From primitive to individual

Ive been trying to make clear the peculiar condition of the primitive individual, in the case of the Brazilian Indian, as it is visible his condition completely distinguishable from the capitalized being, that clearly makes the analogical posture look better sculpted along time. Or is it that this way we are convinced to testify our conduct within the pattern of a conquest that in no hypothesis we would be apt to negate, once this conquest would before everything be in accord with parameters, that, for some reason, were put there to take the lead to some side of the question that the primitive would not be identified with, for the reason that it could not be a step affordable to its culture within its original convictions, as a cultural legacy, otherwise making sure as something that would not be so attached to the ground and up to degradable suspicions. Well, the primitive being is characterized for not making distinctions between the value of property of things, at least in accord to what this rapport comes to guarantee to the principle of ownership, the necessity to make front to the request of superiority that the primitive being would have no great affinity to. An intellectualized culture sounds as something really above. But that truly means that we could not affirm it in neutral ways, once we are inflamed of a vision taken through situations that took our measurements to perpetrated acrobatics, which seems to make stronger this path and protect it in instance to conquer a space that in that occasion could be valid, for the reason which incomprehensible coherences would be weighed down, only after a long time inherent to the conquest process. But all seems to touch for some reason the fact that the primitive still holds itself today, in the remnant tribes, while the worldly heritage was necessarily loosing its collectivity, for its obvious subdivision inserted in a sui-generis patrimony, prompted a process of interdependence of the culture once primitive, come to perpetrate itself , subdividing to be by no means influenced by the occasional domination, here and there, between a vision and another diverging since then, occupying a seemingly infinite
1

space from that time on, but that globalization comes to turn into a definite equation, to make sense with the actual modernity mold turned to look like a confirmation of that first collective, that didnt ignored the necessity of equilibrium to make sure the unity of life itself, in an ambient that didnt get wasted to the point which the natural process wouldnt be able to maintain the scope of the diversity inherent to it. The meaning of property came to determine by itself what differed and distinguished the grand blank between urbanization and the primitive organizations. One would think that it could just be a matter of scale, and the direction of them was just parallel. But it is not what it seems, once the deteriorating of thinking and value is common only to the one that took the path to formalization. The primitive being doesnt loose the sense of coherence and collectivity, to permeate it to take forth the tribe attitudes, while the urbanized being takes input action within uncompromised conceptions of individualization, to elaborate a principle of democracy as justification by determined point, born by itself only through automatic recurring alienated visions. The less individualized being doesnt loose the sense to rustling things by starting processes of conquest, while the urbanized itself do it just to establish norms to superior qualifications, that holds within the bowel to discriminating to the inferior, and so come to take establishments to degenerating processes, not present amongst whom see their reflection in each others image. So it seems to me that superiority in its more subtle logic, let any artificial feature permeate its premeditate bearings. All that one do is to guard himself from considering that another would be capable of a trustful relation if there werent already been enlaces giving sustainability to it, discriminating, segregating the middle And so how could there be justice, or better, integration, if what one do without any conflict of consciousness is set ways to perpetuate the descendants in ways of not taking account of any ostensible recurring one uses to guarantee with anticipation, through preventive expedient, what shows themselves more and more inclined to fail in its basic principles, to perpetuate instead the existence of ones in detriment of others

that are not even able to make it from day to day satisfactorily, in relation to basic necessities? And so one can think that it is natural to act like that, and not take any account to being conscious of such things as to measure what would be bearable from the point of view to prompting a virtuous cycle, that perpetuated the production process to stabilizing a cadency, which would not spoil life in itself. Finally setting the obvious expectation to delineate the human reason to social equilibrium that should after all, be collective. But one argues that the democratic process rather determines, things should lead to a way to set in first place, the objectivity to appropriation, to take hand of immanent tools that feed reasons to lead the ones which less took the advantage of the situation to apprenticing, and by that time feeling to be slipping out of the process, to considerate once more taking the common sense. One thinks that democracy naturally has gadgets to take to that point sooner or later, and other way we would fall within the communism trap, taking to collective apathy. So that way we are apt to think, other alternative will not be legible and the individualism would always be imminent all the same, and should track down through the appropriative thinking, as a way to establish parameters to the prominence of collective, to come about at the right time. This way we would mature ourselves to the point of equilibrium due to inner building, to finally feel with propriety the extension of the facts, and give them definite proper structure. But if this individualism doesnt take itself to sort out the necessity to be coherent, with what one thinks he wishes from just automatic consumption idealisms without any further consideration ,to bring about reality to its place, then we wouldnt be regarding a minimum of coherence to establish ways to align things, or that is, to let the lack of necessity of consumption open up other spaces that would make patent the behavior without superior/inferior hierarchy parameters, trigger of that first insecure aspirations, in vials to mature the dichotomy of that first gesture that had a false autonomy, to permeate the real necessity within something else. We know that the necessity to assertion is not something casual, but inherent to the process of development of any structure, that seeks to establish amongst the greater. But what one argues is if it shouldnt automatically be so, in tribal

organizations. Or why shouldnt it be necessary for them to appropriate of things, to get aware of themselves, when what we see is rather the opposite, what by a functional hierarchy establishes unpredictable results, giving more confidence beyond the tribal components, approaching to the respectable notion, to complement each others action. What we should investigate is why it is always attached to democracy, the concept of a dissident individuality, or lets say, that it doesnt prime for the straightening up of organizations apparatus enlace. In private ones things might look a little better, but it doesnt show yet the initiative of the participants, since this harmony lacks a more spontaneous coherence, which could take integrants to better results. But it mightnt really be backed by the institutions command. Why this individuality persists for the dissidence, as a way to strengthen the common aspiration, while the primitive rather keeps himself from supposing the other could be up to dominate him, dissimulating in his thoughts a precaution attitude? In truth, persists the idea that the other could always do something to just dominate, through sentimentalism, or would he rather exclude others to just terminate some pattern from an order that justified its origin. And the primitive being, just doesnt contemplate this possibility, for what they would automatically be sentenced to death, as the order persists to close the cycle. At least it is what one thinks as those first development processes of destruction put them as superior and infallible contenders. But naturally, what will happen is that the primitive being, for having been maintaining himself in the original condition the intellectual is anxious to find, is in the condition to completely confirm his integrity to not make use of recurring methods, to put in doubt the infallibility of the human relationship processes, as the intellectualized will need to get out of this labyrinthine, through which he got involved in, through ways to find a chance to get out of the unreal dialectics he always gives accounts to, forever waiting for the last page automatically to turn, freeing himself from all the inaccessibility he invented. Its not plausible to imagine the way to integration suggests a crescent fomentation of things to get institutionalized, having on the other hand rather premises that integrally reassures a model of collectivity, that supports liberty still as expression, conjectured through real processes of development to come up with

individuality, as also from the necessity to put it in its existential context of harmony search inherent to any process of choice and liberation. In truth we wouldnt get back to the cause of things which should have been the preceding of all the descending process, if we dont put ourselves through a view of coherence which would remount to its rigid mold of cause and consequence, if the format came to shroud everything, as remediation of the sensation to sustainability, coming in truth from the reason in itself to pursue certain coherence to it. It is as if the hierarchy of values was legitimating its purification along the descending process to come to the perfect enlace, touching the first moments of the individualization process. But what would be in truth this reason to contain some inconsistent germ of individuality and authority, superiority? It would be necessary to remount once more to that over natural sense, that in not pre-seeing the possibility to have conjectures of natural contemplation in an infinite space, would be then materialized by basic principles of liberty, that would give to any possible dissidence the contrary experience of limitation and materialization, to what would only be possible before a post contemplation, to mean a conditioning for what this fraction of this immense infinite saw itself, to the possibility to gain a regenerating format, due its vision of superiority that molded itself to question the possibility to have been left to second plan, restrained from the meaning of where its fundamental instincts of glory and wisdom were objected to. Why this satisfaction, inherent to the concept of glory, get so fragile in determined moment, and weaken its structure, to set parameters to lead the back up of feelings, opting to dissimulate the satisfaction through an inadequate discontentment , in relation to the principle of everything, leaving patent the dialectic premonition to dichotomy? The contentment could only come analog to the conceptual benefit to liberty, that leaves open the postulation which, in other ways, would categorize this or other motive through dialectic questions to minimize subjectivity, leading to new existential parameters, and to a new and surprisingly understanding of the incomprehensibleness of all the structure, and so being left to believe to have been included in a advantage, that could have no relation to his unremitting dissatisfaction , would it more and

more be subjected to the affirmation of confidence and esteem, belonging Basically it is this remount to the first questions that one should do, when attempting to understand the modern individual pattern, that seems never to get to the point to resent or question the reason of this impertinence, as a legacy of a cultural certification of citizenship and option to turn oneself part of the new by any price. Giving a new start to a structure, that made it the justification of the sensation to the superior felling, remitting lead to consequences that if one couldnt prevail, turns off the collective felling which seems never to have the opportunity to infatuate the reason to freedom, off the dichotomy and existential dialectics, to belonging through the collective mold, dispatching us all to the possibility to not conjecturing prejudices, making it apt to the flux of liberty. The fact to have turned us irrefutably addicted to the appropriation of things, as a way to insert oneself into something promising, is a way to take care of a apparent infallible condition to contemplate the future as a functional legacy, in the measure it proposes a contextualization of values, before the intellectualization within its conditioning flux, to input the adverse reaction to this way, remitting oneself to the past, sentencing its end. We need to always be investigating this conditioning to get used to purely dominating objectives to appropriation, as a way to understand until what point we were making use of something that doesnt go beyond forceful mechanisms, or if it really would take us to be upgrading the conception of individualization, forsaking us to definitely make clear the coordination for this vital structure to an explicit anti-conventional end. It looks that it is more or less through this that we should contemplate the appropriation ends, to be apt to remediate the contradiction that has always degenerated itself, to the point we couldnt see, if really there is available mechanisms to fix this situation, or if we are intrinsically apt to evaluate to determined point, the contrary of this alternative to other ways consecrate the collective, transposing the primordial conception that submitted all to the sponsorship of a superior entity, that didnt make itself clear, in a way to reflect the rash impact that may be through real terms, the definite sponsor of this advantage criterion, to be parsimoniously elaborated.

We need to think about the entire path, we drove through this lapse of time. Since the first structures we built, with the intuit to strengthen pretensions towards the existentialism. Be it the way it might have been, but since the moment one had the slightest notion ,to have been administering contact with the stigma of the idealized, subsequent union that would have itself drawn up, to mold what we call civilization, or that is, since the moment one notified the tendency to fight through the dominion to several fronts, that had been concrete with the chance to build the autonomy for a decisive combat, that transformed the situation to a distinguished episode from the one we had before, guided lined itself basically by the tradition, by the absolute and by the pure dominion, and simply didnt take time to orient itself to the more diverse appropriations, that is what matters for the investigation we need to make anyway... Now, we need to understand those first steps to this structure, that touched the meaning of violence through the intuit to make prevail a hierarchy disposing the length of human faction in its likely rigor to conquest itself, as each was in its time able to delegate to their subjected ones, setting this way a true analogy of contact that had been before enjoyed by the experience of occupations, of this or that space that molded the more diverse tendency to autarchy reflecting exactly what we see today, as I am here not to tell anything else as to what it might have been those priorities setting, that headed to ulterior delegations that postponed themselves, over the preceding ones, taking us to trail the modernist vanguard that reinvents the new, the civilization that cannot take further privilege to this hierarchy, delegated to the more subjected ones, because one cannot establish those criterions that disposed everyone through the immediate assertive to compounded cohesion to idealistic conviction, proper of the time before globalization. Then, there came to be, and we need to understand, that there was a time which it wasnt clear the divergence of the convictions, and it was established existential parameters to the material process of conquest that would be building itself, as it came to be distinguishable the evolution of this convictions through this and that tendency to valorize questions more or less appropriating, as it was turning real the dynamic of associations built along time and to bring fourth a different solution of those antecedents disadvantage, to set the drama of isolation and

individuality as answer purely regular to that precedent hierarchy from all process of conquest. Wouldnt there be the minimum of sensibility to acquainting with the disadvantage in insisting to this hierarchy prohibiting gadget to finding the obvious present solution so indifferent to postures of inflexibility, compatible with before enlaces, through simply drawing the unviable notion that was being made since primordial times, without making oneself free to realize that they are to be overcome for one and so many functional reasons? And from there on to escape to fundamentals without renewing gadgets that mount themselves as an avalanche of unpredictable situations, since the more elemental fact is that we are in a real situation, be one willing to see it or not, and that may tell that the intrinsic process of parameterization of things to come dont make any concession or would be manipulated, so this way turning the regency of things to a static ground. Everything happens today from an insipid and out of context way because we ignore the coherence of the processing conjuncture, giving shelter to nutriments without verisimilitude graduation as we appropriate ourselves of things and make a consumption of them without the minimum conciliatory gadget that would develop a prior continuity reset in future processes to come, compounding equivalent structures. And so there arent no augmenting to make always inevitable the appropriations and we cant deny the fact to be incoherent with what only make us sure to own a patrimonial thing in thesis, but that doesnt make it sound within its unreal subtlety. Now, these unrealities dose more and more, unpredictable power of cohesions that took our country and the rest of the world, in regard to this preliminary configuration that sketches the unreal traits of a virtual space that from the start wasnt taken seriously, but that threatens the well mounted autarchy present till now, being the first surprisingly more efficient and less autocratic, frightening juvenile at first, but inevitably more robust and more real than those that have now being defeated along a short lapse of time. This is exactly what always happens with the old. The new never asks for excuses and the more time one takes to see that the dynamic of this universal innovation, that certainly would have already been throwing its roots for certain time, will not retrocede, will just be giving a step towards collectivity, that sooner or later, will turn out to be the evident virtual and real choice, as the

technology doesnt show any discriminating symptom restriction, but rather collapse every structure that seemed very well funded in moral devices, restricted to formal authority. And so it seems that we are always objecting from this apparent awkward situation of the citizen relationship, needing to preserve from one side, its moral patrimony instituted by conventional patterns, still backed by the nations politics and inevitably dictated by those bigger institutions that hold us, and from another side, nobody might know or wish to, why this indifference so latent attributed to under judgmental instincts from those, that are sternly elected, so they could stand up our interest and this way we shall preserve this fundamental truth that structuralizes the nations and the world, humanity!!!... The people relation never takes a realistic vision that should point out the events to come, giving no special absolute reason to the rhetoric of the apparent dictatorship from the media (that also goes loosing its prestige to manipulate and centralize), always in service of the predictable, the polar itinerary that precompiled the civilization. We still go living and building the nations apocalyptical culture, restricted to the domain of the dichotomy, enraged on the hypothetical dawning disguise requested by the mere commercial viabilities. We are blind contributors of the structural coalitions transferred along merely personal rematches, once the parameters towards the alliances dont reach out from the superficial momentary look of dominance. Sometimes from the ones that precede the brake up of first values, and sometimes from the ones that, though engaged in usurping all the bonuses by those instituted, take the opposite side without any legitimacy. This is the culture we have been building. Based in propaganda parameters which throw conciliations, that would stand the more diverse vehicles which would fasten up the unnumbered cultures for sharing the original mark, but that foretaste no coherence anymore as the time to give sight to what was designed to civilization, comes out of time.

What we want to know though is mainly from this less explained life transition by the generations from the 80s to 2000. Or what more important aspect can we elucidate, that comes to

touch the fortuity alternative pos- posed, to touch with influence, attitudes related to options that certainly will reflect those events? Its right that those inherent aspects of the change we have been assuming a more flexible kind of being are very recent yet, bringing forth those natural kind of posture from that suspicious moment, forbidding postures that were taken as well funded and coherent. But we couldnt really see anticipating aversion to certain convictions, even those autocratic kind of, that hided away themselves in the fantasy under the mask of well being, seen by the society that aspired for communism somehow, socialism or even dissimulated capitalism, under the traditional protectionism. And this is the point we shall always come back to try to understand with accuracy such trick and measure it, and take notice of its real nature. As since we are not able to take ourselves way from paternalism commotions, that always comes out from those kind of argument, we ought always take ourselves back to those deceptive feelings those prodigal ones weave, with apparently modern nuances, or arguments that throw variations full of new sticky procedure, more and more infatuated of supposing revenges, in an eternal vicious cycle. See the insistence of the party that is called the Workers Party, in giving political asylum to confirm the pretentious suggestion of the social well being through that attitude, to a common criminal, as the Italian Cesar Baptist. Emit a trivial Habeas Corpus to a bank owner, as Daniel Dantas, immediately after his prison. Not wanting to reduce my argument to aspects linked to political parties, even though I reach out for a rhetoric that mention one and another, to illustrate important passages of the Brazilian political life , even extremely opened to external influences, still maintain a strong coherence in traces that are referred to more regional aspects, and so brings forth always latent, the obvious and health consequences that flows out from trivial events, pictorial facts that illustrate our cultural greatness. It cant be forgotten, the changes that always existed as seeds, but that were repudiated by harsh moral autocratic arguments, as slowly this kind of moral argument has been corroded, giving space to infiltrations from supposed solutions that were brought about from the Brazilian workers breast, that mildly came turning itself to punctual questions, as agrarian reform, urban facilities, and so on.

10

This objective transference is so fragile, and which ones are its real procurators? There is always a new leader, that would give continuity to aspects that were very well posted during some time, but that dont have much more meaning in the postponed period, and it is as if that party so well funded, now shows itself quite so firm, with seemingly before rejected characteristics. And then we feel as if taken to believe, that all resumes itself in mere marketing questions. That the nature of things just looks through a channel of projection to cover personal interests, without social mark, that this marketing insists in bringing in wonderful visual images only, the guarantee of a glorious social future. And the prompt battle which I refer myself to, would bring a legion of well related companions, that would wrestle and will do it for the social justice, but at the same time this great social inequality moves through in large steps. As the internet, as a vehicle capable to bring forth all the inequality symptoms, goes through a lost of focus due its great size, as if it was just a yellow page commercial catalogue , where gathers projection, only degenerating aspects, spasms of a worldly culture that substitutes the commandment of the argument, for the mere instantaneous picturesque visual impact, without any continuity. But I want to investigate the aspect that came bullying with the individual. In that imperceptible change, that brought the pretense solution of all the world problems as the mere postulation of a pop culture, that insists in transforming the structural in something for everyones reach. What could perhaps be of great effectiveness, but that brings forth a message that encourages exclusively the ability to visual aspects. As if the identity of someone was better pronounced when neglected. Maybe, the way should really take that direction, for great part of nature turns out to be without any intellectual attainment, taking the instantaneous presence as it is. Without the cult of cultural claims. But we need to understand how this would happen, or we could be just driving ourselves to immeasurable derivative aspects, where what prevails doesnt posses the edge value, cultivated till now, but apologetics nuances of spasms, that dont say anything. And then, we would have been letting go the possibility to fight with real tools, to consume ourselves in the compulsive material degradation, without any simple value that points out to the relation between individuals, such is the force of this derivation, to turn us blind and insensible. The power of marketing sounds as something favorable, but only those who

11

manipulate these inconsequent tools have the right magnitude of the nullity of its instantaneous projection, conventional, of exclusively commercial ends. Reality dist itself from those projection that would come from supposed parties or factions, as if it would retreat any aspect with fidelity. But the allegations dont let any doubt that individualization and frightening to expose oneself with more compromising convictions, is embarrassing and our culture bares oneself off with such prim allegations, away out from the real context, that delimit too palpable questions in its degrading aspect, that dont sound too well inside dominant vehicles of communication. Even if one tries to treat the subject out of bounds as cultural reflections, still this way we feel we are giving rise to the aggravation and distortions and taking no measure to evaluate properly, to which proportion takes this enthusiastic measure to treat only the conventional, as if it surely meant a coherent point of union. But it is not quite that way, one might reply and say that much more has been done as for example to save the Amazon forest, to feed the starved Africans, (when a lunatic as Maddona adopts an unprotected child and drags her to her paranoid world) in front of everyones vision that seems to take everything very smoothly and convincing (or no one really sees it with good eyes, but the media weaves glamorous artifices that take people to believe that it would be counterproductive to oppose resistance to their power). At least this is what the media sells and throws down our throat because for a good while the news has been taking itself to deformed aspects, that dont take reference to constructing graduations, but encountered support in the apologetic financing of contaminated versions of the immediate brightness , that spins immediate richness, and brings always in the anonymous, the sponsor agent of all these choices, or still seems to be the reflection of the neo-capitalism, that in some way seems to have the improbable mission to be coherent, even without any intelligence. Making cult to a blind factor of democracy, where the impersonality perpetuates itself, because no one is guilt of the distortions, but all take the inconsequent advantage, as was seen more recently in the American economy by the crash involving real state brokers, the more trivial distorted aspects to the point of no expert be able to anticipate the catastrophe, that was inclusive mended by the state that didnt seem to have been up to the crucial point, to really

12

deflagrate the question, to find themselves and fund itself through dissimulated aspects of news, that doesnt look for guilty, for not being able to blame no one, but rather has been an unraveling accomplice of the fact. It seems in fact that the neo-liberal modern capitalism influences in a more diverse way, all the modern dynamic spheres, as if it is able to resume all the human conviction in automatic aspects , that would generate inherent capacitating process one opted to, systematically, and finding the answer, as the vicious cycle of consumption leave no alternative to any way of thinking, but just the conformity with aspects, that inevitably deteriorates themselves and take us to blindly continue opting to the insensible equation, postponing the moment to be coherent, finding inside ourselves silent responses that dont dramatize our reality anymore, but rather perform an original clue that resolutely escapes off cannibals action, dissimulated through immediate pictorial mercantile news, that sells outmoded hopes, translated through popular allegories degraded by the cheap brightness of artifice.

The individualization came to signify what almost no one could figure out what should it turn, to mean the break up with the organizations prevailing once, and were presumably getting weaker in reason of the natural way of what were now their composition searching for, taping the evident gap between their demand and the new times that claims for the individual as someone attached to new possibilities. What means the discovering of the structure to be set in, as the clamor for engaging versatilities entailed to a person that is no more fighting the margins within its capabilities to compose with any other, out of the once prevailing organizations as family, state, religious group and so on. What means that the values that used to hold their stability broke off in fact from communication turning too fast. Now things have to find a proposition that is really going to build something new. Without no demand to count on old values that were built with local possibilities to fill the urgency of first difficulties. Should we still mention after and after

13

the lost of vigor of times, as something without remedy, or should we see the adjustments to be made? Everyone claims of the loneliness atypical aspects of today. But the bridges to be built have not been taken with accuracy, maturing the real possibilities to find out what everything has been turning out to be instead. If everything seems broken and lost, we should scatter the reasons within it all, and see that what really happened, was natural and could not take humanity further than it took till now. The protection the organizations prevailed to their components was from another angle an invitation to stay closed to others that were presumably out of sight, without much criterion. For that reason it has been built the incompatibilities without a more and more regretting factor. What to wait from that kind of behavior that seems to get worse and worse if the organizations start to fight themselves from within, since the structure isnt really corresponding with time, but acting as something that needs to survive, no matter what tools will be used to a blind end? The individual brings himself to a situation that conjectures the findings and capabilities involved in that question, much more crude than before this incremental condition he now finds himself in, since the chance to see it working good has to be real. No more reminiscent coalition stays aside bringing its unconditional support, and the individual will have, from now on, to discern very well what he really means, for the displeasure to see himself instead in conflict with unhopeful answers. The individual will now be exactly trying to find an end to go. Since everything before was mixed up in a goal to reach a without matured reality that we reach now. The formal condition to go after concealed enacting chances to fulfill, before we arrived in the urgency to tie their ends very prominently. What to wait from our judgments since we start to find ourselves victim of the system we have been building, to be considering the natural tendency democracy has been entailed to, which means a tendency of relevance but that doesnt exactly fill up the gape between what an accurate vision would have as an intelligent expedient? What I want to say is about the natural accord to meet expectations of everyone in relation to what the power of one and another would have the direction to build a stronger society to. But it turned out to be presumably a strict fashion, delivered to commercial ends.

14

It came to signify the super consumption as the only way to meet that degree, of dignifying ones existence. Is that really benefiting the life of the planet and at last, the life of each citizen? Or are we committed to meet commercial expectations because the media was strong enough to build, till now that coalition, and it seems that we dont still touched a measure that put it in its place, the height their clamor should reach, so we could, everyone get an original grasp of what should be a stronger society. The question comes to be crucial when we touch the aspect without any perspective to stop that prompt mechanism of consumption, while the garbage comes covering all the territory that was once practically untouched and preserved. We cant close our eyes to the ferocity of the mechanical act, to be just filling quite primal instincts and giving assertion to it, because there is not a away to think of not doing it when that, is really where automatism drives to. Even democracy have been made to mach its structure, when all thoughts are driven to meet automatically everyones plain degree of satisfaction, presumably possessing farcical material gadgets to employ indefinitely Is it really making any difference to buy things in a continuous act, to solve one and another problem that we take, as the inaccessibility to what matters dwindles away, for not taking the advice of values somehow turned to imbecile gadgets? Could we still take a moment to sense, for a lapse of time, the natural balance we have been born with, to take the right measurement of situations, trying to grasp better results? Or are we mechanically been driven by the imbecility of the instinct? If so, and it seems that we are, we should open our eyes before it might be too latebecause the exponentially greatness of this explosion fact, is a great train in high speed that will have to be stopped somehow. Our natural way to considerate the well disposed conduct of one towards the other has been illegitimated by all kinds of torture prevailing the once original stigma to arrogance, acting as the mechanical reflection of the kind to force always the maturation to strict rules, made by the constituted power, which is reduced to linear considerations nailed to accomplishments focused in retrospective enacting over and over the cruelty of the time to come still towards the stigmaliberty! Isnt the opposite, the trial to come up ineffably unexposed to controversial considerations once failing to reach to incomprehensible feelings to come without time?

15