They are so full, you see. Full of symbols, full of twists and turns, full of arcane references. Real historical personages from the Renaissance like Hermetic philosopher and mathematician John Dee and cosmologist and occultist Giordano Bruno appear alongside William Shakespeare and Queen Elizabeth I as well as Crowley's fictional characters.

In this first book in the tetralogy, one important group of symbols is the signs of the zodiac, particularly in relation to Christianity and the falling away of paganism. In a conversation with the main character, Pierce, someone describes the precession of the equinoxes:

"Astronomically speaking pretty soon, a coupled hundred years or so--the sun will begin to rise in the sign of Aquarius. Thus the end of the Piscean Age, that started two-thousand-odd years ago, and the beginning of the Age of Aquarius."

Two thousand years ago, the Piscean age, the world shifts from B.C. to A.D. Jesus. And Jesus was a fish.

Oh. "Oh," said Pierce.

"Always precedes, you see," Earl said dreamily. "Precedes. Before Pisces was Aries the ram, and before that Taurus the bull, and so on."

Moses had ram's horns, who overthrew the golden bull-calf. And then comes Jesus the fish, two thousand years on, new heaven and new earth, and shepherd Pan flees from the mountainsides. And now the world watched and waited for the man with the water jug. (1)

Now, Rudolf Steiner had a lot to say about astrology, and Christianity, and the evolution of human civilization and consciousness and how they are all related. He believed that certain civilizations represent the pinnacle or exemplum of each age, and that these civilizations also represent the stages of human consciousness, both on a macro level of human evolution, and on the micro level of individual development through life (this is partly why the stories of certain cultures are included in the curricula for specific ages in Waldorf methods):

The advance of civilizations is also connected with the progression of the sun from one constellation to the other....

At the time when the sun rose in the constellation of Cancer the ancient Vedic culture of the Indians, the culture of the Rishis reached its highest point. The Rishis, those still half-divine beings, were the teachers of men....

The second cultural epoch is named the constellation of the Twins. At that time the dual nature of the world was understood, the opposing forces of the world, Ormuzd and Ahriman, Good and Evil. Thus the Persians also speak of the Twins.

The third cultural epoch is that of the Sumerians in Asia Minor and of the Egyptians. The constellation of the Bull corresponds to this epoch. This is why in Asia the Bull was venerated and in Egypt, Apis....

The fourth culture is that of the Ram, or Lamb; Christ stands in the sign of the Ram, or Lamb; hence he calls himself the Lamb of God.

As fifth culture the external materialistic civilization follows, in the constellation of the Fishes. This developed principally from the 12th century onwards and reached its climax about the year 1800.

In the constellation of the Water-Man in the future, the new Christianity will be proclaimed. ‘Water-Man’ is also the one who will bring it, he who has already been here: John the Baptist. (2)

So, what are we to do with all this? Are these merely coincidences, or artifacts of the human desire to make sense of the world? Or are these symbols representations of some deeper meaning, some illimitable truth? There are so many symbols in Christianity: the cross, the fishes, the lamb. Do we simply pick the one that fits our current system, or is the fish truly the "right" one for what Jesus represents cosmically?

And what can we make of the Age of Aquarius, the Water-bearer? Does he already appear in one of our greatest books?

Jesus sent two of his disciples, telling them, "Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him. Say to the owner of the house he enters, 'The Teacher asks: Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' He will show you a large upper room, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there." (3)

I think I'll do a few more posts on symbols...gives me a chance to plunder more awesome online medieval art!

(1) John Crowley, Aegypt, Bantam Books, 1987.
(2) Rudolf Steiner, Foundations of Esotericism, Lecture 8, Berlin, October 3, 190
(3) Mark 14:12-15

Con estas palabras recibía Giordano Bruno la sentencia impuesta por la Inquisición que le condenaba a ser quemado vivo junto con su obra.  Condena recibida por el mero hecho de ir más allá en el pensamiento que los ferreos e inamovibles dogmas de la Iglesia de la que era miembro. Pensamientos entre los que se encontraba la idea de que el universo podría ser infinito, con multiples universos paralelos, con otros planetas habitados en los que los habitantes pordrían adorar a otros dioses que no fuesen los nuestros. 

«Dios es omnipotente y perfecto y el universo es infinito; si Dios lo conoce todo entonces es capaz de pensar en todo, incluido lo que yo pienso. Debido a que Dios es perfecto y conoce todo, debe crear lo que yo pienso. Yo puedo imaginar un infinito número de mundos parecidos a la tierra, con un jardín del Edén en cada uno. En todos esos jardines la mitad de los Adanes y Evas no comerán del fruto del conocimiento y la otra mitad lo hará; de esta manera un infinito número de mundos caerá en desgracia y habrá un infinito número de crucifixiones. De aquí puede haber un único Jesús que irá de mundo en mundo o un infinito número de Jesuses. Si hay un solo Jesús la visita a un número infinito de mundos tomará una infinita cantidad de tiempo, de este modo debe haber un infinito número de Jesucristos creados por Dios».

Giordano Bruno, dominico, teologo, filosofo, pensador, rebelde y martir. Murio por defender sus ideas. Murió por pensar por si mismo y por creer en cosas en las que no estaba permitido creer. Giordano Bruno fue acusado de herejia, blasfemia y panteismo. Fue quemado vivo el 17 de febrero de 1600 en Campo de Fiori, Roma. Hoy en dia se erige una estatua en el lugar donde fue asesinado, erigida por los ciudadanos de Roma. Una patada en el culo a la jerarquia eclesiastica en la capital de la cristiandad.

De joven me alegró haber llegado por mi mismo a la idea de que el universo podia no ser infinito, sino que lo que unico que pudiera ser infinito fuera el espacio, el vacio. luego pense que que podria haber otros universos, como galaxias lejanas a la nuestra flotando a la vez que nosotros en ese vacio, cientos, miles, infinitos. Pensé tambien que podrian estar alejados, distantes, sin contacto, aunque quizas, en su periplo por el espacio, en la infinitud del espacio, podrian llegar a colisionar unos con otros como en un choque de galaxias, o quizas colapsarian sobre si mismos antes de llegar a ese punto, iniciando un retroceso que devolveria toda la materia a un estado preinicial al big-bang.
Más tarde, seducido por la obra de Jung, pensé que lo que se me habia ocurrido a mi, podria habersele ocurrido a cualquier otro, en base a la teoria del subsconsciente colectivo. Y aunque mas tarde, investigando, me di cuenta que hace siglos, personajes como Giordano Bruno ya habian hecho suposiciones como la que yo he relatado, me alegró sobremanera el comprobar
que habia otras personas que pensaban lo mismo que yo pensaba y me maravilló la idea que si existia ese subsconsciente colectivo del que hablaba Jung, en algun momento yo habria entrado o por lo menos, pasado por delante de la misma estancia por la que Giordano Bruno habia pasado siglos antes.

In fin dei conti, non c'è una grande differenza tra un dizionario biografico e un enorme cimitero. Le tre righe secche e indifferenti con cui nella maggior parte dei casi i dizionaristi riassumono una vita, sono l'equivalente della semplice sepoltura che accoglie i resti di coloro che (mi si perdoni il facile gioco) non lasciano resti.

La pagina piena, con autografo e fotografia, è il mausoleo della bella pietra, porte di ferro e corona di bronzo, più pellegrinaggio annuale.
Ma il visitatore farà bene a non lasciarsi confondere dalle facciate d'architetto, dalle sculture e croci, dalle prefiche di marmo, da tutto lo scenario che la morte pomposa ha sempre apprezzato. Così come dovrà fare attenzione, se si trova in campo aperto, senza riferimenti, a dove mette i piedi perchè non gli accada di trovarsi sotto le scarpe il più grande uomo del mondo.

Non starà tuttavia calpestando la tomba di Giordano Bruno, perchè questi fu bruciato a Roma, arse atrocemente come arde il corpo umano, e di lui, che io sappia, neppure le ceneri furono conservate. Ma allo stesso Giordano, affinchè ogni cosa sia nel posto che le compete e giustizia infine sia fatta, furono riservate quattro righe in questo dizionario biografico. In così poco spazio, in così poche lettere, tra la data di nascita (1548) e la data di morte (1600), limiti di un universo personale che visse nel mondo, ben poco si dice: italiano, panteista, domenicano, abbandonò l'ordine, si rifiutò di rinunciare alle proprie idee, fu bruciato vivo. Nient'altro. Nasce e vive un uomo, lotta e muore, così, per questo. Quattro righe, riposa in pace, pace alla tua anima se in lei credevi. E noi facciamo un'eccellente figura tra amici, in società, in riunione, a un tavolo di ristorante, nelle discussioni profonde, se lasciamo cadere al momento opportuno, in modo spigliato e competente, la mezza dozzina di parole di cui abbiamo fatto una specie di grimaldello o di chiave falsa che crediamo possa aprire una vita e una coscienza. 

Ma, per nostra costernazione, se siamo in un momento di rara lucidità, le grida di Giordano Bruno erompono come un'esplosione che ci strappa di mano il bicchiere di whisky e ci spegne sulle labbra il sorriso intellettuale che abbiamo scelto per parlare in certi casi. Sì, questa è la verità, la scomoda verità che viene a sconvolgere il pacato intento del dialogo: Giordano Bruno gridò quando fu bruciato, non dice che gridò. E allora, che dizionario è mai questo che non informa? A che mi serve una biografia di Giordano Bruno che non parla delle grida che egli lanciò, lì a Roma, in una piazza o in un cortile, circondato dalla folla, chi attizzava il fuoco, che redigeva serenamente l'atto dell'esecuzione?

Troppo spesso dimentichiamo che gli uomini sono di carne che facilmente soffre. Fin dall'infanzia gli educatori ci parlano di martiri, ci danno esempi di civismo e di morale a loro spese, ma non dicono quanto fu doloroso il martirio, la tortura. Tutto rimane astratto, filtrato, come se guardassimo la scena, a Roma, attraverso pareti di vetro che soffocassero i suoni, e le immagini perdessero la violenza del gesto per opera, grazia e virtù della rifrazione. E allora possiamo dire, tranquillamente, gli uni e agli altri che Giordano bruno fu bruciato. Se gridò, non lo abbiamo udito. E se non l'abbiamo udito, dov'è il dolore?
Ma gridò, amici miei. E continua a gridare. 

da Il perfetto viaggio, 
Josè Saramago. 

di Jorge Luis Borges e Margarita Gerrero

La sfera è il più uniforme dei solidi, giacché tutti i punti della sua superficie distano egualmente dal centro. Per questo, e per la sua facoltà di girare intorno all'asse senza cambiare il luogo o eccedere i propri  limiti, Platone (Timeo, 33) approvò la decisione del Demiurgo, che dette forma sferica al mondo. Affermo che il mondo è un essere vivente, e nelle Leggi (X, 898 ) giudicò che anche i pianeti e le stelle sono vivi. Dotò, così, di vasti animali sferici la zoologia fantastica, e censurò la pigrizia mentale degli astronomi, i quali rifiutavano di ammettere che il moto circolare dei corpi celesti fosse spontaneo e volontario.
Più di cinquecento anni dopo, in Alessandria, Origene insegnò che i beati resusciteranno in forma di sfera ed entreranno rotando nell'eternità.
L'idea del cielo come animale riappare col Rinascimento, in Vanini; il neoplatonico Marsilio Ficino parlò dei peli, denti e ossa della terra; e Giordano Bruno stimò che i pianeti fossero grandi animali tranquilli, di sangue caldo e abitudini regolari, dotati di ragione. Al principio del secolo XVII, Klepero disputò all'occultista inglese Robert Fludd la paternità dell'idea della terra come mostro vivente, «la cui respirazione di balena, corrisponde al sonno e alla veglia, produce il flusso e il riflusso del mare». L'anatomia, l'alimentazione, il coloro, la memoria e la fora immaginativa e plastica del mostro furono studiate da Keplero.
Nel secolo XIX, lo psicologo tedesco Gustav Theodor Fechner (elogiato da William James, nell'opera A Pluralist Universe) ripensò con una sorta di ingegnoso candore le idee precedenti. Quanti non sdegnano la congettura che la terra, la nostra madre, sia un organismo superiore alla pianta, all'animale, e all'uomo, posso no esaminare le devote pagine del suo Zend-Avesta. Vi leggeranno, per esempio, che la figura sferica della terra è quella dell'occhio umano, cioè della parte più nobile del nostro corpo. Anche vi leggeremo che se «se realmente il cielo è la casa degli angeli, questi senza dubbio sono le stelle, perché non ci sono altri abitanti del cielo»

Era da molto che volevo scrivere questo post ma il tempo e' stato tiranno.

Riguarda la piu' grande cazzata mai detta e scritta da un teologo da quando esiste il Cristianesimo sulla Terra (vabbe' a parte San Paolo, Sant'Agostino che ne hanno dette anche loro): la possibilità che esistano altri mondi e altre forme di vita non contrasta con la nostra fede di José Gabriel Funes.

Secondo Funes: "E' possibile credere in Dio e negli extraterrestri" e "si può ammettere l'esistenza di altri mondi e altre vite, anche più evolute della nostra, senza per questo mettere in discussione la fede nella creazione, nell'incarnazione e nella redenzione".

E ancora: "Se anche esistessero altri esseri intelligenti, non è detto che essi debbano aver bisogno della redenzione. Potrebbero essere rimasti nell'amicizia piena con il loro Creatore".

Come fa notare Galatea:

"Cioè noi, per colpa di quel quaquaraquà di Adamo e quella zoccola della moglie sua, l’amicizia con Padreterno ce la siamo giocata manco due giorni dopo che ci avevano messo nel Paradiso terrestre, e loro, i marziani, no, perché possono pure essere verdognoli come un bandiera leghista, ma sono assai più scaltri di un padano qualsiasi. Non hanno mangiato la mela, né l’insalata, manco una ciliegia. E dunque nessun peccato e Dio che li ama come il primo giorno."

In poche parole significa che secondo Fures solo noi esseri umani del pianeta Terra dobbiamo espiare i nostri peccati. Non solo ma, aggiungo io, dobbiamo sorbirci una serie di professionisti castrati rappresentanti del Supremo che ce lo ricordano un giorno sì e l'altro pure; con lo spiedo e le pinze roventi per giunta. E gli altri esseri intelligenti? Possibile che per loro nessuna inquisizione, nessun ferro rovente, nessun catechismo, nessun Angelus la domenica sulla RAI?

"Gesù si è incarnato una volta per tutte. L'incarnazione è un evento unico e irripetibile. Comunque sono sicuro che anche loro, in qualche modo, avrebbero la possibilità di godere della misericordia di Dio, così come è stato per noi uomini".

No secondo Fures non è possibile avere un altro Gesù Cristo. Infatti mica è scemo il nostro: la possibilita' che esistano altre forme di vita intelligenti nell'Universo dovrebbe erodere fin dalle fondamenta, se non tutte, almeno le religioni monoteistiche che hanno fatto dell'unicita' umana e della Terra il dogma centrale. In particolare l'arrivo di Gesu' sulla Terra, unigenito figlio di dio e' l'evento cardine della Storia secondo la dottrina cristiana. La sua nascita rappresenta una singolarita' nello spazio e nel tempo che non puo' essere ripetuta. Il suo messaggio, la sua vita, la resurrezione hanno una coordinata spazio-temporale precisa, scritta nelle profezie bibliche e ricordata ogni giorno dai preti nelle chiese. Non se ne esce.

Ma allora perché noi ci siamo beccati Gesù per espiare i peccati "di quella zoccola" dell'Eden e gli altri esseri no? Tutta l'intervista del signor Funes in pratica aumenta esponenzialmente le domande a cui cercava stupidamente di rispondere.

Detto in altri termini e' come se il signor Funes si fosse dato una randellata ai maroni ma con un sorriso rassicurante sulle labbra. Infatti a parte qualche commentatore tra i blog (come Galatea e Malvino e pochi altri tra noi) le esternazioni di Funes hanno suscitato solo curiosità, ma nessuno nei giornali, nei media, tra gli intellettuali, e a questo punto neppure in Vaticano, si è reso conto delle stronzate gigantesche che sono state dette. Stronzate così grandi che erodono l'intera dottrina cristiana: Sant'Agostino e S. Tommaso si rivoltano nella tomba. Il Concilio di Nicea buttato allegramente nel cesso con una banale ed innocente intervista.

Mi affido a Malvino:

"Unigenito vuol dire che non ve ne sono altri: questo implicherebbe che, prima e/o dopo la sua resurrezione, Cristo debba essersi reincarnato un numero di volte pari a tutti i mondi nei quali vi sia stato peccato originale. Un continuo incarnarsi, morire e resuscitare nei secoli dei secoli. Non vi sarebbe alcuna difficoltà, ovviamente, ma allora bisognerebbe riconsiderare la natura di Cristo, che alla luce della rivelazione e della tradizione è malcompatibile con questo viavai. Per dire: se c’è l’inferno, ce n’è uno; quando Cristo vi è sceso, e vi è sceso una sola volta, da quale pianeta veniva? E perché vi è sceso proprio dopo quella resurrezione?
Ora, io non so se alla Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede convenga di più rimettere mano a questa materia bollentissima o cavarsela con un solenne cazziatone a padre José Gabriel Funes, rimandando la questione a quando sulla Terra arriveranno degli extraterrestri che troveranno divertentissime tutte queste stronzate."

Ma per ora non ho ancora sentito nessuno che si sia reso conto della più grossa implicazione di queste parole: e cioé che Funes se l'Inquisizione di Santa Romana Chiesa fosse ancora attiva (*) a quest'ora starebbe a fare un bel barbeque a Campo dei Fiori.

Ricordo infatti che Giordano Bruno venne arso vivo per aver detto cose simili a quelle di Funes:

"Non bisogna dunque cercare, se estra il cielo sia loco, vacuo o tempo; perché uno è il loco generale, uno il spacio immenso, che chiamar possiamo liberamente vacuo; in cui sono innumerabili ed infiniti globi, come vi è questo in cui vivemo e vegetamo noi. Cotal spacio lo diciamo infinito, perché non è raggione, convenienza, possibilità, senso, o natura che debba finirlo: in esso sono infiniti mondi simili a questo, e non differenti in geno da questo; perché non è raggione né difetto di facultà naturale, dico tanto potenza passiva quanto attiva, per la quale, come in questo spacio circa noi ne sono, medesimamente non ne sieno in tutto l’altro spacio, che di natura non è differente e altro da questo."

Traduzione: l'Universo è infinito, vi sono infiniti mondi e in questi mondi ci sono altri esseri viventi come noi. Un panteista è chiaro, un po' freakettone New Age, un po' Stephen Hawking, di fatto eretico e da abbrustolire per benino. Chissà se Funes non provi un brivido lungo la schiena: d'altronde sia lui che Bruno erano chierici, ma eretici per l'appunto.

.

(*) rimando al precedente post per rinfrescarvi la memoria su chi ha abolito l'Inquisizione.

(**) spiegazione per la figura in apertura: mentre mi immaginavo infiniti Gesù che si immolavano sulla croce per ogni mondo dell'Universo, mi sono chiesto: ma se in un mondo dove la razza intelligente è un cefalopode (simile ai polpi) e Gesù si dovesse incarnare in uno di loro la croce (subacquea) avrebbe la forma di un asterisco. Ed in questo mondo ipotetico ci sarebbero dei chierici che portano al collo un asterisco; e nelle pareti dei luoghi pubblici ci sarebbero asterischi appesi un po' dappertutto; e ci sarebbe chi difenderebbe quell'asterisco appeso allaparete come simbolo della laicità dello stato.

]]> http://ultimometro.wordpress.com/?p=129 Wed, 28 May 2008 06:49:57 +0000 abarthur http://ultimometro.wordpress.com/?p=129 Mi pare profondamente inopportuno parlare delle proprie convinzioni religiose su un blog. Ma la notizia ( e non credo ancora alle mie orecchie), sentita ad una radio privata, che dava per probabile la partecipazione del pontefice alla trasmissione tv" Domenica In," mi ha fatto trasecolare. Ho sempre pensato che la funzione di un papa fosse quella di guida spirituale per la comunità dei credenti. Ora con tutto il rispetto, che senso ha l' intervenire in uno show d'intrattenimento? Parlare paternamente della propria attività pastorale come un qualunque personaggio dello spettacolo? Certo che no! Non penso che Benedetto XVI, voglia impartire una dotta lezione di teologia e neppure tenere un'omelia. Allora ho immaginato che la notizia, letta durante una rassegna stampa, quindi di fonte incerta, fosse una bufala. E lo credo tutt'ora. Io credente nel Dio di Spinoza e di Giordano Bruno, quindi a tutti gli effetti eretica, non posso neppure lontanamente immaginare una contaminazione fra sacro e profano di tal fatta. Perciò ditemi che è uno scherzo.....

Giordano Bruno

Auf seiner Kathedra Petri saß

Clemens und starrte verdrossen,

Zwei Stunden schon waren verflossen.

Zwei Stunden schon! Quälend, und ohne daß

Ihm beifiel, wie schwer er die Strafe bemaß.

- Es lies sich indes nicht vermeiden,

Er mußte die Sache entscheiden.

Der Fall, vom Grunde her beseh'n

War eigentlich leicht zu lösen:

Der Kerl mußte seinen Thesen

Pro Forma entsagen; - nur den Ideen,

Die Frevel waren. - Es wäre gescheh'n,

Wenn man ihm erklärte, wie ernst es stand

Dann, gewiss, widerriefe er kurzerhand.

Doch zornig steigt es in Clemens hoch

Wie oft hatte man schon probiert! 

Den Widerruf ihm souffliert,

Doch er zerriß ihn und lachte noch

"Glaubt ihr" scholls aus dem Kerkerloch,

"Ihr könnt die Gedanken, die einmal gedacht,

Ungedacht machen durch Eure Macht?"

War Kühnheit das? Blödheit? Gottesgnad'?

Die Stärke seiner Gedanken 

Spricht nicht für einen Kranken.

- Was ist's mit seinem Postulat,

Die Sonne sollte an Erden statt

Der Welten Angel und Mitte sein?

Wo nimmt er das her? Wer gibt ihm das ein?

Wie kommt es, daß der sich so versteigt?

Und durch Gedankenmut

Den tiefsten Einblick tut,

Indes die heilige Schrift dazu schweigt.

- Wir wollen doch sehen, wem Gott sich neigt.

Und den Blick von der Erd hebt er auf in die Höh,

"Mit Gott, führt ihn morgen zum Autodafè!"

Giordano Bruno wurde am 17. Februar 1600 öffentlich verbrannt, weil er sich verschiedener Gotteslästerungen schuldig gemacht, und in keinen Widerruf eingewilligt hatte. Neben der Leugnung Jesu als Gottessohn vertrat er ein kopernikanisches Weltbild, die Unendlichkeit des Universums und ferner eine der ersten neuzeitlichen "viel-Welten-Theorien".

Der "Giordano"-Stoff liefert zwei Fabeln und eine Schwierigkeit. Von den beiden Fabeln wieder ist die eine offensichtlicher und die andere verborgener. 

Die offensichtliche Fabel besagt, dass keine Macht ist über der Macht eines Gedanken. Gedanken können nicht füsiliert werden. Die Kirche, wiewohl im Jahre 1600 noch mächtigste Herrscherin in weltlichen wie auch in Glaubensdingen, konnte den Sieg des kopernikanischen Weltbildes nicht verhindern, nicht durch Mord, nicht durch eindringliche Warnung, nicht durch Bitten, nicht durch Beten. Und was wäre die höchste Macht, wenn nicht diejenige, die von den Herrschern der Welt unzwingbar ist?

An die kopernikanische Wende knüpft sich die verborgenere Fabel, wenngleich nur sehr vermittelt. Grund für die kopernikanische Wende war ja, dass es einen Wandel in der Akzeptanz von Rechtfertigungen gegeben hatte. Das Wort Gottes hatte seinen Rang als ultimative Rechtfertigung eingebüsst. An seine Stelle war die Empirie getreten. Was mit eigenen Augen wieder und wieder beobachtbar war, durfte als Grund für eine Theoriebildung gelten, selbst wenn es dem Bibelwort widersprach. 

Anders gesagt, die Rechtfertigung, die aus Beobachtung und Gedankenmut kam, galt nun fast genauso viel, als die Rechtfertigung aus Autoritäten. An Auseinandersetzungen und Versöhnungsversuchen zwischen diesen Rechtfertigungspraxen hat es nicht gemangelt; mangelt es bis heute nicht. Der Panteismus zB., der Gott in die Natur legte, und also suchte, die beiden Rechtfertigungsstrategien zu einen, war so ein Versuch. Ihm hing auch Giordano Bruno an. 

Die zweite Fabel nun betrifft diese Eifersucht der alten, in Clemens verkörperten Rechtfertigung, die aus Autorität rührte, auf die neue Rechtfertigung aus Beobachtung und Gedankenmut. Wie kann es sein, so lautet der anklagende Hauptgedanke dieser Eifersucht, dass ein gewöhnlicher Mensch tiefere Einblicke in die Welt tut, als ein Gottesmann, der doch der bevorzugteste aller Menschen sein muss, gerade die Einsichten betreffend? 

Der Witz ist nun, dass diese Eifersucht schon die Niederlage beinhaltet. Nur, wenn Clemens überhaupt anerkennt, dass Giordano Brunos Gedanken tief sind, und zumindest denkbar ist, dass sie zutreffen, ist möglich, dass er Eifersucht empfindet. Denn die Scheelsucht auf jemandes Wahrheitsanspruch beinhaltet bereits die Anerkennung, es ist ein Anspruch. In diesem Fall betrifft es nicht allein das Anerkennen einer bestimmten Erkenntnis, sondern der Rechtfertigungsmethode Giordano Brunos überhaupt - und impliziert damit Clemens eigenes Abdanken.

Soweit zu den Fabeln. Die Schwierigkeit des Stoffes ist schnell erzählt. Es wohnt ihm, wie ich ihn angefasst habe, keinerlei Dramatik inne. Kein Vorgang läßt sich entwickeln, ausser den Gedanken des Papstes. Ein bisschen kunstfähig ist der Stoff natürlich trotzdem, denn wir werden Zeuge einer Entscheidung auf Leben und Tod. Dennoch bleibt, erachte ich, die Methode, den Stoff als Werdung dieser Entscheidung zu fassen, unter den Möglichkeiten, die er eigentlich böte.

Ein andern mal, vielleicht.

PS an die besonders schlauen Leute: Gut, zugegeben, die katholische Kirche hat das heliozentrische Weltbild, zumindest zu der Zeit Giordano Brunos, noch gar nicht so radikal bekämpft.  Spielt keine Rolle. Ich will davon nichts hören; Faktenwissen ist billig heutzutag. Ankömmt es auf eigenen, raten Sie mal: Gedankenmuth.

Daí para o café se tornar a bebida predileta dos muçulmanos foi um pulo. Mas foi um pulo meio polêmico.

Como você, meu caro leitor, minha prezada leitora, deve saber é que o Islã proíbe bebidas alcoólicas.  Mas o Alcorão em nenhum momento se refere a "bebida alcoólica" mas a "bebida intoxicante". Aí começou uma disputa entre os sábios muçulmanos para saber se o café era lícito ou não. A bebida chegou a ser proibida em alguns momentos, mas venceu a corrente que defendia que o café devia ser liberado. Um dos argumentos mais fortes foi de que o café deixava a pessoa alerta, pronta para "louvar a Alá", ao contrário das bebidas alcoólicas.

O próximo salto do café seria em direção à Europa cristã. Os primeiros cafés surgiram no começo do século XVII e até a decada de 60 desse século já tinham se espalhado por Inglaterra, França e Países Baixos, com enorme sucesso. Mas houve muita controvérsia no começo.

Os principais opositores do café eram, é óbvio, os donos de tavernas. Eles acusavam o café de ter "gosto e sabor de fuligem" e que provocava esterilidade.

Já os defensores do café usavam argumentos parecidos com os muçulmanos. O café mantinha a pessoa alerta, curava a bebedeira (um mito que continua até hoje) e era muito mais adequada que as bebidas alcoólicas numa época em que se valorizavam as novas descobertas científicas e exploratórias.

Não podendo conter o avassalador poder do café, os comerciantes de bebidas apelaram para a religião. Começaram a ligar o café ao Islã e a dizer que a bebida tinha sido a punição divina aos muçulmanos por eles terem banido a bebida sagrada dos cristãos, que era o vinho.

A controvérsia chegou a tal ponto que o Papa foi chamado a opinar sobre o assunto. Era ou não lícito tomar uma bebida vinda do Islã ?

Na época estava ocupando o trono de Pedro o Papa Clemente VIII. Italiano, tido como severo e disciplinador, Clemente VIII tinha, entre outras coisas, selado a paz entre a França e a Espanha, reeditado o Index Librorum Prohibitorum (lista de livros proibidos aos católicos, extinta durante o Concílio Vaticano II) e mandado queimar Giordano Bruno na fogueira. Nada mal, hein ?

Com um Papa linha-dura como esse as chances do café não pareciam muito promissoras. Mas o pontífice pediu para provar a bebida antes de dar um veredicto. E não é que o café amoleceu o coração duro de Clemente VIII ? Sua Santidade ficou encantado com a bebida e liberou o seu consumo por todos os cristãos.

Com a aprovação papal o café deslanchou de vez. Antes do final do século XVII os cafés se contavam às centenas em Londres, Paris e Amsterdam. Aos poucos a Europa passou a consumir cada vez menos bebida alcoólica e nos elegantes cafés era possível encontrar a nata dos cientistas e filósofos da época discutindo suas teorias e descobertas. Foi inclusive num café em Londres em 1683 que o arquiteto Christopher Wren, o biólogo Robert Hooke e o astrônomo Edmond Halley fizeram uma famosa aposta que resultou na publicação do famoso Principia de Isaac Newton. Mas isso é uma outra história, da qual eu já escrevi aqui.

O resto da história já é conhecido. As mudas de café foram contrabandeadas para o Brasil, que se tornou o maior produtor do mundo. Os cafeicultores se tornaram poderosos, ajudaram a derrubar o Império e dominaram a cena política brasileira no começo do Século XX. Será que se Clemente VIII soubesse disso tudo teria aprovado o consumo do café ?

Die Bahn gab sich im Vorfeld ahnungslos; in der Pressestelle war die GBS nicht bekannt. Auch hinterher bekundete man lediglich, das Denkmal sei anlässlich einer wissenschaftlichen Tagung über Giordano Bruno aufgestellt worden. Doch diese Begründung war mir nicht genug. Ich hielt es für geradezu skandalös, dass ein öffentliches Unternehmen wie die Bahn – Aktiengesellschaft hin oder – ein Denkmal für Naturalismus und Atheismus aufstellt und sich damit weltanschaulich positioniert. So war zumindest meine Interpretation. Um mich allerdings zu vergewissern, was die Bahn zu der Aktion veranlasst haben konnte, fragte ich lieber noch einmal nach.

• Brief an Mehdorn

Ich schrieb Bahnchef Hartmut Mehdorn einen Brief, in dem ich um Aufklärung über die Motive für das Engagements der Bahn bat. Bezugnehmend auf die offizielle Begründung wollte ich wissen, warum nicht auch anlässlich anderer Kolloquien Denkmäler errichtet werden. Außerdem interessierte mich, ob sich die Bahn nun die von der GBS propagierte Ethik des „evolutionären Humanismus“ zu eigen macht, für die ein ausgewachsenes Schwein prinzipiell ein höheres Lebensrecht hat als ein menschliches Neugeborenes.

Ich schrieb:

„Bereits der Umstand, dass diese Veranstaltung stattgefunden hat, gibt mir zu denken. Die Deutsche Bahn AG ist ansonsten traditionell darauf bedacht, weltanschaulich neutral zu bleiben. Das ist (war?) sicherlich nicht die schlechteste Unternehmensstrategie. Doch die Existenz des Denkmals auf Bahn-Gelände stellt religiöse Menschen nun vor eine gewichtige Frage, die Ihnen nicht gleichgültig sein dürfte. Sollen sie nun, da Sie so offen Partei für den Naturalismus und gegen jede Form von Gottglauben ergriffen haben, den Bahnhof Potsdamer Platz meiden? Sollen sie vielleicht überhaupt nicht mehr mit der Deutschen Bahn AG fahren? Da Sie sich weltanschaulich positioniert haben, werden Sie es den Kunden wohl nicht verübeln, wenn sie dasselbe tun.“

Mein Brief ging zunächst einmal in den Mühlen der Bahn-Bürokratie unter, aber als ich ihn noch einmal gefaxt hatte, kam bald eine Reaktion. Die war allerdings etwas ungewöhnlich: Ein Herr Klewe meldete sich telefonisch und schlug vor, sich einmal persönlich zu treffen. Er wolle mich dann über den Sachverhalt aufklären, was in einem Brief nicht so gut möglich wäre. Als Treffpunkt schlug er den Bahn-Tower am Potsdamer Platz vor, und da mir ein solches Treffen keine Umstände machen würde, willigte ich ein. Neugierig war ich allemal über diese ungewöhnliche Art, einen Brief zu beantworten – eine Pressekonferenz ganz für mich alleine!

• Eine ungewöhnliche Pressekonferenz

Zu meiner Überraschung nahm an dem Gespräch nicht nur Herr Klewe teil, der sich als Leiter der Abteilung „Länderbeziehungen Bereich Politik (MSL)“ entpuppte, sondern auch der Beauftragte des Vorstandes, Bundesverkehrsminister a.D. Reinhard Klimmt. Es stellte sich heraus, dass beide die Koordination zwischen der Bahn und den an der Errichtung des Kunstwerks Beteiligten übernommen hatten.

Was Klewe und Klimmt zu sagen hatten, war nicht viel. Die Bahn habe lediglich den Grund zur Verfügung gestellt und dafür gesorgt, dass die Skulptur nun nicht umfällt. An dieser Stelle sei ohnehin die Errichtung eines Kunstwerks vorgesehen gewesen, so dass der Vorschlag des Künstlers gerade recht gekommen sei. Und da er respektable Fürsprecher wie die Botschafter Italiens und Ungarns und den Präsidenten der Akademie der Künste, Klaus Staeck, gehabt habe, habe man nicht im Traum daran gedacht, es könne inhaltlich etwas dagegen einzuwenden sein. Überhaupt sei es ihnen vor allem um die künstlerische Qualität gegangen. Und die könne jeder Kritik standhalten. Mit der GBS hätten sie keinen Kontakt gehabt, und dass ein Vertreter der Bahn bei der Enthüllungszeremonie ein Grußwort gesprochen, sei als Akt der Höflichkeit durchaus angemessen gewesen.

Klewes und Klimmts Erläuterungen erschienen mir plausibel und nachvollziehbar. Für sie ist die Figur nicht mit einem atheistischen Bekenntnis verbunden, sondern eine gelungene Verschönerung des Bahnhofs Potsdamer Platz. Das Kunstwerk gefällt, und mehr interessiert sie nicht. Bloß: Reicht das aus? Hat nicht jedes Denkmal auch eine Botschaft, die genauso wichtig ist wie die äußere Anmutung?

• Der atheistische Kontext

Es war ausgerechnet der gelernte Historiker Klimmt, der im Verlauf unseres Gesprächs die Frage nach dem Kontext aufbrachte, in dem ein historisches Ereignis stattfindet. Und der Hinweis auf den Kontext ist wichtig, ja, er ist entscheidend. Im vorliegenden Fall ist nämlich zu fragen, wer welchen Zweck mit der Errichtung eines Bruno-Denkmals verfolgte: die beiden Botschafter, der Künstler, Staeck. Honorige Leute allesamt, mit denen Klewe und Klimmt zu tun hatten. Doch das waren offensichtlich nicht alle Beteiligten; im Hintergrund gab es weitere, von deren Existenz man im Bahn-Tower nichts wusste. Und da trifft man eben unter anderen „alte Bekannte“ wieder: die GBS, die Humanismus-Stiftung, Ernst Salcher, dazu Wera und Norbert Noetzel und die UniCredt Group. Den Namen Staeck sucht man dort vergeblich, er gehört nicht zu den Stiftern.

Die Stifter wussten glasklar, worum es inhaltlich geht. Polzins Skulptur „will polarisieren“, erklärte zum Beispiel Salcher in seiner Eröffnungsansprache. Seine Stoßrichtung ist eindeutig:

„Während Philosophie und Wissenschaft das geistige Erbe Giordano Brunos zu würdigen gelernt haben, blieb ihm eine Institution bis heute die Anerkennung schuldig: die katholische Kirche. Sie verfolgte ihn, verurteilte ihn zum Tode auf dem Scheiterhaufen und setzte seine Schriften fast 400 Jahre lang auf den Index. Sie wollte ihn auch dann nicht rehabilitieren, als im Jahr 1889 ein internationales Ehrenkomitee, gegen den heftigen Widerstand der römischen Kurie, die Aufstellung einer Giordano Bruno-Statue erzwang.“

Da haben wir es mal wieder: Die katholische Kirche hat Bruno verbrannt, die katholische Kirche ist dogmatisch, die katholische Kirche ist intolerant etc. pp. Systematisch löst Salcher das historische Ereignis aus dem Kontext heraus und konstruiert sich damit seine eigene Wahrheit. Und dann vollbringt Salcher auch noch das Kunststück, die katholische Kirche auch für heutige Missstände verantwortlich zu machen. Welche Aussage das Bruno-Denkmal haben soll?

„Die Antwort ist einfach: Der Blick auf den Zustand unserer Welt und auf die unsäglich deprimierenden Nachrichten, die uns täglich erreichen, gibt uns die Antwort: wir brauchen heute nötiger denn je Menschen, die das Recht auf Geistesfreiheit verteidigen und den Gebrauch der menschlichen Vernunft als den einzig richtigen Weg ansehen, um eine friedlichere, bessere und gerechtere Welt zu erreichen.“

Salcher – der Stifter und Stiftungsvorstand zugleich ist – sagte weiter:

„Die Giordano Bruno Stiftung, die ich hier vertrete, folgt der Tradition ihres Namensgebers in der klaren Absage an jeglichen Fundamentalismus, gleichgültig ob religiöser oder ideologischer Art, und geht über ihn hinaus, indem sie das Gedankenguts eines modernen ‚evolutionären Humanismus’ verbreitet, der ein von Vernunft geleitetes, friedliches und gleichberechtigtes Mit- und Nebeneinander der Menschen im 21. Jahrhundert anstrebt.“

Auch Salchers Vorstandskollege, GBS-Sprecher Michael Schmidt-Salomon, haute in dieselbe Kerbe und charakterisierte die Skulptur als ein

„‚Mahnmal für die Opfer religiöser Gewalt’ schlechthin. Der Begriff ‚religiöse Gewalt’ bezieht sich dabei nicht allein auf die traditionellen theistischen Glaubenssysteme, sondern auch auf die sog. ‚politischen Religionen’. Schließlich ist es gleich, ob ‚heilige’, ‚unantastbare’ Schriften von vermeintlichen Propheten Gottes oder von politischen Führern diktiert werden.“

Auf telefonische Nachfrage bestätigte im übrigen auch Norbert Noetzel, dass er die Ziele der GBS und die verlautbarte Aussage des Denkmals unterstütze.

• Mitgefangen – mitgehangen

Folgendes ist nun festzuhalten:

Erstens: Formal und von niemandem bestritten ist die Skulptur wohlgeraten. Sie hat einen Standort gefunden, an dem sie hervorragend zur Geltung kommt. Damit hat niemand ein Problem.

Zweitens: Inhaltlich handelt es sich bei der Skulptur um eine Absage an jede Form von Religion, die von den Stiftern als dogmatisch, gewalttätig und freiheitsbeschränkend charakterisiert wird. Diese und keine andere Botschaft transportiert sie. Dass diese Botschaft nicht neu, wenig originell und wird auch dann nicht wahrer, wenn man sie permanent wiederholt oder – das allerdings ist neu – in Skulpturen gießt, sei nur am Rande erwähnt.

Drittens: Die Bahn war vor allem daran interessiert, eine Leerstelle in einem ihrer Bahnhöfe kostengünstig zu füllen. Sie verhandelte mit Partnern, die nicht die Stifter waren. Die Mehrzahl der Stifter und ihre Absichten waren ihr unbekannt. Über inhaltliche Aussagen hat man sich wenige oder gar keine Gedanken gemacht, wollte aber keinesfalls ein atheistisches Statement abgeben.

Ist die Bahn also getäuscht worden? Dieser Verdacht liegt nahe. Aber damit kann sie sich nicht herausreden. Eigentlich hätte sie fragen müssen, wer die Aktion finanziert. Dann hätte sie erfahren, wer die Stifter sind, hätte Erkundigungen über sie einholen können und dann erfahren, wes Geistes Kind sie sind. Dann wäre man beispielsweise auf Schmidt-Salomons skandalöses „Manifest des evolutionären Humanismus“ gestoßen, das er im Auftrag der GBS geschrieben hat. Man hätte weiterhin erfahren, dass die GBS mit einer Ausfallbürgschaft Schmidt-Salomons „Ferkel-Buch“ unterstützt hat. Und schließlich hätte man zur Kenntnis genommen, dass die GBS als religionsfeindliche Organisation einschlägig bekannt ist, woraufhin man sicher auf den Gedanken gekommen wäre, dass die GBS mit dem Bruno-Denkmal ganz gewiss nicht nur eines armen Menschen gedenken wollte, der vor rund 400 Jahren einen qualvollen Tod erlitten hat.

Nein, die Bahn kann sich nicht herausreden. Sie ist zwar einerseits Opfer, weil sie von den atheistischen Aktivisten als „nützlicher Idiot“ (Lenin) missbraucht wurde. Aber sie hat sich auch fahrlässig missbrauchen lassen. Es besteht kein Zweifel: Mit der Unterstützung der Denkmalserrichtung hat sie sich mit der GBS und ihren Zielen gemein gemacht und sich in der aktuellen Debatte weltanschaulich positioniert.

Il sito La biblioteca ideale di Giordano Bruno. L'opera e le fonti è la versione online dell'omonimo CD-Rom che è stato promosso e finanziato nell'ambito delle iniziative del Comitato nazionale per le celebrazioni di Giordano Bruno nel quarto centenario della morte, presieduto da Michele Ciliberto. La realizzazione informatica è a cura di Signum - Centro di Ricerche Informatiche per le Discipline Umanistiche della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa.
Nel sito (come nel CD-Rom) sono presenti tutti i testi delle opere latine e volgari di Giordano Bruno e la sua biblioteca, ovvero la raccolta delle fonti utilizzate dal Nolano nell'ambito della sua ricerca e produzione filosofica: le fonti sono state identificate e collegate al testo di riferimento attraverso un'accurata ricerca bibliografica e filologica. Il lavoro è corredato dagli indici dei nomi delle opere di Bruno.

Le opere sono state raggruppate in due corpora: Opere volgari, Opere latine. Selezionando un corpus ed un'opera, è possibile dall'indice strutturale di ogni singolo testo accedere alla lettura, con l'opzione di evidenziare, attraverso la barra degli strumenti, le fonti ed i nomi; per ogni opera è stato inoltre allestito un catalogo delle immagini.

URL: <http://giordanobruno.signum.sns.it/bibliotecaideale/index.php>

Tudo o que o Renascimento italiano realizou nas belas artes, na poesia e na literatura, na historiografia, no pensamento político e nas ciências naturais, é bem conhecido e foi sublinhado com o devido relevo em numerosos e valiosíssimos estudos recentes. Mas, salvo erro, o contributo do Renascimento italiano à erudição e à filosofia não se encontra, diria eu, tão amplamente reconhecido. É verdade que o grupo dos filósofos naturais do final do século XVI, que alcançou o seu apogeu em Giordano Bruno, atraiu uma certa atenção, sobretudo pela parte que teve nos alvores da ciência.

... os humanistas do Renascimento se interessavam pelos valores humanos, mas tal estava subordinado à sua preocupação principal, que era o estudo e a imitação da literatura clássica, quer grega, quer latina. Este humanismo clássico do Renascimento italiano era em primeiro lugar, um movimento cultural, literário e pedagógico e, embora tenha marcado o pensamento renascentista com o seu cunho, nunca nele foi possível isolar de todo as idéias filosóficas dos interesses literários. O termo ‘humanismo’, para descrever o movimento classicizante do Renascimento foi cunhado por historiadores do século XIX, mas os termos studia humanitatis e ‘humanista’ foram forjados justamente durante o Renascimento. Já no tempo dos antigos Romanos alguns autores se serviram do termo studia humanitatis para nobilitar o estudo da poesia, da literatura e da história, e tal expressão foi retomada pelos homens eruditos do primeiro Renascimento italiano para sublinhar o valor humano dos estudos por eles cultivados, que eram: a gramática, a retórica, a poesia, a história e a filosofia moral, no sentido em que na altura se entendiam estas disciplinas. Não tardou muito que quem ensinasse por profissão essas matérias recebesse o nome de humanista, termo que aparece pela primeira vez em documentos do final do século XV.

A origem do humanismo italiano é habitualmente atribuída a Petrarca, o qual teve realmente alguns precursores, mas, segundo a opinião corrente, nenhum verdadeiro predecessor. É indubitável que Petrarca foi a primeira figura verdadeiramente grande entre os humanistas italianos; todavia algumas preocupações e tendências características do humanismo italiano precederam Petrarca, pelo menos uma geração. A origem e a ascensão do humanismo italiano deveram-se, na minha opinião, a dois, ou antes, três fatores. Um deles foi a tradição italiana autóctone da retórica medieval, que fora cultivada por docentes e por notários e era constituída por um conjunto de regras estilísticas para a composição de cartas, documentos e discursos. O segundo fator foi o chamado humanismo medieval, ou seja, o estudo da poesia e da literatura latina clássica, que foi bastante florescente nas escolas do século XII sobretudo na França, enquanto foi limitadíssimo o contributo da Itália naquele período. Cerca do fim do século XII, o estudo dos clássicos latinos foi introduzido também nas escolas italianas e mesclou-se com a tradição retórica do país, que tivera um caráter muito mais prático. Assim o estudo dos clássicos latinos começou a desenvolver-se quando a boa imitação dos autores clássicos, baseada num estudo atento destes autores, se começou a considerar como o melhor treino para quem desejava escrever e falar bem - em prosa ou em verso, em latim ou em vernáculo. A esta situação, que se ia desenvolvendo, acrescentou-se, durante a segunda metade do século XIV, um terceiro fator: o estudo da literatura clássica grega; quase abandonado no Ocidente durante a Idade Média, mas cultivado desde há séculos no Império bizantino, o conhecimento desta literatura foi, nesta época, levado para a Itália a partir do Oriente, após a intensificação de contatos políticos, eclesiásticos e culturais. (KRISTELLER, P. O. Tradição Clássica e Pensamento do Renascimento. Lisboa: Edições 70, 1995. p. 129 ss.)

by D.R. Khashaba

It is not my intention to give an exposition of Bruno's thought. That is a task that I willingly leave to those who are better equipped to perform it. Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) was a lover of myth, allegory, and symbol, and knew fully well the power of those magical wands to reveal and illumine where discursive thought hid and obscured. In this short note I treat of Bruno himself as an emblem of the mystic paths that lead to the inner reality of our being.

Bruno was the epitome of his age, an age of intellectual and spiritual ferment, an age when science and mysticism walked hand in hand, an age which saw the birth of humanism. He is a true paradigm of the whole human being that our contemporary fractured and fragmented humanity stands badly in need of — a fractured and fragmented humanity where religion is indissolubly wedded to dogmatism and superstition and where rationality is blindly bound to soulless physicalism.

Yet Bruno has not yet received the attention that his profundity and originality make his rightful due; the reason being that he is in the unenviable position of his thought being opposed simultaneously to religious dogmatism and scientistic materialism — the two dominant trends that polarize modern culture and condemn it to one-sidedness and insularity.

This is compounded by the difficulties of Bruno's style of writing. Giorgio de Santillana, who gives a balanced and sympathetic outline of Bruno's thought in The Age of Adventure (1956), writes, 'He is not one of those minds which shed a pure and equable light to reveal a new landscape of ideas; with the fire of his temperament there went a good deal of smoke' (p.244).

In my view, what might be seen as the lack of clear-cut distinctness in Bruno's thought should be appreciated as a merit rather than denigrated as a defect. The fecund nebulosity of his thought poses a wholesome challenge and offers a corrective to the shallowness and insipidity of our thoughtless religiosity and our insightless scientism at once. Plato found that the profoundest philosophical insights are essentially ineffable and can only be expressed in myth and allegory. Our learned scholars mutilate Plato's best insights when they exert themselves to force his thought into well-defined theories and fixed doctrines. In the myth of Actaeon in Bruno's Heroici Furori (Heroic Exaltations) we have a profounder and more truthful insight into the living substance of Platonism expressed symbolically and allegorically.

Giordano Bruno was a living incarnation of the pristine ideal of humanism — which, alas!, through various metamorphoses, has been drained of its true essence by being splintered into the diverse, mutually contradictory present-day 'humanisms' that reflect the fragmentation of modern humanity. Today Secular Humanism murders the soul of humanism while its antithesis, Christian Humanism, drags the mind back into the stranglehold of unquestioning dogmatism and superstition. It is this split that lends credence to the spurious opposition of faith and reason which is nowadays regarded as an irreconcilable Either-Or, while the reconciliation is ready to hand if only we are willing to go back to the wholeness of the perennial philosophy of which Bruno's philosophy — as much as Plato's or Plotinus's or Spinoza's — is an original, creative expression.

Bruno's humanism is evident equally in his siding with Erasmus in his defence of free will and in his opposition to Martin Luther's 'pecca fortiter'. Bruno would certainly have supported Pelagius against Augustine.

In his exchanges with the Inquisition during his long drawn-out trial, he did not hedge, dissemble, or prevaricate. While hoping to vindicate his position as consistent with faith in the divinity (goodness and intelligence) of ultimate Reality, he was not intimidated by the imminent threat of death into redacting his views to conform to accepted doctrine. He was trying to make the Inquisition appreciate that his position was rational and religiously sound, not to convince them that he conformed to established doctrine. This was as honest as Socrates' attempt to make his judges understand that he believed in God according to his lights. Throughout the proceedings, he sought to vindicate himself without compromising his integrity. But when it came to the brunt, he refused to submit. He chose to die rather than be false to his inner light.

Bruno's insistence that the views he expounded were meant 'strictly on the philosophical plane' implies that the doctrines formulated by the Church were no more than a 'popular' version that did no harm when taken as such but that should not preclude a profounder philosophical understanding.

De Santillana writes, 'One cannot but respect the scrupulousness of the Inquisition, which took eight years to make up its mind that the doctrine, however acceptable its religious content, could not be reconciled with dogma' (op. cit., p.250). But then, that is just the point. Bruno had no desire to disturb the belief of simple folk in dogma which gave them comfort. But he would not allow such dogma to block philosophical probing for a profounder understanding. The Inquisition could not accept such a live-and-let-live policy. Can we? Unless at least the more intelligent members of society understand and acknowledge unequivocally that such dogma is no more than myth and must in no way be taken as literal truth and that intelligent persons are not only allowed to, but are required to, criticize and disclose the error of such dogma and introduce new formulations making for a better understanding — unless the intelligent sector of society openly and firmly adopt that attitude, then such dogma will be an instrument of bondage and a means of exploitation and extortion. We hardly need any explication or illustration of the truth of this. Our world is boiling and seething with the collision of opposed creeds and dogmata.

Yet, we cannot simply shove aside all myth and live in a world governed by cold calculations of expediency and utility, a world void of ultimate principles and absolute values. We need the symbolism, the inspirational whisperings of myth and allegory, of poetry and fiction, to keep us alive to the reality of the inner fount of our true being and true worth, and we need the free untrammelled speculative activity of intelligence without which those life-giving myths turn into fossilized and fossilizing superstitions. That is why we need the spirit and the message of Giordano Bruno to help us retrieve our lost human integrity.

In the dialogue de l'Infinito Universo e Mondi (of the Infinity of the Universe and of the Worlds) we read of 'the earth, our divine mother who has borne us and nourished us and at last will take us back into her bosom.' Would we not be less likely to pollute and damage our environment if we could think in those terms?

The ignorance, prejudice, and hatred that Bruno had to confront in his lifetime are still hounding his memory. It seems that there are many quarters where it is felt that Bruno's call for humans to look for truth and reality within their own souls still threatens empires of dogmatic creeds and fossilized doctrines. As evidence of this, I will here review briefly an article, 'The Folly of Giordano Bruno', by Professor W. Pogge of Ohio State University, (http://www.setileague.org/editor/brunoalt.htm), which sadly shows little interest in and no understanding of Bruno's seminal ideas and enlightening approach, but concentrates instead on denigrating the man and absolving the Church of blame! That Pogge is an Astronomer may perhaps explain the curious slant of his article but it cannot excuse the vituperative ire with which he handles his subject — as if Professor Pogge were convinced that Bruno deserved to be burned for failing to make much of a contribution to Astronomy!

Professor Pogge chooses as motto for his article the following words of Paul Valery: 'The folly of mistaking paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us.' This is revealing. Those who seek understanding outside their own minds, whether in the evidence of the senses or in the dictates of extraneous authority do not have eyes for the inner realities of the soul. It is no wonder that Professor Pogge finds Bruno's writings are 'of only academic interest to us today'. Eternal realities and perennial insights that can only spring from the founts of the creative mind and can only be conveyed in myth and symbol cannot be beheld by those who do not have eyes for the invisible.

Professor Pogge is keen on 'correcting' the 'popular accounts' which say that Bruno was condemned for his Copernicanism and portray him 'as a martyr to free thought'. He affirms that 'we do not actually know the exact grounds of his conviction on charges of heresy.' Further on he suggests that 'the Church's complaint with Bruno was theological not astronomical.' In other words, he was condemned because he held views different from those held by the Church and considered it his duty to stand by what he saw as the truth. If that doesn't make one 'a martyr to free thought', what does?

Pogge goes to great lengths to argue that Bruno's work 'had little to do with astronomy'; that he was not condemned for his Copernicanism; that the Church did not express an official opinion on Copernicanism until after Bruno's death. Which is all beside the point!

Pogge's principal objection to Bruno is directed to his Pantheism, which Pogge construes as opposing 'the Church's emphasis on spiritualism with an unapologetic and all-encompassing materialism.' Pogge thus equates Pantheism with Materialism! I only wish it were so: we could then perhaps hope that materialists would see the spiritual reality underlying and upholding all matter.

The bulk of the rest of Pogge's article is devoted to maintaining that Bruno's 'peregrinations around Europe... had less to do with his being hounded by the Inquisition as it did with his rather difficult personality.' He exerts himself to blacken Bruno's character and concludes: 'In many ways, Bruno thrust himself into the flames that rose into the winter skies of the Campo di Fiori on the 17th day of February in 1600.' I cannot help sensing in the tone of this sentence a touch of malicious glee.

(This article first appeared in the Giordano Bruno site http://www.giordanobruno.info in February 2005)

© D.R. Khashaba 2005

----------------------------------------------------------------------

BRUNO, GIORDANO- Biography

EARLY LIFE

Bruno was the son of a professional soldier. He was named Filippo at his baptism and was later called "il Nolano," after the place of his birth. In 1562 Bruno went to Naples to study the humanities, logic, and dialectics (argumentation). He was impressed by the lectures of G.V. de Colle, who was known for his tendencies toward Averroism--i.e., the thought of a number of Western Christian philosophers who drew their inspiration from the interpretation of Aristotle put forward by the Muslim philosopher Averroes--and by his own reading of works on memory devices and the arts of memory (mnemotechnical works). In 1565 he entered the Dominican convent of San Domenico Maggiore in Naples and assumed the name Giordano. Because of his unorthodox attitudes, he was soon suspected of heresy. Nevertheless, in 1572 he was ordained as a priest. During the same year he was sent back to the Neapolitan convent to continue his study of theology. In July 1575 Bruno completed the prescribed course, which generated in him an annoyance at theological subtleties. He had read two forbidden commentaries by Erasmus and freely discussed the Arian heresy, which denied the divinity of Christ; as a result, a trial for heresy was prepared against him by the provincial father of the order, and he fled to Rome in February 1576. There he found himself unjustly accused of a murder. A second excommunication process was started, and in April 1576 he fled again. He abandoned the Dominican Order, and, after wandering in northern Italy, he went in 1578 to Geneva, where he earned his living by proofreading. Bruno formally embraced Calvinism; after publishing a broadsheet against a Calvinist professor, however, he discovered that the Reformed Church was no less intolerant than the Catholic. He was arrested, excommunicated, rehabilitated after retraction, and finally allowed to leave the city. He moved to France, first to Toulouse--where he unsuccessfully sought to be absolved by the Catholic Church but was nevertheless appointed to a lectureship in philosophy--and then in 1581 to Paris. In Paris Bruno at last found a congenial place to work and teach. Despite the strife between the Catholics and the Huguenots (French Protestants), the court of Henry III was then dominated by the tolerant faction of the Politiques (moderate Catholics, sympathizers of the Protestant king of Navarre, Henry of Bourbon, who became the heir apparent to the throne of France in 1584). Bruno's religious attitude was compatible with this group, and he received the protection of the French king, who appointed him one of his temporary lecteurs royaux. In 1582 Bruno published three mnemotechnical works, in which he explored new means to attain an intimate knowledge of reality. He also published a vernacular comedy, Il candelaio (1582; "The Candlemaker"), which, through a vivid representation of contemporary Neapolitan society, constituted a protest against the moral and social corruption of the time.

In the spring of 1583 Bruno moved to London with an introductory letter from Henry III for his ambassador Michel de Castelnau. He was soon attracted to Oxford, where, during the summer, he started a series of lectures in which he expounded the Copernican theory maintaining the reality of the movement of the Earth. Because of the hostile reception of the Oxonians, however, he went back to London as the guest of the French ambassador. He frequented the court of Elizabeth I and became associated with such influential figures as Sir Philip Sidney and Robert Dudley, the earl of Leicester.

WORKS

In February 1584 he was invited by Fulke Greville, a member of Sidney's circle, to discuss his theory of the movement of the Earth with some Oxonian doctors; but the discussion degenerated into a quarrel. A few days later he started writing his Italian dialogues, which constitute the first systematic exposition of his philosophy. There are six dialogues, three cosmological--on the theory of the universe--and three moral. In the Cena de le Ceneri (1584; "The Ash Wednesday Supper"), he not only reaffirmed the reality of the heliocentric theory but also suggested that the universe is infinite, constituted of innumerable worlds substantially similar to those of the solar system. In the same dialogue he anticipated his fellow Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei by maintaining that the Bible should be followed for its moral teaching but not for its astronomical implications. He also strongly criticized the manners of English society and the pedantry of the Oxonian doctors. In the De la causa, principio e uno (1584; Concerning the Cause, Principle, and One) he elaborated the physical theory on which his conception of the universe was based: "form" and "matter" are intimately united and constitute the "one." Thus, the traditional dualism of the Aristotelian physics was reduced by him to a monistic conception of the world, implying the basic unity of all substances and the coincidence of opposites in the infinite unity of Being. In the De l'infinito universo e mondi (1584; On the Infinite Universe and Worlds), he developed his cosmological theory by systematically criticizing Aristotelian physics; he also formulated his Averroistic view of the relation between philosophy and religion, according to which religion is considered as a means to instruct and govern ignorant people, philosophy as the discipline of the elect who are able to behave themselves and govern others. The Spaccio de la bestia trionfante (1584; The Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast), the first dialogue of his moral trilogy, is a satire on contemporary superstitions and vices, embodying a strong criticism of Christian ethics--particularly the Calvinistic principle of salvation by faith alone, to which Bruno opposes an exalted view of the dignity of all human activities. The Cabala del cavallo Pegaseo (1585; "Cabal of the Horse Pegasus"), similar to but more pessimistic than the previous work, includes a discussion of the relationship between the human soul and the universal soul, concluding with the negation of the absolute individuality of the former. In the De gli eroici furori (1585; The Heroic Frenzies), Bruno, making use of Neoplatonic imagery, treats the attainment of union with the infinite One by the human soul and exhorts man to the conquest of virtue and truth.

In October 1585 Bruno returned to Paris, where he found a changed political atmosphere. Henry III had abrogated the edict of pacification with the Protestants, and the King of Navarre had been excommunicated. Far from adopting a cautious line of behaviour, however, Bruno entered into a polemic with a protigi of the Catholic party, the mathematician Fabrizio Mordente, whom he ridiculed in four Dialogi, and in May 1586 he dared to attack Aristotle publicly in his Centum et viginti articuli de natura et mundo adversus Peripateticos ("120 Articles on Nature and the World Against the Peripatetics"). The Politiques disavowed him, and Bruno left Paris.

He went to Germany, where he wandered from one university city to another, lecturing and publishing a variety of minor works, including the Articuli centum et sexaginta (1588; "160 Articles") against contemporary mathematicians and philosophers, in which he expounded his conception of religion--a theory of the peaceful coexistence of all religions based upon mutual understanding and the freedom of reciprocal discussion. At Helmstedt, however, in January 1589 he was excommunicated by the local Lutheran Church. He remained in Helmstedt until the spring, completing works on natural and mathematical magic (posthumously published) and working on three Latin poems--De triplici minimo et mensura ("On the Threefold Minimum and Measure"), De monade, numero et figura ("On the Monad, Number, and Figure"), and De immenso, innumerabilibus et infigurabilibus ("On the Immeasurable and Innumerable")--which reelaborate the theories expounded in the Italian dialogues and develop Bruno's concept of an atomic basis of matter and being. To publish these, he went in 1590 to Frankfurt am Main, where the senate rejected his application to stay. Nevertheless, he took up residence in the Carmelite convent, lecturing to Protestant doctors and acquiring a reputation of being a "universal man" who, the Prior thought, "did not possess a trace of religion" and who "was chiefly occupied in writing and in the vain and chimerical imagining of novelties."

FINAL YEARS

In August 1591, at the invitation of the Venetian patrician Giovanni Mocenigo, Bruno made the fatal move of returning to Italy. At the time such a move did not seem to be too much of a risk: Venice was by far the most liberal of the Italian states; the European tension had been temporarily eased after the death of the intransigent pope Sixtus V in 1590; the Protestant Henry of Bourbon was now on the throne of France, and a religious pacification seemed to be imminent. Furthermore, Bruno was still looking for an academic platform from which to expound his theories, and he must have known that the chair of mathematics at the University of Padua was then vacant. Indeed, he went almost immediately to Padua and, during the late summer of 1591, started a private course of lectures for German students and composed the Praelectiones geometricae ("Lectures on Geometry") and Ars deformationum ("Art of Deformation"). At the beginning of the winter, when it appeared that he was not going to receive the chair (it was offered to Galileo in 1592), he returned to Venice, as the guest of Mocenigo, and took part in the discussions of progressive Venetian aristocrats who, like Bruno, favoured philosophical investigation irrespective of its theological implications. Bruno's liberty came to an end when Mocenigo--disappointed by his private lessons from Bruno on the art of memory and resentful of Bruno's intention to go back to Frankfurt to have a new work published--denounced him to the Venetian Inquisition in May 1592 for his heretical theories. Bruno was arrested and tried. He defended himself by admitting minor theological errors, emphasizing, however, the philosophical rather than the theological character of his basic tenets. The Venetian stage of the trial seemed to be proceeding in a way that was favourable to Bruno; then, however, the Roman Inquisition demanded his extradition, and on Jan. 27, 1593, Bruno entered the jail of the Roman palace of the Sant'Uffizio (Holy Office). During the seven-year Roman period of the trial, Bruno at first developed his previous defensive line, disclaiming any particular interest in theological matters and reaffirming the philosophical character of his speculation. This distinction did not satisfy the inquisitors, who demanded an unconditional retraction of his theories. Bruno then made a desperate attempt to demonstrate that his views were not incompatible with the Christian conception of God and creation. The inquisitors rejected his arguments and pressed him for a formal retraction. Bruno finally declared that he had nothing to retract and that he did not even know what he was expected to retract. At that point, Pope Clement VIII ordered that he be sentenced as an impenitent and pertinacious heretic. On Feb. 8, 1600, when the death sentence was formally read to him, he addressed his judges, saying: "Perhaps your fear in passing judgment on me is greater than mine in receiving it." Not long after, he was brought to the Campo de' Fiori, his tongue in a gag, and burned alive.

INFLUENCE

Bruno's theories influenced 17th-century scientific and philosophical thought and, since the 18th century, have been absorbed by many modern philosophers. As a symbol of the freedom of thought, Bruno inspired the European liberal movements of the 19th century, particularly the Italian Risorgimento (the movement for national political unity). Because of the variety of his interests, modern scholars are divided as to the chief significance of his work. Bruno's cosmological vision certainly anticipates some fundamental aspects of the modern conception of the universe; his ethical ideas, in contrast with religious ascetical ethics, appeal to modern humanistic activism; and his ideal of religious and philosophical tolerance has influenced liberal thinkers. On the other hand, his emphasis on the magical and the occult has been the source of criticism as has his impetuous personality. Bruno stands, however, as one of the important figures in the history of Western thought, a precursor of modern civilization.

Encyclopaedia Britannica

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=17040&tocid=0&query=bruno

Für den Sprecher der GBS, Michael Schmidt-Salomon, geht es bei der Aufstellung der Skulptur nicht allein um die Person des Dominikanermönchs aus Neapel, sondern für ihn kann das Denkmal „über das Einzelschicksal Brunos hinaus auch ganz allgemein als ‚Mahnmal für die Opfer religiöser Gewalt’ begriffen werden“. Die GBS will „Grundzüge eines naturalistischen Weltbildes sowie einer säkularen, evolutionär-humanistischen Ethik entwickeln und einer interessierten Öffentlichkeit zugänglich machen.“ Die Aussagen von Schmidt-Salomons „Manifest des evolutionären Humanismus“, das in ihrem Auftrag geschrieben wurde, macht sie sich zu eigen.

Was die Bahn dazu bewogen hat, einen Platz für die Skulptur zur Verfügung zu stellen und vor allem Salcher sprechen zu lassen, bleibt unklar. Eine Mitarbeiterin der Pressestelle verweist darauf, dass die Initiative nicht vom Unternehmen ausgegangen sei. Außerdem habe man ja auch am Hauptbahnhof eine Skulptur aufgestellt (ein Pferd). Die Ziele der GBS sind der Mitarbeiterin indes nicht bekannt, aber sie verspricht, sich demnächst die Website der GBS anzugucken. Dass die Bahn ihre weltanschauliche Neutralität aufgibt, indem sie eine Veranstaltung mit einer religionsfeindlichen, naturalistischen Organisation durchführt, glaubt sie nicht.

Die Aufstellung des Denkmals ist nicht die einzige Veranstaltung zum Gedenken an den 1600 in Rom hingerichteten Bruno. Am 3. März findet an der Humboldt-Universität eine Podiumsdiskussion „Von Nola nach Berlin. Was sagt uns Giordano Bruno heute?“ statt. Außerdem veranstaltet das Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte am 3. und 4. März ein Colloquium „Turning Traditions Upside Down. Rethinking Giordano Bruno’s Enlightenment“.

Giordano Bruno

by H. James Birx
Visiting Scholar, Harvard University, 1997-1998

Source: The Harbinger
http://www.theharbinger.org/xvi/971111/birx.html

"The universe comprises all being in a totality; for nothing that exists is
outside or beyond infinite being, as the latter has no outside or beyond."
Giordano Bruno, On the Cause, Principle, and Unity (fifth dialogue).

Introduction

I was an independent child, ever curious and always asking questions about
things in nature. Although born in Canandaigua, my early years were spent
living on a large farm in nearby Holcomb, Western New York. I was always
surrounded by birth and change and death. My developing mind was fascinated
by those distant twinkling stars and pictures of prehistoric life forms
(especially dinosaurs). I often went to the movies, being particularly
attracted to epic, fantasy and science fiction films, e.g., Quo Vadis
(1951), Mighty Joe Young (1949) and Unknown Island (1948), respectively.
Consequently, even as a youngster, my emerging worldview was both cosmic and
evolutionary in orientation.

When at Bloomfield Central High School, I pursued studies in science (my
favorite subject was biology) and enjoyed writing and public speaking. After
buying a telescope, my interest in astronomy was greatly intensified. I was
amazed and delighted to experience that, through the aid of several lenses,
my eyes could see some points of light in the night sky turn into several
planets and moons of our solar system. Furthermore, hundreds of remote stars
invisible to the naked human eye could now be clearly seen through my
telescope. How insignificant the earth and life upon it (including our own
species) now seemed to me.

As a student at SUNY College at Geneseo, I was interested in both science
and philosophy. Those bold ideas of great thinkers from Aristotle to
Einstein, particularly Darwin's theory of organic evolution, excited me. My
academic studies at that time focused on biology and anthropology. Actually,
these two areas of science are interrelated within the framework of a
dynamic planet in evolution. And although I was aware of those contributions
that had been made by Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo to modern astronomy,
the name "Giordano Bruno" was still unfamiliar to me. However, my mind was
always open to new concepts and new perspectives.

As a physical anthropology major in graduate school at SUNY at Buffalo, I
was more and more concerned about the true place humankind occupies within
organic history and this evolving cosmos. Later in philosophy, I was
introduced to Bruno's iconoclastic ideas as a result of my readings in the
history of both science and philosophy. For me, discovering the Brunian
worldview was a liberating experience, indeed. It freed my mind from the
blind faith and dogmatic beliefs of an outmoded theology and myopic
philosophies.

As a direct consequence of my extensive studies in the special sciences,
particularly paleoanthropology, I slowly developed grave doubts about the
truth value of traditional beliefs in Christian teaching as well as other
religions. Having always been urged to think for myself, my own ideas found
an intellectual home in Bruno's remarkable conceptual framework. I was
greatly inspired by his bold vision of an eternal and infinite universe free
from those narrow confinements of Thomism and Aristotelianism. In addition,
I was challenged by Bruno's open-ended cosmology: no longer did this planet,
life on earth, or even our own species hold a privileged or central place in
this changing universe.

I found it utterly incredible that, during the Italian Renaissance, Bruno as
a natural philosopher had developed a cosmology grounded in the concept of
infinity. In fact, Bruno's worldview far surpasses those ideas of Cusa,
Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, and Galileo: it argues for an infinite number of
stars, planets, and galaxies! Likewise, Bruno was an early spokesman for the
emerging science of exobiology. He boldly held that life forms, including
intelligent beings, exist on a plurality of worlds elsewhere in this
infinite universe.

Greatly influenced by Bruno as well as Feuerbach, Darwin, Nietzsche, and
Haeckel (among other scientists and philosophers), I became committed to
naturalism and humanism. My five years of doctoral studies in philosophy
under the late Marvin Farber and Paul Kurtz even strengthened my cosmic
perspective and evolutionary framework. Overcoming years of theistic
indoctrination, I finally became a pervasive materialist and secular
humanist.

In January 1971, I visited for the first time that place in Rome where Bruno
was burned to death at the stake for his pantheistic stance and cosmic
perspective. Today, as a scientist and philosopher in the field of
anthropology, my own worldview is essentially Brunian in orientation. This
is clearly reflected in my teaching, writing, and lecturing.

Finally, in my professional judgment, the human world has yet to come to
grips with Bruno's awesome perspective and its ramifications for science,
philosophy, religion and theology. To me, Bruno is the supreme martyr for
both free thought and critical inquiry.

Bruno: The Man

The great Italian philosopher Giordano Filippo Bruno (1548-1600) was born in
Nola, in the Campania. As a young scholar, he studied philosophy and
literature in Naples, and later theology at the Monastery of San Domenico
Maggione. He had a tenacious memory and extraordinary intellect. In 1572
Bruno took the vows of priesthood. Yet in 1576, doubting many of the
teachings of Christianity and therefore suspected of heresy, this Dominican
monk with unorthodox opinions abandoned his religious order and subsequently
was forced to flee to the more secular Northern Italy in order to escape
both the Neapolitan Inquisition and the Holy Office of Rome. Fearing for his
safety and seeking freedom of expression, the restless Bruno wandered as a
solitary figure through Switzerland, France, England, Germany, and
Czechoslovakia. These were years of study, reflection, speculation, writing
and lecturing.

With steadfast determination, creative thoughts and controversial books,
Bruno challenged those entrenched beliefs of the Roman Catholic faith, the
Peripatetic biases of his contemporary astronomers and physicists, and that
unrelenting authority given to the Aristotelian worldview. Unfortunately,
Bruno as ingenious freethinker had a personality that aggravated both the
general populace and serious scholars to such a degree that he could never
claim a permanent home anywhere during his lifetime; nevertheless, he no
doubt saw himself as a citizen of the entire universe.

During a two-year period in London (1583-1585), the autodidactic Bruno
lectured at Oxford University and both wrote and published six strikingly
brilliant Italian dialogues: On the Cause, Principle, and Unity; On the
Infinite, the Universe, and Worlds; The Ash Wednesday Supper; The Cabala of
the Horse Pegasus; The Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast; and The Heroic
Frenzies. These volumes contain the essential elements of his daring
cosmology, new epistemology, and bold statements on ethics, religion and
theology. He had rigorously rejected the geostatic, geocentric,
anthropocentric, and finite-because-spherical model of the cosmos found in
those Aristotelian writings of antiquity that were still supported by the
Roman Catholic Church.

Bruno also wrote poems in which he ridiculed, with caustic sarcasm and
bitter satire, both the dogmatic clergymen and superstitious beliefs of his
age. In 1591, his last books and Latin poems were published at Frankfurt in
Germany. They include On the Monad, On the Immense, and On the Triple
Minimum.

After many years of solitary wandering through Europe and with reckless
abandon, the courageous Bruno returned to Italy in optimistic hope of
convincing the new Pope, Clement VIII, of at least some of his controversial
ideas. As a consequence of entrapment by the young nobleman Giovani
Mocenigo, the self-unfrocked monk was tried and condemned twice (first by
the Venetian Holy Inquisition in 1592, and then by the Roman Holy
Inquisition in 1593). Bruno's critical writings, which pointed out the
hypocrisy and bigotry within the Church, along with his tempestuous
personality and undisciplined behavior, easily made him a victim of the
religious and philosophical intolerance of the 16th century. Bruno was
excommunicated by the Catholic, Lutheran and Calvinist Churches for his
heretical beliefs. The Catholic hierarchy found him guilty of infidelity and
many errors, as well as serious crimes of heresy. However, Bruno stubbornly
refused to recant his lofty vision. He was subsequently handed over to the
Italian state, which determined his final fate. The philosopher was
imprisoned in the dungeons of the Holy Inquisition in Rome for seven years,
denied pen and paper as well as books and visitors, relentlessly
interrogated and probably tortured. After enduring this living tomb, he was
eventually sentenced to death under the influence of the Jesuit Cardinal
Robert Bellarmine. Obstinate to the end, Bruno never recanted his heretical
position.

At Rome on February 17, 1600, at the age of 52, the contemptuous and
rebellious Giordano Bruno was bound, gagged and publicly burned alive at the
stake in the center of the Campo dei Fiori, not far from the Vatican, while
priests chanted their litanies. His wind-blown ashes mixed with the very
earth that had sustained his life and thought. Three years later, the
writings of the apostate monk and intrepid thinker were placed on the Index.
In June 1889, during the reign of Pope Leo XIII, contributions from
anticlerical groups around the world enabled an impressive bronze statue of
Bruno, by Ettori Ferrari, to be erected by the public on the very spot where
he had been executed (the great German evolutionist Ernst Haeckel, himself a
monist and pantheist, wrote a hard- hitting address for this auspicious
event).

With a profound imagination, Bruno had ushered in a new cosmology. Boldly,
he held this universe to be eternal in time, infinite in space, and
endlessly changing. In the history of Western philosophy, his speculations
are a lasting and significant contribution to our modern conceptualization
of a dynamic universe. The awesome Brunian worldview is a remarkable
interpretation of reality which, in its vision, far surpasses the closed
cosmological frameworks presented by Cusa, Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, and
Galileo. Bruno's creativity was a result of his freedom from the traditional
thought-system grounded in the Aristotelian view of nature and the dogmatic
belief-system of the Roman Catholic Church.

In fact, Bruno stood utterly alone in foreshadowing our present
understanding of and appreciation for space, time, matter, and life itself
(particularly the place of humankind within the cosmic flux of all things).
No longer did the heavens and earth represent two separate but different
realms in terms of matter and motion.

During the tumultuous period of the Italian Renaissance, it was Bruno who
critically reflected upon the heavens and, as a result, seriously considered
the far-reaching implications and inevitable consequences that his unique
vision held for considering the true position of our own species within this
universe. Because he was neither a scientist nor a mathematician, Bruno
relied upon rational speculations and the extensive use of analogies, along
with magic and mysticism (he had developed an intense fascination for
Renaissance hermeticism), to support his cosmic model. His daring worldview
undermined the split, finite, and closed conceptual framework of the
physicists, astronomers, philosophers and theologians during his time.

Bruno was especially indebted to the cosmic visions of Titus Lucretius Carus
(ca. 99-ca. 55 B.C.E.) and Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464): Lucretius is
remembered for his remarkable book On the Nature of Things, while Cusa is
known primarily for his insightful volume Of Learned Ignorance. Their
interpretations of this dynamic universe went far beyond those conceptual
limits of all earth-bound and human-centered views of the cosmos. It should
be stressed, however, that Bruno was not greatly influenced by the
Copernican model of a heliocentric universe. In sharp contrast to
Copernicus, Bruno was aware of those limitations that result from a strictly
mathematical approach in attempting to comprehend the characteristics of
this universe. Instead, he emphasized that the use of symbolic logic and
discrete geometry merely supplements the findings of rational speculations
grounded in intuition and imagination. Reminiscent of those natural
cosmologists of the pre-Socratic period, Bruno gladly extrapolated his new
ideas and vast vision from his own critical observations of nature and a
rigorous use of his powerful imagination. His interests in the art, magic,
and numerology of ancient Egypt were essentially a reflection of his own
fascination with change and memory (increased by the thoughts of the Catalan
monk, Raymond Lully) as well as his view of the cosmos as a divine and
living universe.

Eternity and Infinity

Breaking new ground in cosmology, Bruno's philosophy of nature depends upon
the metaphysical concepts of plurality, uniformity, and cosmic unity along
with the logical principle of sufficient reason. He ruthlessly criticized
all geocentric, zoocentric, anthropocentric, and heliocentric views of
reality. His new philosophy repudiated the Peripatetic terrestrial/celestial
dichotomy and, instead, maintained that the same physical laws and natural
elements of the earth exist throughout this eternal and infinite universe.
In doing so, Bruno was able to correct and surpass the planetary perspective
expounded by Aristotle, Ptolemy, and Aquinas. He even advanced beyond the
sun-centered astronomy advocated by some of his contemporaries. His own
model of the world is free from any fixed point of reference. In retrospect,
it may be claimed that his pioneering thought actually fathered modern
cosmology.

Bruno's vision replaced a finite cosmos with an infinite universe. His
insights are free from the erroneous assumptions, moribund scholastic
prejudices, and restrictive beliefs of the established religion of his time.
Without ignoring the value or limitations of reason (mathematics and logic),
he took intuitive leaps that synthesized both perceptual experience and the
critical intellect into a daring worldview that grasps the basic features of
cosmic reality. For him, such rigorous reflection also led to humanistic
action. Because Bruno was unable to demonstrate his metaphysical claims
scientifically, he relied upon thought-experiments to glimpse the
ramifications of his sweeping vision. (In this century, Einstein would use
the same imaginative method to fathom both the extraordinary implications
and startling consequences of his special and general theories of
relativity.) Bruno also taught that there are an infinite number of
perspectives (recall Nietzsche's perspectivism), with there being no
privileged or fixed frame of reference: human experience can be unified in
religious, scientific, or philosophical concepts. Nevertheless, he realized
that religious formulations are inevitably doomed in the face of the
scientific method and ongoing empirical discovery.

Not restricting himself to the concept of finitude, Bruno was thrilled by
the idea of infinity. He was not willing to set limits to those
possibilities and probabilities that are inherent in this universe (as he
saw it). His imagination thrived on the plausibility of extending the
concept of infinity to embrace all aspects of cosmic reality: this universe
is infinite in both potentiality and actuality, and its creative power is
both endless and infinite. As such, no fixed ceiling of a finite number of
stars sets a spherical boundary to the physical cosmos and, moreover, no
dogmatic system of thoughts and values should imprison that free inquiry
that is so necessary for human progress and fulfillment.

For Bruno, there are no real separations (only logical distinctions) within
the harmony and unity of dynamic nature. He overcame the myopic
earth-centered framework of his time with a challenging but liberating
sidereal view of things: in the cosmos, there are an infinite number of
stars and planets (as well as comets and moons) more or less analogous to
our sun and earth, respectively. He even envisioned an infinite number of
solar systems, cosmic galaxies, and island universes strewn throughout this
boundless reality.

Clearly, Bruno was in step with progressive science and natural philosophy
in his attempt to overcome all those belief-systems preoccupied with this
planet and our species. He affirmed the essential homogeneity of this
cosmos, teaching an atomistic philosophy that maintains all things both
inorganic and organic to be composed of monads as the ultimate units of
process reality (an idea later expanded by Leibniz): the physical unit is
the atom, the mathematical unit is the point, and the metaphysical unit is
the monad. The infinitesimal and irreducible monads mirror this dynamic and
infinite universe in accordance with the dialectical principle of the unity
of the microcosm with the macrocosm. In addition, Bruno claimed that this
continuous universe had no beginning and will have no end in either space or
time, and that there is life (including intelligent beings) on countless
other worlds.

Bruno's sweeping vision also considered the human animal with its endless
potentialities. Our own species is a critically thinking animal. It must not
be ashamed of doubts, problems, limitations, and curiosity. Nevertheless,
humankind is merely a fleeting fragment of our earth, which in turn is only
a temporary speck within cosmic history. This dynamic philosophy emphasizes
that, in this best of all possible worlds (a position later defended by
Leibniz), the human animal is a product of, dependent upon, and totally
within the flux of nature.

Bruno taught that there are no a priori limits to human thoughts, feelings,
and actions; through its intellect, the human organism is capable of living
in harmony with this universe. He also stressed that both reason and emotion
are necessary for the total human being. In fact, in this eternal and
infinite universe, Bruno held that the uniqueness of each person is actually
heightened within a community of individuals that mirrors the plurality of
worlds. Although from the cosmic perspective the human animal appears to be
insignificant, it is nevertheless of great importance within a planetary
framework.

Bruno argued for an infinite number of inhabited worlds. Hence, he conceived
of life forms and intelligent beings existing on other planets throughout
this universe. As such, his cosmology anticipated the emerging science of
exobiology in modern astronomy: neither this planet nor our species is
unique in the incomprehensible vastness of cosmic reality.

Not until 1609, nine years after Bruno's death, did the astronomer/physicist
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) first use the telescope to discover that the
heavenly bodies do in fact resemble our earth; in this same year, Kepler
mathematically demonstrated the elliptical orbits of the planets. The
Aristotelian dichotomy between our imperfect terrestrial world and the
seemingly perfect celestial realm was finally abolished, thereby making the
idea of life forms and intelligent beings elsewhere in this universe a
plausible hypothesis in modern science and natural philosophy.

Also as an outgrowth of his new cosmology, Bruno rejected all fixed value
systems; And he advocated the relativity of ethics. No object, relation, or
event could be absolutely good or absolutely evil. Likewise, no thought or
action could be absolutely right or absolutely wrong. As such, Bruno
pioneered a naturalistic ethics far removed from Kant's moral philosophy
with its categorical imperative grounded in a cryptic theology. Bruno saw
that values, experiences, and cosmic reality are interrelated within a
dynamic unity; he also taught the ultimate unity of truth, beauty, and
goodness. Perfection resides only in taking this eternal and infinite
universe as a dynamic and unfolding whole (thus accounting for Bruno's
pantheistic stance).

Relativity and Evolution

Bruno offered a cosmology that anticipated Einstein's theory of relativity
and perhaps even Darwin's theory of evolution. In an infinite universe,
Bruno argued that space, time, size, weight, motion, change, events,
relationships, and perspectives are always relative to any particular frame
of reference. For him, from the village of Nola, Mount Vesuvius looked like
a barren volcano devoid of life. Yet, from the slopes of Vesuvius, it was
Mount Cala that now looked like a lifeless volcano. In fact, both geological
formations support life. This experience impressed upon Bruno the relativity
of perspectives and the crucial distinction between appearance and reality;
Aristotle had been wrong in maintaining that appearance is reality.
Consequently, in the reach for knowledge and wisdom, our limited senses need
to be supplemented by mathematics and especially rational speculations.

Furthermore, in a thought-experiment, Bruno imagined himself floating above
and beyond the earth. As he drifted closer and closer to the moon, it got
larger while our planet got smaller. From the lunar surface, it was now the
earth that seemed to be a satellite while the moon itself looked as if it
were the size of our planet. If Bruno had drifted far beyond the moon, then
he would eventually see both the earth and its only satellite first become
merely specks of light and then, eventually, they would disappear into the
blackness of deep space. Using his powerful imagination, the philosopher
once again demonstrated the principle of relativity and emphasized the
crucial difference between the appearance of things and their true reality.

Bruno's model of this universe disclaimed any dogmatic judgments: the center
of this universe is everywhere and its circumference is nowhere. In sharp
contrast to an Aristotelian framework, the Brunian viewpoint gives an
open-ended perspective free from any absolutes in science or philosophy or
theology.

It may be said that Bruno at least glimpsed in a speculative fashion the
scientific theory of organic evolution. Although he claimed that decay and
generation continuously occur everywhere, he held that this unfolding
universe is always striving for novelty and perfection. In maintaining the
essential unity of nature as well as suggesting the development of lower or
simple life forms into higher or complex living things, Bruno apparently
recognized the historical transformation of all organisms on earth. In fact,
he perceived this entire universe as an organic entity manifesting a
pervasive world-soul. (Leonardo da Vinci, Alexander von Humboldt, and Lewis
Thomas have all viewed this planet as being more or less like an organism or
cell.) Bruno's dynamic view of all things foreshadowed the process
philosophies of Leibniz, Hegel, and Whitehead. His mysticism reminds one of
the visions of Ernest Renan, Miguel de Unamuno, and Pierre Teilhard de
Chardin.

Bruno: The Pantheist

Bruno maintained that the multiplicity of natural things originates out of a
single substance, which is both eternal in time and infinite in space. The
essential unity of this dynamic cosmos is ultimately grounded in the
identity of contraries or the coincidence of opposites (a doctrine first
conceived by Cusa and later developed by Hegel). The straight and the curved
in mathematics, the center and the circumference of this universe, and the
spirited matter or materialized spirit throughout reality are each claimed
to be, in the final analysis, identical in Bruno's monistic and mystical
interpretation of the creative process of cosmic development.

Rejecting both theism and deism, the wise Bruno professed a pantheistic view
of reality. He espoused the idea that the supreme single necessary substance
is God or nature, which encompasses every particular object, relation, and
event that exists potentially or actually in this universe. God is the
cause, principle, and unity of all existence. Since God is totally immanent
for Bruno, his pantheism both challenged and superseded the medieval belief
in a personal God who transcends the world as well as all later beliefs in
deism. In fact, Bruno the infidel became the greatest philosopher of the
Italian Renaissance; he had left the gloom of the monastery and the dogma of
the Church for the joy and lifelong inspiration that lay in contemplating
the endless wonders of this infinite universe. Throughout his life, he never
wavered from his cosmic perspective, pantheistic orientation and passion for
infinity.

Bruno's conception of God as nature had been first proposed by Xenophanes in
Greek antiquity. After Bruno's death, pantheism was advocated by Spinoza,
Goethe, Ernst Haeckel, Samuel Alexander, and Albert Einstein (among others).

As a mystic, Bruno grasped the essential unity of this infinite universe and
severely criticized the religious belief-system for its dualistic
metaphysics. He experienced God as the world itself, an idea that transcends
the empirical sciences and traditional theology. Therefore, it is not
surprising that Brunian mysticism seriously threatened the rigid and closed
politico-religious establishment of his time (this same dogmatic outlook by
the Church would later force Galileo to recant all his discoveries in
descriptive astronomy).

Conclusion

In the history of Western philosophy, Bruno's iconoclastic ideas and
unorthodox perspectives remain a symbol of creative thought and free
inquiry. He advocated religious and moral reforms, and heralded the modern
cosmology through his emphasis on an infinite universe and an infinite
number of inhabited worlds. During the past four centuries, advances in
descriptive astronomy and theoretical physics have given empirical and
conceptual support to the Brunian philosophy. No longer is there a split
between the terrestrial world and the celestial realm. Moreover, the
principles of relativity and uniformity pervade the modern interpretation of
this cosmos. The more our space-age technology probes reality, the larger we
discover this universe to be. Scientists and philosophers now take seriously
a cosmic perspective that includes billions of galaxies, each with billions
of stars. Furthermore, it is highly probable that other solar systems fill
this universe and also very likely that life forms (including intelligent
beings) inhabit and evolve on other planets similar to our earth.

Certainly, Bruno would have scoffed at the anthropic principle while
extending the Gaia hypothesis to encompass the entire universe. He would
have been pleased to see his cosmic perspective visually presented in the
film 2001: A Space Odyssey (1969). Likewise, he would have been thrilled by
the glorious photographs of celestial objects taken by the Hubble Space
Telescope mission as well as the gigantic radio telescope at the Arecibo
Observatory, Puerto Rico, that searches for signals from intelligent beings
in outer space. And no doubt, Bruno would have enjoyed discussing this
universe with Stephen Hawking and the late Carl Sagan. Surely, the cosmic
reality of deep space is filled with star clusters and cosmic objects far
beyond the myopic comprehension of those dogmatic religionists of the
Italian Renaissance who silenced the greatest philosopher of their age.
Suffice it to say that Bruno would be excited about quasars, pulsars,
superstrings, supernovas and black holes; he would have easily incorporated
these objects as well as hyperspace and other universes into his own cosmic
perspective of dynamic reality.

Having rejected any ontological separation of the superlunary and sublunary
realms, Bruno would be delighted with the modern scientific quest for a
unified-field-theory to explain everything throughout this physical universe
in terms of several equations; especially since such an undertaking is in
step with his own cosmic monism. Also, he would be thrilled by the present
Pathfinder mission with its Sojourner rover examining the surface of the red
planet Mars for any signs of life before it is inhabited by human beings.

In general, Giordano Bruno paved the way for the cosmology of our time. To
his lasting credit, the most recent empirical discoveries in astronomy and
rational speculations in cosmology (including the emerging science of
exobiology) support many of his brilliant insights and fascinating
intuitions. This is an appropriate legacy from a daring and profound
thinker, who presented an inspiring vision which still remains relevant and
significant for our modern scientific and philosophical framework.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. H. James Birx, Professor of Anthropology at Canisius College, is the
author of Interpreting Evolution (Prometheus Books, 1991), an invited
Visiting Research Scholar at the Center for Inquiry in Amherst, New York,
for 1997-1998 and a Contributing Editor for Free Inquiry.

Se ieri sera avete seguito su Raiuno il film sulla vita di Caravaggio, sapete di cosa sto parlando.
Ripesco così da Panic Rome questo post riguardo ad un luogo del delitto che, nel bene e nel male, ha fatto parte della mia vita:

Via di Pallacorda è una sottile lingua di sampietrini tra piazza Firenze e via della Scrofa, nel rione romano di Campo Marzio. Si chiama così sa sempre, fin dal '600, quando ci sorgevano i campi da gioco più frequentati della città. "Una Roma con mille contraddizioni, che ama l'arte e la violenza, che prima diffonde valori morali e poi brucia al rogo l'eretico Giordano Bruno. Tra palazzi ed osterie in cui spesso il gioco si trasforma in rissa". Era  la Roma in cui viveva Michelangelo Merisi, in arte Caravaggio.
Immaginate un campo di squash di 400 anni fa, con a bordo campo il pubblico che schiamazza, tifa, scommette, proprio come in una partita di calcio di oggi. In questo scenario, il 28 maggio 1606, due squadre si affrontano in una partita durissima, così dura che sembra un duello e che ben presto lo diventerà. Da una parte c'è la squadra di Ranuccio Tamassoni, rampollo di una delle famiglie più in vista di Roma, un attaccabrighe arrogante che veste di nero. Dall'altra la squadra di un pittore, uno dei più grandi di tutti i tempi: Caravaggio. E' lui a vincere la partita. Una sconfitta bruciante, tanto che Ranuccio, con l'animo colmo di rabbia, si avventa sull'avversario. Per il geniale pittore (c