The substantial impetus for me comes from Bruno Ceccobelli. The title of his talk (January 2024 in Arts Life) was “When Art Becomes Idolatry.” A methodological fragment that I do not hesitate to define as essential, in its spirituality and its anthropology, because it redefines many criteria that have become automatic in the history and historiography of our advanced modernity. And by this, I mean the entire human experience which, to the extent that it arouses interest and affection, becomes our “close,” contemporary experience and not a definition of a modernity closer to us, which I judge disconnected and anti-cultural, but within the structure of elective affinity. The story of art, understood as the inner and outer specular quality of *sapiens*, is linked to the human need to collaborate in creation, with its capacity to awaken the imagination, which is called invention.
Not creation, because creation is the mode which occurs ex nihilo, which can belong to the one who named light and transparency, to a supreme entity, which does not exist, but allows us to exist, seeing now through a glass, darkly; but then...face to face. He creates, we invent.
In the discovery of mnemonic synthesisation, in today’s world, which is becoming memorable (to borrow a metaphor from Borges), of all of history and all of prehistory, from the light of the Dubai skyscrapers to the barely scratched darkness of ancient caves.
The implicit dialectic is that of icon and idol, identifying in the former the ascensionality of the symbol, the search for the unknown, and the monology of knowledge, while relegating to the latter the occultistic superstition of illusory matter in its ontological diabolism.
Where icon is the life of life, idol is death in death.
The human courses and recursions, which are not a raving of Gian Battista Vico, nor is the Hellenity of eternal return, and the monotony of the annular and annual, but one of the faces of Heraclitus' perpetual flow, belong to a human spirality, the one studied by Bergson, not repudiated by the Brahmanical wisdom of the Vedas and the wisdom of the Buddha, postulate a structural concavity and convexity of our waking and our dreams, as taught (in a present that never became past or bygone) by the Corpus Hermeticum of Hermes Trismegistus, suggestively embodied in the scientific writings of Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Robert Oppenheimer. As if to say that alpha and omega touch, or like Borges' two theologians (Aurelian and John of Pannonia) who, in the mind of the Supreme, are one and the same; that alpha and omega, distinct in our minds, which can think of the eternal and the infinite and even unity, the unicum, cannot imagine them, because we are divine, yes, but only a part of the whole, which transcends us: one day we will be amazed and then we will understand; but we will no longer be, I, you, we, you, but post-individuals in the whole. Totus expellet partem. Because, dear Bruno, truth and freedom are not sisters. It would be madness to ask for freedom within truth. But for us, freedom is the only way to pursue truth, our horizon. Nunc et semper.!!!
KLESSIDRA | EDITED BY FRANCESCO GALLO MAZZEO
Italiano 
English (UK)