Vba Hamachi Pokemon Network

THE DEATH OF A Pythia

MO 'OF INTRODUCTION AND WARNING

Despite its insignificant size (only about sixty small pages) Durrenmatt's story is very dense and especially complex; develops as an alternative version of the Sophocles tragedy known to do that here of course: the King of Thebes, Laius learns from an oracle that will be killed by his son who will be born. When Jocasta his wife gives birth to a baby does expose the king on the mountain with hollow heels (hence the name Oedipus). But the minister in charge of exposing the child escapes this fate, and delivered to Polybius king of Corinth. The boy becomes an adult, but one day one of his own age insults him by questioning his origins. Oedipus goes to Delphi and received the terrible prophecy: kill your father and you'll join with your mother. Thinking to escape his destiny to leave Corinth and met Laius by chance and kills him. He goes to Thebes, he won the Sphinx and becomes king marrying Jocasta (his mother): the oracle is fulfilled. A plague strikes Thebes. Oedipus initiate an investigation to know the will of the god, and eventually discovers that the plague is the consequence of his guilt: Jocasta kills herself and Oedipus blinds start walking like a beggar. The city is disputed by the two sons of Oedipus (Eteocles and Polynices) who kill each other and Creon, Jocasta's brother, ascends the throne. It follows the story of Antigone. I chose to reconstruct in detail the various scenes and this may complicate the exposure, I apologize.
actually Durrenmatt's story is not another version of the Oedipus myth. If mytos story originally means the death of the Pythia is the negation of the possibility of a story, ie the narration of a shared reality, which is shattered but in many one o'clock versions incompatible with each other. The first thing that stands out is actually the lack of a common logos that can be communicated and meaningful. The first outcome of this process is at first sight entirely negative. What is broken, however, is not only the human vision of reality, but reality itself, because if it is true that man has inhabited the world, but the representation of reality that has built (ie the culture with which he developed and mediated its relationship with the world), then the fracture of the ability to build relationships with the discursive process and share such experiences involves the nientificazione the world, ie its reduction a pure contingency. That is something that exists without reason or cause was necessary, in coincidence, exactly.
and here again we are witnessing a paradoxical reversal: the chains of actions and intentions that are narrated by different characters (Menoeceus, Laius, Oedipus, Teiresias, Jocasta and the Sphinx as well as Fr = 6 and myself of course) and that we should consider causal chain of events that follow is instead an indecipherable mess in which we can not orient. The world is more chaotic than ever, and the more one tries to take his order (see Tiresias) as the chaos increases. The misfortunes of Oedipus are therefore without cause, because every causal explanation is contradicted and set aside.
unlike the event that at first glance it appeared randomly and absolutely free (despite the oracle P.) is instead the only permanent and consistent in all possible variations, and therefore the only non-random, need to take place what is happening (but what actually happens?) what is random here becomes necessary and what is presented as a revelation of the chain of events that determines the necessary connections, it sinks in the contingency perspective of the autistic subjects in isolation, victims a theoretical hallucination in which they believe they see the truth, but they are prisoners in the maze of their private vision and partial of things.
And here is another possible outcome, less depressing than the first. We could say, in fact, that the question that lies at the heart of the death of P. is not whether or not there is a common logos, but whether or not there is a unique logos. If there is a library that is mentioned in the introduction to Derrida Lecture et la difference, that is the library containing all possible stories and all the destinations (and even then the opinion of P. was already written) and this library is the mind God's words, this library does not exist, then there is no thread that allows us to reconstruct the map of our maze and there are even those who own, rather there are only masks because it touches only a part in comedy). In this perspective, the stories just "happen", their size is only contingency. It is doubtful that this result is necessarily hopeless, although it can be read as the condition and the condition of a real foundation of freedom, which is such only if there is an inescapable fate. In this sense no longer paradoxical that the foundation of the misfortunes of Oedipus and the freedom and destiny, that Oedipus wants to stick instead. And 'This is the ambiguity of our age. The story



Durrenmatt's story begins with P. which irritated the nonsense of his own oracles and the naive credulity of the Greeks, and in a bad mood invented out of whole cloth an oracle to annoy the prince of Corinth, Oedipus, who came to Delphi, limping, to know who they were really his parents. The young man goes with the air of one who has been announced really a disgrace (he's a sucker, P. and think maybe I really do something stupid?).
years pass, P. is increasingly intolerant of the old circus pop and Delphi is also where she belongs. At some point the high priest who oversees the circus Merops Delphi asks her to lend to the request of Tiresias, the seer: to prophesy to his client (Creon of Thebes) that the plague that afflicts the city will not stop until you find the person responsible for the assassination of the former King Laius. The current king is a certain Oedipus, of which P. can not remember at all. The P. accepts.
pause for a moment to compare the story of D. with the story told by Sophocles: the oracle does not reveal a divine truth, but is the result of anger and whim. Nevertheless true. Even so, the change appears intriguing: the divine seems to desert the world, which has not lost its character for this mysterious, arcane, if anything, is characterized by grotesque tones: these are the vagaries of an old hacking that make the tragic fate of the men , which is removed in this way also the size of pain caused by the texture of dark wishes transcendent, human suffering becomes a meaningless event, by chance, deprived of dignity and greatness which gives it the tragedy of Sophocles being inscribed in a necessary order and implacable, a superhuman order leaving no escape.
And yet, perhaps it is too early to draw conclusions, not only because the story is just beginning, but also because the characters of P. that D. we have from the beginning has some strange aspects, ambiguous, I would say in his religious skepticism, in fact, P. Delphi is paradoxically true to the motto: "Know thyself, she knows exactly who it is: were told that a mob fools who believe in the existence of a truth remote, which can be obtained without effort, thanks to the oracular revelation. By E. But will the tiredness or moodiness as she says, she does not play the usual game of misleading ambiguous sentences that say everything and its opposite. No, try it with the error and horror of unbearable truth: kill your father and you'll join your mother. These words are the scandal (in its etymology the stumbling) that the lame man by definition is forced to overcome to become the world traveler (so a little 'god a bit' philosopher) in search of himself or, which is the same, escape from himself unbearable. So the P. truth will set in motion a movement which, paradoxically (but not much) and unwittingly created skepticism.
But let us proceed with the story.

A) Pass some time and Oedipus, accompanied by his daughter Antigone, presents to the EP relates to P. the events that followed his oracle in the familiar version of Sof. At the end of the narrative P. laughs. But then: "How was suddenly burst out laughing, so suddenly the P. fell silent when it occurred to her that not everything that had happened could be considered the result of chance. "
Here is the doubt creep in her: how can an oracle invented out of boredom and annoyance may have come true so relentless inserting in a manner consistent with a pattern of events, completely unknown to the Father and of itself is already so unlikely?
P. want to understand, has the mettle of cop tales of D. He began his empirical investigation - of course rejects the explanation of God, the plot of a superhuman entity tissue fate - and discovered in the archives of the temple of Delphi, the first track of the oracle that Laius informed that his son would kill him. Even this oracle was actually the idea of \u200b\u200bTiresias. So he thought he had discovered the secret to his oracle Oedipus was part of a plot of which he was the inventor Tiresias which aimed to encourage succession to the throne of Thebes by Creon for if Laius had not taken the throne would pass to the sons-in-law Creon, the second prediction of T. had the same aim: to discover the murderer of Laius (E.) meant to leave the throne to Creon.

B) at this point P. feels close to death. Starting appearances. The first appearance is Menoeceus "" a face dark and grim, black hair, low forehead, expressionless eyes, sallow complexion. ") Is the father of Jocasta and Creon. A farmer urbanized become builder and contractor of public works (notably the fortress of Cadmus that Laius is building). It belongs to the dragon race of men (the men killed fate of the dragon's teeth by Cadmus. Just popped from the ground armed at all points, are induced by Cadmus to slaughter one another, there are only five Cadmus who will support the building of the city). In Menoeceus grandfather is one of them (Udeo). Note: Cadmus is also prompted by the oracle of Delphi to abandon the search for his sister Europe to found Thebes). Menoeceus despises Laius and aspires to the throne of Thebes for himself or for his son, Creon. But Creon is blindly loyal to the brother in law. So when M. meets T. designs, at the instigation of Tiresias a plan to have, by P., an oracle to L. with which it is daunting: If you have a son, will kill you. Childless the kingdom would pass to Creon. M. pays 50 thousand talents to Tiresias for his complicity. So behind all there would be a sordid ambition and intrigue based on the desire for power of a petty and jealous man.

C) disappears M. and Mr. Laio (haughty and regal figure), which includes P. that it had immediately understood that the principal of the oracle of T. (Those who are announcing the death at the hands of his son) was M. because he had paid with his own money: taking advantage of one of the many epidemics of plague obtains an oracle of Delphi in which it is said that the epidemic would cease only if one of the sons of the dragon had been sacrificed for the good of the city. M. is the only survivor of that race and therefore has no choice but to jump from the walls (and do not weigh too much either, because the 50 000 T-given talents for the oracle they did fail). Even knowing that the oracle is the result of a hoax, L. But when he begins to fear really comes to the Father confesses EL they prefer to recruit young women and have always avoided the bed of G. who married just out of interest, in order to win the sympathies of the people (here is another politician who plays to win the masses and miscalculated) but can not completely exclude the possibility that E. is really his son, conceived perhaps in a moment of drunkenness. So it does expose. At this point we are faced with a further version of the same facts, but still compatible with that of M. it is still conscious means, even conflicting, as we shall see - false, as is the curious way in which this has consistently placed the oracle of all invented by P. which has become the essential building block of a plot produced by human wills in conflict. As we shall see later, the trend of history can not remember the investigation into the death of a samurai told by AK in the film Rashomon. Here too, every witness / protagonist tells a different truth but possible, and here too there are innocent, all are guilty, but it is not the objective guilt of Greek tragedy, or at the base of the tragedy there is an aporia unsurpassed things at this point in the story's tragic events are the result of a set of human wills, living with the arrogance typical of the Hybris blame those who do not know their limit, and therefore contravenes the Delphic motto, in the struggle between them. Nevertheless, this story, which is enriched with details not present in Sophocles could not be what it actually was without the intervention of unpredictable (one might say fatal) of P. that says to play something that is essential to the result. Indeed, as discussed below T., "you Pannychis (the name of Pythias) vaticinasti with imagination, caprice, arrogance, even insolently disrespectful, in short: with wit blasphemous. But I commissionai my oracles with cold determination, with impeccable logic, in short with rationality. Well I must admit that your Oracle has a center. If I were a mathematician I could tell you exactly what it was unlikely your oracle (me and my reason I put in motion a chain of causes and effects which have led to a result exactly opposite to what I had in mind. "The" small square right, "as Nietzsche calls it, is once again sinking (note that that is one reason male officer, less on instinct and imagination of the feminine represented by Pythian humoral).
But in this horizon human, too human might say, the truth remains however unattainable. Not only because, and we shall see later, none of the characters telling the whole truth, or rather, each says the truth. All you have to P. with the mask he wore in the drama, and indeed are forced to take different depending on the version given by the witness of the day. So the world is reduced to the perspective view of the speaker. While it is inscribed in the horizon size of the tragedy of human passions - and therefore theoretically more transparent than all'enigmaticità typical of the divine, this is not to solve the mystery of reality, which remains incomprehensible, even, and perhaps even more, after confessions of witnesses actors (just as in Rashomon). But beyond that there is something else that is completely dark, and this something we could call it an oxymoron, the necessity of the case, namely the function of order that each plays a role in the operation of the absurd and unintended P.

D) shows E. In the young see him as he was when he came to ask the oracle, P. immediately clear that he knew not to be the son of Merope and Polybius (the rulers of Corinth). In fact, E. said to have always known (even the pastor had told him that saved him). E. so do not ask to Apollo (Delphi) what they already know. But he wants to "flush out the god from his hiding place." E. What does it mean? we will see shortly.
The Oracle (kill your father and marry your mother) was atrocious, E. confesses, but does not hesitate to use them to investigate the reality, applying to it the deductive ogy: when will that happen to kill someone that is his father. So when he meets L., who does not know, and kills him, he realizes that that is his father. E. use logic, but in this case ... 8anche logic appears flawed and not influenced by other passions). But Laius is not the only one E. killed that day, because it really kills (before you even finish L.) the officer accompanying Laius. He's not even remember the name. Yet, according to its own logic, it could have been him and not the old, his father. Error unconscious? Remove (most do not even know what was the name his other victims!) In short, even in this version, I believe, E. remains firmly on the psychoanalyst's couch! Especially since
E. also admits that the basis of his action is the hatred of their parents, who had tried to thrown to wild beasts. After killing L. decided to become king of Thebes to avenge his mother Jocasta also. Through this, however, E. wants more than anything else, revenge of the gods who are the real culprits of all: "the gods had decreed that monstrosity monstrosity and hence the had to be done. "E. believe in the gods (and particularly in Apollo). In fact it is devoted to their will, even when it shows its face fierce and inhuman. That's why I went to dig out Apollo. Unlike M. and L., it has its own project, but only wants to support, with the fury of fate that he had to, he wants to drink to the dregs the cup of suffering to which there is no escape. Man of destiny, E. is without its own will, or rather, his will was inflexible to fulfill his destiny. Indeed, without this desire which transcends and gives direction to his life, finds no peace (just goes to dig out Apollo). His glory is this cupio dissolve (The death of his parents and his misfortune by which he takes revenge for life and who is guilty of having transmitted the disease, the infector that attacked the plague that is life itself: "the gods I had given us the greatest privilege that the human mind can conceive, the sublime freedom to hate those who have given birth, parents, and then the ancestors who in turn have led to the parents, and higher still, the gods who generated the ancestors and parents, and if blind beggar, go wandering astray in Greece, is not to magnify the power of the gods, but to scorn. "
So the only freedom from the inexorable chain of pain that is life, is to expose the cruel face, supporting his terrible need. E. So he hates his life and knows he can not escape it: so wallow in mud to his mock version of every pious and consolatory. His face takes on the traits of patibolari sentenced to death who insults and provokes its Executioner in order to make more and more cruel tortures and its obscene spectacle of his death.
MA (and it is a minor but not to) 1) E. know that the oracle of P. it was just a game and not the will of Phoebus, how should we interpret this situation? Perhaps for E. It makes no difference because there is no truly free place, but all that happens is inscribed in an inexorable chain that includes subjectively what would be purely arbitrary? Or E. knows that the same Pythia ignores, namely, that in reality his mouth has really delivered the oracle of God? 2) unconsciously (?) E. misses its target (the second version of Jocasta and the Sphinx that we will see in a moment) is not his father Laius and Jocasta is not even his mother. Yet even with this error subjective his destiny is fulfilled the same. And if his hatred and revenge are directed towards imaginary objects (Laius pierces with taste and has angrily in coupling with his mother Jocasta, "planted the four children in the womb ... and every time I mounted my mother my hatred (for the gods) became bigger, "yet he really does those actions with his true parents. Oedipus
therefore continues to suffer from the Oedipus complex: its relationship with the parents (whether L. and G. ol'ufficiale guard and the Sphinx) and with the (enhanced image of the parents) continues to be ambivalent: they so attract with the strength of their power imperative that we must fulfill in his ferocious cruelty (typical sadomasochistic position against the power at the same time as a source of strength that punishes and protects, as claimed Fromm Escape from Freedom) and hatred for their insensitivity (g Laius and abandoned him, as he had a life to Febo senseless pain).
At this stage, P. increasingly appears as a helpless witness, a poor single woman is upset, resentful and idealistic. If she lived in another era would be a perfect witch to burn!
E) shows the shadow of Jocasta. She also knows everything (even prior to the wedding with E. sensed that this was his son). He says E. was naive because he thought that it avoided the decree of the gods (so Jocasta is actually innocent because he cheated E.). But said he did not know who he was, nor that L. his father was) and how it could, since he was a homosexual? - Yet another version about L. -. then we will know that even had been castrated (forse!) Jocasta says that the real father of E. is Mnesippo (after Laio, Polito, the officer, the fourth for the poor father E.!). Mnesippo also was killed by E. (Needless to say) because they wanted to prevent him from entering the bed of Jocasta - Oedipus plastically patricide!)
Jocasta is excited, bursting with delight to the union with E. She loves her son and is convinced that the son loves him (poor woman! E. hates it). He is also pleased to have been hanged - reveals that it is not the true version of his suicide - because then he has fulfilled the divine decree. At this point Pythian goes on a rampage and insulting G. "bastard! Quell'oracolo you know that everything is a scam invented by me from scratch. " Can not stand the deception to continue, which brazenly continue to use his miserable game to justify the most shameless lies.

F) at this point Tiresias enters. He too is dying and wants to make the transition to Hades with P. She realizes that he is not blind seer Tiresias says the only thing that makes this bearable is the ignorance of the future, and instead people are simply trying to find out. Here is a complete reversal of the relationship with the knowledge of greek. Giorgio Colli writes in The Birth of Philosophy, "Delphi was a picture unifying, an abbreviation of Greece itself "because it indicates that" knowledge was, for the Greeks, the ultimate value of life. Other people knew, extolled the value of divination, but no people (like the Greeks) the rose as a symbol decisive "(p. 16). Here, however, T. considers knowledge a bad thing absurd then confirm the account of Menoeceus. But with a twist: Tiresias has indeed packed to the oracle Laius (the one that warned him of a parricide son, Laius, however, that he could never have) because he wanted to Creon misfortune and prevent his succession to the throne. That is the exact opposite of what he wanted the poor Menoeceus. Why? Why T. is a rationalist democratic (an Enlightenment, we might say) aware of the decline of tradition, wants to avoid the dictatorship of Creon: Creon is true that I grant you, (...) but you do not forget that there is no dictatorship without fidelity, Loyalty is the solid rock on which stands the totalitarian state. " With the oracle
T. wants to induce L. Amphitryon to take (a general capable and lovable). As king maker T. is a landslide, because Laius behaves quite differently. At this point T. tells the P. the true story of the Sphinx, a woman beautiful daughter of Laius (just him) and Hippodamia. She was the wife of Pelops, who in revenge Laius castrates him! It consecrates the daughter Hippodamia to Hermes. Sphinx held, however, because the father and the city under its threat Tiresias does not know. At this point
P. and T. begin to reflect: the story of the Sphinx is irrelevant supports P. but T. reply "there are no stories irrelevant. Everything is connected to everything everywhere, this changes something the change relates to everything. " The reality is therefore a kaleidoscope where every action affects everything else and there is nothing accidental. Tiresias also explains why the second oracle: if Creon had known that E. had killed his father and married his mother and became king of Thebes, was banished E. from the throne and would have established a totalitarian regime on the model Spartan (which shows that T is only guaranteed freedom from some degree of vice, because perfection (that of Creon) generates oppression and dictatorship. Today things are different and perhaps an authoritarian regime may be better to conceive ' shadow of complicity in vice and mediocrity. Or not? The fact is that this time T fails, because, he said, had concealed the fact that G. had been right to kill E. Laius.
The sad conclusion of Tiresias "Now Creon is building his totalitarian state. What I wanted to avoid happened." Here is another in order to avoid a dreaded event ends in the mouth and contributes to its realization. On the other hand - and surprised that T. who started cursing and said the knowledge that reality is subject to infinite variation of ratios that change constantly becoming not they were taken into account - the reality is so complex, it is an equation with infinite unknowns, that is an illusion to be able to master and direct at will. Just something everyone knows, and his every action - by definition blind, at least in part - change the picture, which can never be reconstructed, even (or perhaps especially) after the event. In this sense, T. there greek reappears much of what he himself wanted to look at first, when denigrated knowledge, because he shows the same confidence frantic building of human capacity in a different fate. Which characterized the Greeks, in spite of the powerful concept of fate that took.

G) appears at this point, the Sphinx, or rather, the lions appear to devour and discard (its members reunite with the transparent tunic that covers and discovers the beautiful body). The punishment is designed to reproduce in this eternal and the Sphinx of Durrenmatt recalls the story of Nastagio degli Onesti's Decameron)
The Sf. reveals that Laius was not what they seem and that T. thought: he was an evil tyrant and superstitious, "but his tyranny was bearable because it was inspired by ideals of justice. (P.53) Laius was happy to be a despot, but did not accept that ended with him being emasculated the race of Cadmus. One day he raped the Sphinx from its officer (it polyphonic ringing and so we know the name of yet another Oedipus' father) during the same period G. gave birth to a child of the other soldier, Mnesippo. Obviously Sf. ignoring the stupid oracle T. he asked. Laius so think of getting rid of both children. One day Sf. we see that the door to get a pastor's son G. and Mnesippo with hollow heels (we call it Oedipus 1) with orders to do so eaten up by lions Laius and his son Sf. and Polifonte. But Jocasta had bribed the minister to hand over her child because to Polybus, taking care not to reveal his source. With a ploy Sf. manages to steal the secret to the shepherd, and then throws an Oedipus the beasts, then stabs his heels to his son and handed him over to the shepherd. So the son of Sf. and polyphony becomes Oedipus (2). Laio suspected but can not extort a confession to the lions because the defending Sphinx. When Oedipus encounters Laius kills 2 in fact his father (the officer Polifonte) and grandfather (Laius). Oedipal crime to the power you might say. Then, came to Thebes, solve the riddle of the Sphinx, but instead she becomes his lover to kill her, thus fulfilling the prophecy of poor Father, who with his joke did not escape into any of contradictory versions. In each of them realized what she had prophesied of spite.
This concludes the theory of apparitions. And before you finish reading the speech with which T. concludes the narrative proposing the enigmatic character of the world and the ambiguities of human efforts to interpret it, but I would put forward a hypothesis that perhaps the same is unknown alo Durrenmatt. My guess is that there is a final character that never appeared in the foreground, but according to the Greek sensibility - in this sense therefore not Durrenmatt - is the true creator of everything: he is the bright Apollo. We started from the statement, the only one ever questioned, that P. had prophesied a whim. But are we sure this is? In the traditional representation of the prophetic nature of Apollo in Delphi and there are some clues that could put us on another path. Heraclitus, in fact, says Phoebus: the Sibyl with the God says through the mouth crazy things without rice, or ornament, or ointment. "And the madness (mania described by Plato in Phaedrus) the condition which makes possible the prophetic oracle. And who tells us that the madcap P. was not possessed by their god when, taken from that mood, the fancy that he jumped? In another passage of the Timaeus Plato writes: there is a sufficient sign that God has given to divination human insanity: in fact no one who is master of his thoughts reach a divinely inspired by God and truthful. "It is no coincidence, perhaps, that only in the agony of death, of life when the disease reaches its peak, the P. can have a complete picture of the absurdity of reality. Why Apollo would, however, hide his action and would instead act on the direct distance, exploiting the vices and human presumptions? This is explained by the nature of Phoebus, which is often described as "one who acts from a distance. "The attribute of God, the Asian arm span, alludes to an indirect action, mediated delayed. Here you touch the face of cruelty (...) the destruction, violence is typical of deferred Apollo. No coincidence that the etymology of the name has that effect on dl derives from the verb apollumi (απολλύμι), which means precisely destroy. Apollo can be seen as a destroyer, exterminator, who destroys it completely. In fact, we might say, the story ends with these words: "the Pythia did not answer all of a sudden there was more, and Tiresias had disappeared and with it the leaden morning due on Delphi, which also had shipwrecked. "A show of mass destruction, therefore, worthy of Apollo the destroyer.
In a passage of Pindar's prophetic words are compared to the arrows of Apollo his bow that it turns against the human world "through the fabric of words and thoughts." (Packages) Apollo is a god ambiguous as its symbol, which has the same name in greek life sound of the name. Bios and bios are at the same time the life and death, life and the arc that causes death. In this sense, Apollo is not that the metaphor of the dual nature of living that is a force that generates drunk destroying and creating destructive. The very well known fragment of Anaximander confirms it: "where beings have their origin, there have also destroyed as needed" then here is what God tells us is that life is thrown into the labyrinth in which we, as Plato says nell'Eutidemo. On this chaos, a man struggling to find the thread of meaning, to build islands of order in the sea of \u200b\u200bentropy rampant. In this effort to make sense of the riddle, to bring order out of chaos, rationality reigns only in the case, man will always be defeated. Indeed his own efforts will raise the pedestal upon which the cunning of life and destiny, to paraphrase Hegel. But this is their only option and dignity, like the blind navigate in the dark with their very human Metron. This, too, in fact, says Apollo when he shows his good side, when that does not speak with words indistinct, "but with precepts as 'nothing too much' or 'know thyself'. The god man mentions that the sphere of God is boundless, unfathomable, capricious, crazy no need, arrogant, but the manifestation of it in the human sphere sounds like an imperious rule of moderation, limit control, the reasonableness of needs. "