted on by

Un mantra ripetuto in Italia per giustificare la “fuga dei Cervelli” (in Inglese: “human capital flight“) è l’assenza di lavoro e/o di opportunità, ma nessuno indaga perchè il lavoro e le opportunità manchino proprio ai “Cervelli in fuga” e non ad “altri” (… fra i quali “coloro” che mettono i “Cervelli in fuga”!!).

Questa riflessione parte dall’analisi di alcune dinamiche psico-sociali osservate nelle piccole Realtà Locali della Nostra Italia, ove tali dinamiche sono assai esplicite, forti e prepotenti.

Da esse emerge come non sia “l’assenza di lavoro e/o di opportunità”, ma, di contro, l’assenza di “spazio” dato ai “Cervelli in fuga” a causa dei “giochi di potere” attuati da un Sistema che tende a mantenere rigidamente le relazioni e gli equilibri “di forza” sociale presenti.

Pertanto, se arriva un “esterno” capace, e/o la “capacità” è mostrata da “qualcuno” che non appartiene ad una delle famiglie e/o dei gruppi “dominanti” di quel Sistema, questo viene immediatamente isolato ed “eliminato” socialmente, essendo visto dall’establishment (in particolare da quello/a che “deve” il suo “status di potere” ad una “appartenenza” e non ad alcuna capacità individuale) come una “minaccia”. Così, questi “Cervelli in fuga”: vengono diffamati, minacciati, isolati socialmente; divengono oggetto di mobbing e bullismo; ricevono diverse forme di disconferma; etc… etc… .

Phenomena molto forti nei piccoli Comuni Italiani (e/o nelle piccole Realtà Locali equiparabili) “guidati/e” dai membri delle solite famiglie e/o dei soliti gruppi locali. Questi sono contesti nei quali la leadership è detenuta per l'”appartenenza” ad un “qualcosa” e non per “capacità e/o meriti” propri dei soggetti. Pertanto, chi ha il suo status fondato sul “nulla” vede questi Individui come una terribile “minaccia”.

Di contro, Sistemi “dominati” da persone competenti e/o capaci, che devono il loro status a loro stesse (e/o alle proprie capacità individuali) non si sentono minacciate dalle nuove generazioni capaci, e pertanto (di contro) gli danno “spazio” ed opportunità.

Diversamente, i “Cervelli in fuga” in Italia hanno solo due opportunità: o, la “fuga” appunto; o, il “restare” (però in questo caso) a fare “nulla” ed a sopportare le angherie, il bullismo ed i soprusi, degli incapaci locali.

Pertanto, non si condivide la giustificazione pubblicamente data dai media per spiegare la “fuga dei Cervelli” dall’Italia. Questi non fuggono per “l’assenza di lavoro e/o di opportunità”, ma per le dinamiche sociali “anomale” attuate nei Loro confronti che semmai producono, come detto supra, l’assenza di lavoro e/o d’opportunità per Loro, ma non per altri!!

Oedipus & the Self-fulfilling Prophecy. As usual, Freud was wrong!

Posted on by

Abstract

This article argues that the myth of Oedipus expresses and/or represents the Self-fulling Prophecy (exempli gratia, described by the Social Psychology). At the same time, this article states that the myth of Oedipus is not allegory and/or representation of the Freudian psychosexual development!!

The myth of Oedipus becomes an opportunity to show the kind of mis-interpretations made by psychoanalyses and psychoanalysts. The latter, in fact, tends: to create false beliefs; and, to attribute false meanings to “events”.

In accordance with a logical and epistemological reflection/analysis, psychoanalytic theories can gain only two states of truth. They can be: valid and/or invalid.

If they are invalid, they can not be applied anywhere.

If they are valid, they must be applied to psychoanalyses itself.

This, however, determines the invalidity of the psychoanalytic Paradigm, which would inevitably turn to implode on itself.

Exempli gratia, psychoanalytic theories turn out to be:
• on the one hand, the “fruit” of primary defensive processes (characterized by a state of confusion between the inside and the outside world, leading to a distorted view of reality, which is typical of psychosis) acted and/or done by the same creators and supporters of psychoanalyses. Examples of these primary defensive processes are: projection; primitive idealization; omnipotent control; etc …;
• on the other hand, the “fruit” of projective identification made by patients who, living a state of “psychic vulnerability”, identify themselves in those constructs due the high level of impressionableness / suggestibleness.

In other words, psychoanalytic theories would create ex post confirmation of themselves, creating “reality”, which would never have been if they had never existed!!

In conclusion, psychoanalytic constructs are new idols, which exist only for the faith that their “priests” place in them.

They are not idols of stone, but they are idols of void words and/or void interpretation. Idols that, however, require dogmas to survive. Dogmas that psychoanalysts have defended with the mis-use and abuse of psychiatry since the beginning of psychoanalyses with Freud.

At the end, they are only a “new form” of Superstition.

Rationale

Epis L. (2012/2015), in the book De Nova Superstitione, wrote about the “difficulties” that the Psychological Sciences have to comply with the criteria of the Scientific Paradigm.

The Psychological Sciences, in fact, are a set of disciplines: which have an heterogeneous epistemological status; and, which are characterized by a low logical-epistemological reflection and awareness (Epis L. 2012/2015). The latter takes different aspects and forms, due: how these disciplines are able to meet the criteria of the Scientific Paradigm; and, the type of biases, which characterize that particular disciplinary area.

If we consider these two criteria (that I wrote supra/above), Psychological Sciences can be divided into four main areas.

The first macro-area includes: Physiological Psychology; Cognitive Psychology; Experimental Psychology. Despite the limitations of its methodology and its own kind of biases, this area has “full citizenship” inside the Scientific Paradigm. Indeed, it is able to comply with: the experimental scientific method (pro tempore); the test of Validity (Logical Positivism); and, the principle of falsification (Popper).

The second macro-area is the Soft Psychology. This area is a “limbo” of ambiguity, confusion and uncertainty. The constructs are based on, and created with, a wide use of correlation. The latter, due the fact of the crud factor, makes these constructs be a mere social creation that, at the end, is based only on “political” choices, which have their reasons in matters of opportunity and/or interest.

Some of them are connected with the relationship that exists between Power and Knowledge. A relationship, which inside the Social Sciences, is stronger than everywhere else.

Indeed, inside this Limbo, opposite theories and constructs coexist. All of them are both never entirely refuted and never fully corroborated. So, the success and/or application of one of these theories instead of another one, depends only for “political choice” (with the widest extension of the term).

Not only. These constructs become glasses that are able to change the perception of Reality in the direction of those theories. Hence, they are able to create ex post a pseudo-corroboration, which is, nothing more and nothing less, a “conjuring trick” that is used to “deride” the gullible people.

The third macro-area is the psychopathology. This area has nothing to do with Science. Science, in fact, is a descriptive language. Science has the aim to describe the reality without telling what is “normal” and what is “abnormal”. On the contrary, psychopathology is a normative language, as well as Law and Moral Sciences. But, everything uses normative language is just a “political” manifestation and/or choice.

Every time someone approaches this discipline, indeed, he/she should remember that psychopathology is in permanent violation of Hume’s Law.

The fourth macro-area is constituted by psychoanalyses. The latter is not: either Science, as it does not use descriptive language; or Normative Discipline, as it does not use normative language.

Psychoanalyses is only a set of “confabulations” that are expressed with expressive language. Therefore, psychoanalyses has nothing to do with: truth and/or validity.

All its theories and constructs are only the “fruit” of the projections that are made by the psychoanalysts. These projections, then, are transformed by psychoanalysts, due the fact of their own delirium of omnipotence, in “universal” constructs and theories that pretend to explain the thoughts of others !!!!!!

In other words, psychoanalyses is the product of the primary processes and primary defences of the psychoanalysts. Psychoanalyses is the psychotic side of Psychology.

An evidence of this is given by the interpretation, which was made by Freud, of the Oedipus myth.

The myth of Oedipus and the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

The physical laws rule the structure of the universe and everything happens inside it. The psycho-social laws rule the structure and dynamics of the groups of any kind and formation.

The “social beings” follow the psycho-social laws as the atoms and/or “celestial bodies” fallow the laws of physics.

The ancients people knew this Truth. They illustrated it with the language of myth.

One of these laws establishes that:
• Every society is based on an Order that is ruled by an Authority;
• every Social Order and every Authority are doomed to change over time;
• “the changement” is generated by the same actions, which the pro tempore Authority does for attempting to: preserve the status quo and its Power; prevent the “changement”; prevent the prophecy from becoming truth.

The Greek myths repeat this law countless times.

The Kingdom of Uranus is overturned by the Kingdom of Cronus. The Kingdom of Cronus is overflowed by the Kingdom of Zeus. Prometheus, then, prophesies that the Kingdom of Zeus will be overturned by a New Order.

“Zeus himself will prepare his own adversary … … so Zeus will learn that one thing is to serve and another thing is to reign … … … … . By Zeus, I care less than nothing. He can rule this kingdom as he wishes. His reign is not long” (Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound).

This concept is illustrated for the macro-cosmos with the stories of gods. For the micro-social-cosmos, the same concept is illustrated with the legends of cultural heroes. Exempli gratia: Perseus and Oedipus.

Acrisius (king of Corinth) received a prophecy. He would be killed by his nephew. So, he tried to prevent the realization of the prophecy. But, this made the prophecy become truth.

In the myth of Oedipus, this concept is repeated twice. The first time, Laius (king of Thebes; Oedipus natural father) received the prophecy that his son would have killed him. To prevent the prophecy from becoming true, Laius made several actions. Subsequently, Oedipus received the prophecy that he would have killed his father (which he thought to be the king of Corinth). To prevent the prophecy from becoming true, Oedipus made several actions. Well, at the end, the sum of all those actions, which were made by Laius and Oedipus to prevent their prophecies from becoming true, made their prophecies become true.

In other words, the myth of Oedipus (far and far away … from representing the phallic stage of the psychosexual development of Freud) is, more than anyone else, the representation of the self-fulfilling prophecy, which is the king of all the psycho-social mechanisms and underlie the social structure and dynamics of every kind of groups.

The concept, which the Greek myth expresses, is the inability and impossibility of men and gods to fights and to rebel against Fate. Once, Fate decides the destiny of men and gods, nothing can prevent it.

On the contrary, everything is done to prevent the prophecy from becoming true will inevitably lead the prophecy at its realization.

This concept was repeated from the Greek myth to our days.

Tolkien, for example, makes Galadriel say about her mirror: “Remember that the Mirror shows many things, and not all have yet come to pass. Some never come to be, the unless those that behold the visions turn aside from their path to prevent them” (Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings).

Before him, William Shakespeare represents this concept in most of his works. Exempli gratia, Macbeth is a tragedy based entirely on self-fulfilling prophecy. The tragedy starts with a prophecy that three witches give to the protagonist. According to this prophecy, Macbeth will become king, but he will need to be careful to Macduff. So, it is only due the prophecy that Macbeth: kills the king to replace him; and, wipe out the family of Macduff. The latter fact caused the revenge of Macduff , which doomed Macbeth to die.

Also the children-literature illustrates this concept.

The saga of Harry Potter is an example. The whole saga, indeed, is based on a self-fulfilling prophecy. The prophecy was not made to the protagonist, but to the anti-hero: Voldemort. The latter, in attempting to prevent the prophecy from becoming true, makes the prophecy become true.

Kung Fu Panda is another example. The first movie starts with a vision that is received by Master Oogway. Master Oogway sees that Tai Lung escapes from the prison where he is detained. Shipo, to prevent the vision from becoming true, starts all the coincidences that will make the vision be true. A concept that was summed up by Master Oogway: “sometimes certain events are caused with the actions that are done to prevent them“.

The same protagonist of the story, the bumbling panda Po, who was not good at kung-fu more than everyone else, is a result of the self-fulfilling prophecy. He becomes the Legendary Dragon Warrior only due the fact that Master Oogway made this “prophecy”.

Plenty of movies, then, expresses with concept.

The Secret Kingdom is one of them.

The saga of Star Wars is another one.
Star Wars’ saga is entirely based on self-fulfilling prophecies.

The prophecies are visions that the protagonists are able to get through the Force.

Anakin becomes a Jedi in the first episode (The Phantom Menace) only due a prophecy. Padme dies in the third episode (The Revenge of Siths) only due a prophecy.

Anakin chooses to pass to the dark side of the Force (in the third episode) only due the actions that are done by his Jedi-Masters. The Jedi-Masters, indeed, attempt to prevent “their fears” from becoming true. So, “their fears” become a “new prophecy” about Anakin, a prophecy that takes the place of the previous one. At the end, the actions, which are done by the Jedi-Masters to prevent their fears from becoming true, make their fears become true.

In the six episode, Anakin (now, Lord Vader) kills the Emperor and the kingdom of the Siths (as the first prophecy told) only because the Emperor attempted to prevent: that prophecy from becoming true; and, the loss of his Power.

Etc … Etc … .

The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

So, what is the self-fulfilling prophecy?

The self-fulfilling prophecy is the king of all psycho-social mechanisms. There are no psychosocial dynamics that do not express it.

The self-fulling prophecy rules: the role played by individuals within groups; the social identity formation.

It is a “belief” that makes itself be true, due the fact that it is believed.

In other words, there is a recursive dialogical relationship between a “belief” and its “realization“. One creates the other one and vice versa.

To give you a pictorial image, you can think to the painting of Escher: “drawing hands”.

This recursive dialogical relationship exists: both, at the level of “beliefs”; and, at the level of “actions”.

In other words, the events are created by the actions, which are made to prevent “those events” from becoming true. Instead of preventing the events from becoming true, those actions will evocate them.

This is an aspect of self-fulfilling prophecy.

Why?

The answer is simple. This is just an application of the Lex Naturalis. It is the third law of motion that is applyed to social life. If a body A acts with a force F on a body B, then the body B will act towards the body A with a force F of equal intensity and direction, but of opposite direction.

In Philosophy and History of Religions, this concept has been represented, exempli gratia, with the Tao / Dao.

On the contrary, inside the academic literature of Social Sciences, this construct was expressed in 1948 with Merton. According to the author: “… a prophecy … for the sole reason of having been pronounced, manufactures the alleged incident, expected or predicted, confirming thus its veracity“. Beliefs determinate Actions; Actions create ex post “confirmation” of initial Beliefs (even if they are false). There is no separation between the “dimension of the actions” and the “dimension of beliefs”. They are linked in a strong: bond; connection; union; … and/or, as I prefer to say, dialogical recursive relationship. So according to Merton: “The self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behavior which makes the original false conception come true. This specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuates a reign of error. For the prophet will cite the actual course of events as proof that he was right from the very beginning” (Merton R. K., 1948, The Self Fulfilling Prophecy, in Antioch Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 193 – 210).

Merton took his inspiration from the Thomas’ Theorem which states: “If men define certain situations as real, they are real in their consequences“.

In fact, Beliefs determine Attitudes. Attitudes produce Behaviors. Behaviors cause Responses (confirmation bias). Responses lead ex post “pseudo-corroboration” to the initial belief, creating an infinite “vicious cycle“.

The self-fulfilling prophecy, therefore, is the “genetic sub-layer” of any phenomena of the Psychological and Social Sciences. Nothing happens, unless there is a self-fulling prophecy.

The Labeling Theory recognizes it inside the Social Sciences, since the Labeling Theory expresses, at the end, nothing more than the self-fulling prophecy.

Popper, on the contrary, recognized it inside the Philosophy of Sciences and/or Epistemology. According to Popper, self-fulling prophecy is the criterium (criterion) that is able to make a distinction between Social Sciences and Natural Sciences.

You will not believe Me, if I tell you that Popper called the self-fulling prophecy the Oedipus effect.

Exempli gratia, Popper wrote: “One of the ideas I had discussed in  The Poverty of Historicism was the influence of a prediction upon the event predicted. I had called this the “Oedipus effect“, because the oracle played a most important role in the sequence of events which led to the fulfilment of its prophecy. … For a time I thought that the existence of the Oedipus effect distinguished the social from the natural sciences. But in biology, too—even in molecular biology—expectations often play a role in bringing about what has been expected” (Popper, Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography).

Why was Freud wrong?

The mistake of Freud is self-evident. The myth of Oedipus does not express any stage of the psychosexual development.

So, why does Freud see in the myth of Oedipus the most important representation of the phallic stage?

After the death of his father (1896), Freud (who was self-analyzing his dreams) came to the conclusion that: he wished sexually his mother; and he considered his father like a dangerous rival. This happened in the absence of real seduction episodes.

In other words, Freud was a victim of its primary processes and its primary defenses. He projected his retrospective interpretations (which he made self-analyzing his own dreams) in the outside world. So, he came to see them everywhere: in the stories of his patients; in Greek myths; etc … .

Once, his own (mis)interpretations were projected to the outside world, due his own delirium of omnipotence, Freud argued his theories were able to explain the “normal development” of all human beings!!

So, it is clear that psychoanalyses, at the end, is nothing more and nothing less that a set of psychotic delusions that are made by psychoanalysts.

Psychoanalytic theories say nothing about: the World; and, the Human Thought. They speak only about the psychiatric problems of the psychoanalysts who created them.

The deception of psychoanalyses

Psychoanalyses is only a Discursive Practice that is based on retrospective interpretations a là Weik, which are created with interpretative games.

These interpretations have nothing to do with truth and the knowledge of the Self.

The meanings are induced by: the same psychoanalytic theories, which become glasses that are able to deform the whole Reality; and, the same expectations of psychoanalysts, who push to create confirmation of their beliefs.

In other words, psychoanalyses becomes a sort of “brainwashing” that is done on people, who are in a “vulnerable psychic” state.

The patients internalize: theories; psychoanalytic models; expectations of their psychoanalysts; etc…. At the end, they play those internalized roles for projective identification.

In other words, psychoanalyses itself does nothing. It is a way to deride people. If something happens, it is only for the action of the psychosocial mechanism of self-fulling prophecy.

Unfortunately, the prophecies that are done by psychoanalyses do not lead to anything good. Like the witches of Macbeth, they push people into a Shakespearean tragedy.

Those people, who “save” themselves, are “characters” of a self-fulfilling prophecy that was made by “someone else”, who (surely) was not a psychoanalysts.

You can read also: Epis L., De Nova Supertstitione. Unfortunately, the book (at the present tense) is only published in Italian. Link to e-book: De Nova Superstitione – Saggio

BREXIT: here is “How” English People have saved all European Peoples from an Europe that was becoming a “new” Ancien Regime!

Posted on by

The 23 June 2016 is an historic date!

It is the date on which, some European citizens have said NO to an European Union that had moved away from being a “State of Law” based on the Rule of Law (and/or the Supremacy of Law above the Power) to be a “new form” of Ancien Regime. Exempli gratia, you can read: Epis Luca, The Meaning of Rule of Law (chapter: Rule of Law; paragraph: Rule of Law like Universal Principle of any Legal System).

An Ancien Regime that is ruled (no longer by a greedy land aristocracy) but by a greedier economic-financial and banking oligarchy that, like its predecessors, is used to act above: the Rule of Law; the ethical and legal values; and the People.

The ethical and legal principles were “transmuted” into empty and void “advertising slogans”, that are used for marketing and/or attracting “customers”, but never met.

Principles, in fact, were always subordinate to: economic profit; banking system; and the interests of business!

The People returned to being simply “the one” who has to be “squeezed” through taxes!!

Beyond the “new forms” and “appearances”, the citizens of European Union (and certainly the Italian people) have found themselves in the position of “those ancient English people” who were thieved by the Sheriff of Nottingham. Exempli gratia, you can read: Epis Luca, Alcune criticità inerenti l’azione di rettifica (D.P.R. n. 131 del 26/4/1986, artt. 51 e 52) ed il “valore venale” del bene.

The Rule of Law fell under the financial and economic needs!!

An example of this is given by Greece.

It is interesting to see how, in front of’ the “arrogance” of this “new” Sheriff of Nottingham, the first people, how had the force to “rebel” itself, was the British one!! History repeated!!

We can say that, with the referendum, the England of the Magna Charta won above the England that decided to support an European Union that is able to impose its Union only with: the “threat of the economic consequences” (!!); fear (!!); etc … .

But, for the People, getting out from this European Union does not mean to lose “everything”, as People has already lost “everything” being inside this Union.

On the contrary for the peoples, it is a way to get back their own money and their own Freedom. Only the Sheriffs of Nottingham have something to lose.

That the current European establishment is “anti-democratic” was made “clear” several times. Lastly, right in these days Post Brexit!!

Several supporters of this kind of European Union (and I stress: THIS KIND OF EUROPEAN UNION) did a “television marathons” arguing: the irresponsibility of Cameron for having given to the English people the right to decide their own Fate!!!!!!!!!!! Exempli gratia, this happened on the Italian media.

The Peoples, for these kind of establishment, should NOT have the right to decide and/or to choose for themselves!! The Peoples must be “reduced” to be silent “flocks of sheep”. Obedient “flocks” who have only to pay taxes to maintain the economic and financial oligarchy and its “servants”!!

Well, the English people said NO to this kind of System.

The English people wanted to regain possession of: their own sovereignty; and, their own right to decide for themselves.

In doing so, the British people did not destroy the possibility that, in the future, a better European Union may be created. On the contrary, they have put the bases for creating a transparent, democratic, European Union (governed by the principium of Supremacy of Law above the Power) in which all Peoples will be equal. An Europe that we do NOT have so long so far.

No changes could be possible, unless someone makes the “first step” and say clear NO.

So, British people told the first concrete NO to the current oligarchic, anti-democratic, tyrannical European Union (based on the principium of economic-financial supremacy).

A THANK YOU to the English people who had the courage to say NO.

As Bernard Shaw said: “I envy you the power to say no” (The Doctor’s Dilemma).

 

For those who want to read the works mentioned above in the Post, here there are the links:

Epis L., The Meaning of Rule of Law. Link: The Meaning of Rule of Law – Book

Epis L., Alcune criticità inerenti l’azione di rettifica (D.P.R. n. 131 del 26/4/1986, artt. 51 e 52) ed il “valore venale” del bene. Link: http://www.lukae.it/?p=142

For getting a brief résumé of the content of the book: The meanig of Rule of Law that is relevant to this Post, you can see: Rule of Law, Ancien Regime & European Uninion. Link: http://www.lukae.it/?p=1136

Rule of Law, Ancien Regime & European Union

Posted on by

This Post is a brief presentation of Epis’ book:The Meaning of Rule of Law.

This book reports studies that the writer did at the University of Cambridge in 2005/2006.

Nevertheless, this Post is useful for an understanting of: “what” the Principium of Rule of Law is; and “why” I affirmed that the European Union acted sometimes in violation of the principium of Rule of Law, looking a “new form” of Ancien Regime.

Even though the writer believes that:
1) a corpus of legal values should be written inside each Constitution;
2) and Judges, Lawyers and People, have the duty to defend those values against the tendency of the Power to go beyond them; …
… the study affirms that:
1) on one hand, the principium of Rule of Law (and/or Supremacy of Law) does not include a corpus of legal principles (and/or values) inside itself, as somebody affirmed;
2) on the other hand, the principium of Supremacy of Law means a more important legal value: the SUPREMACY of LAW ABOVE the POWER.

It was a Revolution, when Power believed to be above the Law.

It happened, exempli gratia, in France during the Ancien Regime.

Sovereigns, Nobles and whoever had some kind of Power, believed to be above the Law. They were used to act above Law.

Viola P. (1994) gave an example of this. He reported an anecdote happened between the Duke of Orleans and the King of France. When the Duke of Orleans said to the King: “Majesty, but it is illegal!”, the king answered: “No, It is legal because I will”.

The principium of Supremacy of the Law had the aim to end these kinds of Legal Systems. It states that everyone is under the Law.

Sovereigns, Nobles, Bureaucrats, Banks and Financial Powers, are all under the Law.

In other words, they have to comply with the Law. If they do not, they are an Arbitrary Power.

The latter is a Power that: either, it is not given by a Law; or, it is used without following the right procedures, which bind the exercise of that power.

As Power tends to go beyond its limitations, there is Arbitrary Power also inside our modern Legal Systems.

The principium of Supremacy of Law, hence, is still frequently violated. It is proved by some recent events happened inside the European Union and Institutions.

For example, when the President of Euro-group decided to exclude Greece, Varoufakis told him to be illegal (as the Duke of Orleans told to the King of France during the Ancien Regime). So, Varoufakis asked for a legal advice.

The lawyers and bureaucrats of the European Union answered him that the President of Euro-group could act as he/she wants! This is as the Euro-group does not exist for the Law!!

Hence, they argued: the Euro-group is above the Law!!!!!

In other words, the European Union answered like the King of France during the Ancien Regime.

But, if the Euro-group does not exist, the Euro-group is not above the Law.

Actually, all the Powers, Decisions and Acts, of the Euro-group are illegal, unlawful, illegitimate. This is told by the principium of Supremacy of Law.

On the contrary, the European Union is a New Ancien Regime. Nothing more! Nothing less!

So, how is it possible that the principium of Supremacy of Law is still violated, nowadays?

This is as the principium of Supremacy of Law was reduced by Power to be a simulacre a là Bauderillard (1981).

Power makes people forget its true meaning. It was done with a very easy game. A new set of meanings were put inside Supremacy of Law. All of them were pleasant, agreeable and fashionable, principles. But, they were also void principles as much as they were pleasant. At the end, people have forgotten the real meaning of Supremacy of Law.

Power started again to act above the Law a là Ancien Regime!!

Epis L., The Meaning of Rule of Law. Link to the e-book: The Meaning of Rule of Law – Book

Un esempio di come il Diritto può essere ridotto ad una “barzelletta” da alcuni avvocati!

Posted on by

Di recente, Mi è capitato d’assistere ad un fatto “giudicamente esilarante” (!), che non potevo non condividere con i miei lettori.

Nel narrare questa storia (… tratta da un reale procedimento giuridico: Giudice di Pace di Chiavari, Ruolo Generale numero 69/2016, abbreviato in G.d.P. di Chiavari, R. G. n. 69/2016 …), i nomi dei protagonisti sono stati sostituiti con degli pseudonimi. Avendo poca “fantasia”, gli pseudonimi sono quelli tipicamente usati negli esempi giuridici: Tizio; Caio e Sempronio.

Il protagonista di questa storia è Tizio. Tizio è uno dei tanti cittadini italiani, laureati in giurisprudenza. Nonostante ciò, decise di non iscriversi all’Albo degli Avvocati per diversi motivi. Fra questi, si può annoverare “un po’ di nausea” per come il Sistema Giuridico è stato ridotto: un Diritto trasmutato in “barzelletta“, ove la Giustizia non è null’altro che “l’interesse del più forte” (a là Trasimaco).

Ebbene, per farla breve, Tizio decise di citare in giudizio Caio. Caio è un piccolo imprenditore locale. Tizio gli affidò la riparazione hardware d’un computer. Nel farlo, commise lo stesso “errore” che Dio fece con Adamo: espresse un “divieto”. Gli disse di non “toccare” il software, di non accedere alla memoria, e se proprio doveva entrare nel computer, d’usare solo ed esclusivamente l’Utenza chiamata: “Zona Tecnico” (creata appositamente a tal fine).

Caio, di contro, come Eva non seppe resistere alla “tentazione” del “proibito”. Come fu lasciato solo col computer, nonostante non necessitasse d’usare alcuna Utenza (ed in ogni caso avesse a disposizione l’Utenza: “Zona Tecnico”) fece saltare tutte le passwords di tutte le Utenze, causando danni immensi al contenuto del computer, per come questo fu programmato a “resistere” a: tali “attacchi”; ed “accessi” NON autorizzati.

Così Tizio decise di citare Caio stando in giudizio personalmente (ovvero, senza un avvocato).

Utilizzò la procedura prevista dall’art. 316, 2 comma, cpc proponendo la domanda verbalmente al Giudice di Pace, il quale ne fece redigere processo verbale. L’attore notificò la domanda al convenuto (Caio): sia alla sua residenza; sia al suo domicilio; … come risultavano dalla visura fatta presso la Camera di Commercio.

Caio si rivolse ad un avvocato “di grido” di Santa Margherita Ligure: Sempronio. L’avvocato Sempronio, in udienza, fu una Pacchia. Fece costituire due volte il “povero” Caio: una volta come Caio, persona fisica ed imprenditore, che avrebbe ricevuto l’atto presso il suo domicilio; una volta come Caio persona fisica non imprenditore, che avrebbe ricevuto l’atto presso la sua residenza!!!!.

Caio firmò pure due procure nelle due “vesti”!!!!!!!!!!

Questo fu quanto, di più esilarante poteva accadere!! L’avvocato Sempronio non arrivò “a cercare mezzogiorno alle tre” (come direbbe Gurdieff), ma trasmutò il diritto stesso (… persino il suo ABC …) in una vera e propria “barzelletta“.

Con la duplice costituzione, Caio chiese al giudice una duplice condanna alle spese per l’attore!! Ora mi chiedo, invece, se il giudice non dovrebbe condannare duplicemente Caio per lo stesso motivo!!

Infatti, l’errore commesso dall’avvocato Sempronio è imperdonabile (rasentando: la responsabilità professionale; e la violazione della deontologia professionale).

L’impresa individuale non ha personalità giuridica di alcun tipo come precisato dalla Suprema Corte di Cassazione (Cassazione, sez. III Civile, n. 6734 del 2011): “non vi è diversità tra colui che viene indicato come titolare di una “ditta” (o, rectius, “impresa”) individuale ed il medesimo come persona fisica, visto che, per scolastica nozione, quella non ha alcuna autonomia patrimoniale ed il primo si risolve nel secondo, senza possibilità di tenere distinti, in capo al medesimo soggetti, i rapporti a lui facenti capo quale imprenditore e quelli estranei all’impresa“.

Una visione pacificamente riconosciuta pure dalla giurisprudenza di merito, exempli gratia, il Tribunale di Modena (sentenza n. 341 del 2010) ha affermato che la domanda proposta nei confronti d’una Impresa Individuale (alias: “ditta individuale”) deve ritenersi intentata, ai fini della legittimazione passiva, contro la persona fisica del suo titolare, in quanto la ditta non ha soggettività giuridica distinta ma si identifica con il titolare, sotto l’aspetto sia sostanziale che processuale.

Ora, Tizio (conoscendo alcuni dei “mattacchioni” che s’aggirano nel “fu Foro di Chiavari”) volle scongiurare proprio tale incresciosa evenienza. Egli precisò come la citazione fosse fatta contro l’impresa individuale di Caio, “ovvero” (… a scanso d’equivoco …) “essendo impresa individuale, contro il Sig.” Caio. L'”ovvero” aveva un ruolo esplicativo, sintetizzante e richiamante, la giurisprudenza indicata supra, proprio per evitare “confusione” negli avvocati!

Purtroppo, come spesso accade, quando si cerca di “prevenire qualcosa” si porta quel “qualcosa” (che si vuole prevenire) ad essere!

Vi ricordate cosa J. R. R. Tolkien fece dire a Galadriel circa il suo Specchio: “Remember that the Mirror shows many things, and not all have yet come to pass. Some never come to be, unless those that behold the visions turn aside from their path to prevent them“.

Un concetto ripreso dal mito greco. Vi ricordate Edipo. Ebbene, il mito d’Edipo non dice nulla di quello che Freud gli fece dire. Freud era solo uno fissato col sesso!! Di contro, il mito d’Edipo esprime proprio il concetto della “Profezia che si auto avvera“, nel momento in cui chi riceve la profezia cerca di fare “qualcosa” per impedire che possa avverarsi!!

Edipo, infatti, non volendo che la profezia si realizzi, cambia direzione. Non torna a Corinto ma decide d’andare a Tebe. Ma fu proprio questo che la fece realizzare!!

Per un capriccioso Fato, ciò accadde anche a Tizio. Tizio, senza bisogno di recarsi a Delphi, conosceva bene gli avvocati locali e cosa avrebbero eccepito. Così, cercò di “prevenire” che il Diritto fosse ridotto a “barzelletta”. Volle subito precisare che l’impresa individuale s’identifica con la persona fisica del suo imprenditore. Ma, nonostante ciò, come c’insegna il mito greco e come Tolkien ha ripetuto, nel momento in cui si cerca d’impedire ad “una visione del futuro” di diventare presente, ecco che questa si realizza.

Così, il diritto tornò ad essere una “barzelletta”!

La domanda che lascio ai miei lettori, ora è questa: chi è il “colpevole”?

L’avvocato iscritto all’Albo!?!?

Tizio che ha tentato d’impedire alla “profezia” di realizzarsi!?!?

Oppure, gli stessi “corsi e ricorsi storici“, che portano i miti a ripetersi nel tempo, nei confronti dei quali le persone non possono far nulla !?!?

In ogni caso questa doppia costituzione in giudizio  dell’imprenditore è un fatto giuridicamente interessante e divertente che non poteva passare in silenzio !!!!!!!!!!!