Foreign Affairs: What Heidegger Was Hiding, by Gregory Fried

What Heidegger Was Hiding

What Heidegger Was Hiding
Unearthing the Philosopher’s Anti-Semitism
By Gregory Fried

Scholars have long known that Martin Heidegger was a Nazi, but many doubted that his philosophy had anything to do with Hitler’s ideology. Now Peter Trawny, drawing on Heidegger’s hidden notebooks, argues that the philosopher’s anti-Semitism was deeply entwined with his

Heidegger und der Mythos der jüdischen Weltverschwörung (Heidegger and the Myth of the Jewish World Conspiracy). BY PETER TRAWNY. Klostermann, 2014, 124 pp. €15.80.

The German philosopher Martin Heidegger died in 1976, yet scholars are still plowing through his life’s work today — some of it for the very first time. Indeed, few modern thinkers have been as productive: once published in their entirety, his complete works will comprise over 100 volumes. Fewer still have rivaled his reach: Heidegger deeply influenced some of the twentieth century’s most important philosophers, among them Leo Strauss, Jean-Paul Sartre, Hannah Arendt, and Jacques Derrida. And although Heidegger’s work is most firmly entrenched in the Western tradition, his readership is global, with serious followings in Latin America, China, Japan, and even Iran.

But Heidegger’s legacy also bears a dark stain, one that his influence has never quite managed to wash out. Heidegger joined the Nazi Party in the spring of 1933, ran the University of Freiburg on behalf of the regime, and gave impassioned speeches in support of Adolf Hitler at key moments, including during the plebiscites in the fall of 1933, which solidified popular support for Nazi policies.

Nevertheless, Heidegger managed to emerge from World War II with his reputation mostly intact. The Allies’ denazification program, which aimed to rid German society of Nazi ideology, targeted regime supporters just like him. Freiburg came under French control, and the new authorities there forced Heidegger into retirement and forbade him from teaching. But in 1950, the now-independent university revoked the ban. This resulted in large part from Heidegger’s outreach campaign to French intellectuals with anti-Nazi credentials, including Sartre and the resistance fighter Jean Beaufret. In short order, Heidegger won over a wide following in France. Once his international reputation was secure, the university gave him emeritus status and allowed him to resume teaching.

To his new champions, Heidegger portrayed himself as the typical unworldly philosopher, claiming that he had joined the Nazi Party and accepted Freiburg’s rectorate primarily to defend higher education from the worst excesses of the regime. He insisted that he had quickly realized his mistake, which led him to resign as rector less than a year into his term and start including veiled critiques of the Nazis in his subsequent lectures and writings.

Among European and American intellectuals friendly to Heidegger, this exculpatory narrative quickly became the conventional wisdom. If the philosopher had betrayed a touch of anti-Semitism, the logic went, it was only of the kind that had been ubiquitous in Germany (and most of Europe) before the war: a conservative, cultural reflex that was nothing like Hitler’s viciously ideological racism. Moreover, Heidegger had many Jewish students, one of whom, Arendt, was also his lover. After the war and long after their passions had waned, Arendt resumed contact with Heidegger and helped get his work translated into English. Would an inveterate opponent of the Nazis really have assisted an unrepentant anti-Semite? Not everyone was convinced of Heidegger’s innocence, but his defenders worked hard to protect the philosophical work from its author’s scandal. And until recently, the strategy largely worked.

The official story began to wear thin in the 1980s, however, when two scholars, Hugo Ott and Victor Farías, using newly uncovered documents, each challenged Heidegger’s claim that his brush with Nazism had been a form of reluctant accommodation. More recently, in 2005, the French philosopher Emmanuel Faye drew on newly discovered seminar transcripts from the Nazi period to argue that Heidegger’s thinking was inherently fascist even before Hitler’s rise to power. Faye accused the French Heideggerians of having orchestrated a cover-up of Heidegger’s political extremism and advocated banishing Heidegger’s work from the field of philosophy; no one, Faye said, should associate the greatest barbarism of the twentieth century with the West’s most exalted tradition of reason and enlightenment. In response, Heidegger’s defenders labeled Faye’s textual interpretations tendentious and resorted to a variation on Heidegger’s old argument: that he had quickly grasped his error and realized that Nazism was nothing more than hubristic nihilism. Still, it was hard to explain away the depth of commitment that Faye had uncovered.

Now, Peter Trawny, the director of the Martin Heidegger Institute at the University of Wuppertal, in Germany, has waded into this long-running controversy with a short but incisive new book, recently published in German. Trawny’s meticulous and sober work introduces an entirely new set of sources: a collection of black notebooks in which Heidegger regularly jotted down his thoughts, a practice he began in the early 1930s and continued into the 1970s. Trawny, who is also the editor of the published notebooks, calls them “fully developed philosophical writings.” That’s a bit strong for a collection of notes, but Heidegger clearly intended them to serve as the capstone to his published works, and they contain his unexpurgated reflections on this key period. Shortly before his death, Heidegger wrote up a schedule stipulating that the notebooks be published only after all his other writings were. That condition having been met, Trawny has so far released three volumes (totaling roughly 1,200 pages), with five more planned.

Trawny’s new book caused a sensation among Heidegger scholars even before it appeared in print, in large part because several inflammatory passages quoted from the notebooks, previously unpublished and containing clearly anti-Semitic content, were leaked from the page proofs. But with the book now released, Trawny’s novel line of analysis is creating its own stir. Drawing on the new material, Trawny makes two related arguments: first, that Heidegger’s anti-Semitism was deeply entwined with his philosophical ideas and, second, that it was distinct from that of the Nazis. Trawny deals with the notebooks that Heidegger composed in 1931–41, which include the years after he resigned as rector of the University of Freiburg, in 1934. As the notebooks make clear, Heidegger was far from an unthinking Nazi sympathizer. Rather, he was deeply committed to his own philosophical form of anti-Semitism — one he felt the Nazis failed to live up to.

BEING MARTIN HEIDEGGER

It is hard to exaggerate just how ambitious Heidegger was in publishing his breakout work, Being and Time, in 1927. In that book, he sought nothing less than a redefinition of what it meant to be human, which amounted to declaring war on the entire philosophical tradition that preceded him. Western thought, Heidegger argued, had taken a wrong turn beginning with Plato, who had located the meaning of being in the timeless, unchanging realm of ideas. In Plato’s view, the world as humans knew it was like a cave; its human inhabitants could perceive only the shadows of true ideals that lay beyond. Plato was thus responsible for liberalism in the broadest sense: the notion that transcendent, eternal norms gave meaning to the mutable realm of human affairs. Today, modern liberals call those rules universal values, natural laws, or human rights.

But for Heidegger, there was no transcendence and no Platonic God — no escape, in effect, from the cave. Meaning lay not in serving abstract ideals but in confronting one’s place within the cave itself: in how individuals and peoples inhabited their finite existence through time. Heidegger’s conception of human being required belonging to a specific, shared historical context or national identity. Platonic universalism undermined such collective forms of contingent, historical identity. In the eyes of a transcendent God or natural law, all people — whether Germans, Russians, or Jews — were essentially the same. As Heidegger put it in a 1933 lecture at Freiburg: “If one interprets [Plato’s] ideas as representations and thoughts that contain a value, a norm, a law, a rule, such that ideas then become conceived of as norms, then the one subject to these norms is the human being — not the historical human being, but rather the human being in general.” It was against this rootless, “general” conception of humanity, Heidegger told his students, that “we must struggle.”

By “we,” Heidegger meant Germany under Hitler’s National Socialist regime, which he hoped would play a central role in such an effort. Heidegger followed in a long line of German intellectuals, going as far back as the eighteenth century, who believed that the country was destined to play a transformative role in human history — a kind of modern rejoinder to the creative glory of ancient Greece. For Heidegger, this meant replacing the old, Platonic order with one grounded in his vision of historical being. In the early 1930s, he came to see Hitler’s National Socialist movement, with its emphasis on German identity, as the best chance of bringing about such a revolutionary change. And in the Jews, he saw a shared enemy.

FOLLOWING PROTOCOL

As Trawny’s title suggests, both Hitler’s and Heidegger’s view of the Jews grew out of a particular form of German anti-Semitism that was rampant after World War I. This strain of thinking, which saw Jews as part of a monolithic, transnational conspiracy, was crystallized in “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” a forged document that first appeared in Russia in 1903 and made its way to Germany in 1920. Originally published by Russian monarchists to scapegoat the Jews for the tsar’s military defeats and the subsequent upheaval, the protocols purported to be minutes from a series of meetings held by Jewish leaders bent on world domination. According to the alleged transcript, the plotters sought to manipulate international finance, culture, and media; promote extreme ideas and radical political movements; and foment war to destabilize existing powers. Hitler devoured the tract, which he swiftly employed as Nazi propaganda. It hit a nerve in Germany, still traumatized by World War I, beset by economic chaos, and subject to extreme political instability — all of which could now be attributed to the Jews.

Trawny does not argue that Heidegger read the protocols or agreed with all their contentions. Rather, he suggests that like so many other Germans, Heidegger accepted their basic premise, which Hitler hammered home in his speeches and in Nazi propaganda. As evidence, Trawny cites the German philosopher and Heidegger colleague Karl Jaspers, who recalled in his memoir a conversation he had with Heidegger in 1933. When Jaspers brought up “the vicious nonsense about the Elders of Zion,” Heidegger reportedly expressed his genuine concern: “But there is a dangerous international alliance of the Jews,” he replied.

Yet Hitler and Heidegger embraced anti-Semitic conspiracy theories for different reasons. Whereas the former argued that the Jews posed a racial threat (a fear for which the protocols offered evidence), the latter saw them as a philosophical one. The Jews, as uprooted nomads serving a transcendent God — albeit sometimes through their secular activities — embodied the very tradition that Heidegger wanted to overturn. Moreover, as Trawny points out, Heidegger found race deeply problematic. He did not dismiss the concept altogether; if understood as a biological feature of a particular people, race might well inform that people’s historical trajectory. But he rejected using race as the primary determinant of identity. For Heidegger, racism was itself a function of misguided metaphysical thinking, because it presumed a biological, rather than historical, interpretation of what it meant to be human. By “fastening” people into “equally divided arrangement,” he wrote in the notebooks, racism went “hand in hand with a self-alienation of peoples — the loss of history.” Instead of obsessing over racial distinctions, Germans needed to confront their identity as an ongoing philosophical question. Heidegger overtly criticized the Nazis for their fixation on biological identity, but he also lambasted the Jews for the same sin. “The Jews,” he wrote in the notebooks, “have already been ‘living’ for the longest time according to the principle of race.”

Heidegger’s anti-Semitism differed from that of the typical Nazi in other important ways. To many of Hitler’s supporters, for example, the protocols reinforced the view that the Jews were essentially un-German, incapable of properly integrating with Germany’s way of life or even understanding its spirit. But Heidegger took this notion further, arguing that the Jews belonged truly nowhere. “For a Slavic people, the nature of our German space would definitely be revealed differently from the way it is revealed to us,” Heidegger told his students in a 1934 seminar. “To Semitic nomads, it will perhaps never be revealed at all.” Moreover, Heidegger said, history had shown that “nomads have also often left wastelands behind them where they found fruitful and cultivated land.” By this logic, the Jews were rootless; lacking a proper home, all they had was allegiance to one another.

Another anxiety reflected in the protocols and in Hitler’s propaganda concerned the perceived power of this stateless, conspiratorial Jewry — be it in banking, finance, or academia. But for Heidegger, the success of Europe’s Jews was a symptom of a broader philosophical problem. Playing on the tired cliché of Jews as clever with abstractions and calculation, the notebooks make a more general critique of modern society: “The temporary increase in the power of Jewry has its basis in the fact that the metaphysics of the West, especially in its modern development, served as the hub for the spread of an otherwise empty rationality and calculative skill, which in this way lodged itself in the ‘spirit.’”

In forgetting what it meant to be finite and historical, in other words, the West had become obsessed with mastering and controlling beings — a tendency Heidegger called “machination,” or the will to dominate nature in all its forms, ranging from raw materials to human beings themselves. And with their “calculative skill,” the Jews had thrived in this distorted “spirit” of the modern age.

At the same time, the Jews were not, in Heidegger’s view, merely passive beneficiaries of Western society’s “empty rationality” and liberal ideology; they were active proponents of them. “The role of world Jewry,” Heidegger wrote in the notebooks, was a “metaphysical question about the kind of humanity that, without any restraints, can take over the uprooting of all beings from Being as its world-historical ‘task.’” Even if the Jews could not be blamed for the introduction of Platonism or for its hold over Western society, they were the chief carriers of its “task.” By asserting liberal rights to demand inclusion in such nations as Germany, the Jews were estranging those countries’ citizens from their humanity — the shared historical identity that made them distinct from other peoples. This reasoning formed the basis for a truly poisonous hostility toward the Jews, and it was perhaps Heidegger’s most damning judgment of them. Now that the notebooks have come into the light, however, such passages constitute the most damning evidence against the philosopher himself.

So what did Heidegger think should be done about the Jews? Did he agree with the Nazi policies? The notebooks give readers little to go on; Heidegger seems to have had no taste for detailed policy discussions. Nevertheless, the philosopher spoke through his silence. Despite his criticism of the Nazis and their crude biological racism, he wrote nothing against Hitler’s laws targeting the Jews. Although Heidegger resigned as rector of Freiburg before Hitler passed the Nuremberg Laws, which classified German citizens according to race, he had assumed the role in 1933, just after the Nazis enacted their first anti-Jewish codes, which excluded Jews from civil service and university posts (and which Heidegger helped implement). During a lecture in the winter of 1933–34, he warned a hall full of students that “the enemy can have attached itself to the innermost roots” of the people and that they, the German students, must be prepared to attack such an enemy “with the goal of total annihilation.” Heidegger did not specify “the enemy,” but for the Nazis, they included Germany’s communists; its Roma, or Gypsies; and, above all, its Jews. This chilling prefiguration of Hitler’s Final Solution is unmistakable, and Heidegger never explained, let alone apologized for, such horrendous statements.

DEATH OF A PHILOSOPHER

Trawny ends his analysis by arguing that the anti-Semitism of the notebooks will require a thorough reevaluation of Heidegger’s thought, and he is right. Even if, as Trawny is at pains to remind his readers, the notebooks show that Heidegger became increasingly critical of the Nazis as early as 1933, they also demonstrate just how firmly his anti-Semitism was rooted in his philosophical ideas.

Scholars now need to answer new questions about Heidegger’s motivations. For one thing, how could he have been so hostile to the Jews if he had so many Jewish students and a Jewish mistress? Trawny offers some insight into this puzzle by pointing to the notion of the so-called exceptional Jew, an idea that circulated among even the most virulent anti-Semites, including top Nazis. According to this view, in spite of the baleful impact of the Jewish people as a whole, rare Jewish individuals could stand out. Trawny cites Arendt herself, who reminded readers inEichmann in Jerusalem that Hitler himself was thought to have lent personal protection to 340 “first-rate Jews” by awarding them German or half-Jewish status. In deeming these Jews exceptions, such practices actually reinforced the general rule by allowing anti-Semites to explain away as anomalies those Jews with whom they felt some personal connection.

Another open question concerns Heidegger’s intentions in prescribing, much less allowing, that the notebooks be published. Initially, of course, Heidegger kept them hidden to conceal their critique of the Nazis, and after the war, given his experience with the denazification process, he must have feared they would harm his reputation. So why release the notebooks at all, and as the capstone to his collected works? A charitable answer is that Heidegger wanted to set the record straight, to submit all the facts to public scrutiny. A more sinister explanation is that he remained loyal to his own understanding of the National Socialist revolution, even if he believed that the movement had betrayed him. In either case, he clearly didn’t want to be around to deal with the fallout.

Whatever the philosopher’s motivations, the notebooks will almost certainly spell the end of Heidegger as an intellectual cult figure, and that is a welcome development. Richard Wolin, an intellectual historian and longtime critic of Heidegger’s politics, leaves open the possibility of a qualified philosophical engagement with Heidegger’s work but argues that scholars will have to tread carefully. As he wrote in the Jewish Review of Books last summer, “Any discussion of Heidegger’s legacy that downplays or diminishes the extent of his political folly stands guilty, by extension, of perpetuating the philosophical betrayal initiated by the Master himself.”

But Heidegger might well have wanted the cultish obsession with his persona to die in order for his philosophical questions to live on. He wanted his readers to feel the full force of his questions on their own terms, not to fixate on his or any other particular responses to them. The motto Heidegger chose for his collected writings was therefore fitting: “Ways, not works.”

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/142255/gregory-fried/what-heidegger-was-hiding?cid=nlc-foreign_affairs_this_week-103014-what_heidegger_was_hiding_6-103014&sp_mid=47305810&sp_rid=Y29udGlib3Nzb0BnbWFpbC5jb20S1

Anúncios

The Oppressed Majority: A Poignant French Short Film about a World in Which Men Are Subject to Sexism

The Oppressed Majority: A Poignant French Short Film about a World in Which Men Are Subject to Sexism

by

A tragicomic day in the life of a man who struggles for equality in a mirror-image society dominated by women.

“Those who travel with the current will always feel they are good swimmers,” NPR science correspondent Shankar Vedantam wrote in his extraordinary exploration of society’s hidden biases, “[and] those who swim against the current may never realize they are better swimmers than they imagine.” That’s precisely what French filmmaker Eleonore Pourriat brings to life with imaginative vividness, elegantly waltzing between the hilarious and the heartbreaking, in her brilliant and pause-giving short film Oppressed Majority — a day in the life of a man who faces subtle sexism and unabashed sexual violence in a mirror-image society dominated by women. Laugh, cry, think twice:

For a deeper look at the serious issue beneath the comic veneer, see Vedantam’s indispensable The Hidden Brain: How Our Unconscious Minds Elect Presidents, Control Markets, Wage Wars, and Save Our Lives — a perspective-shifting even, if not especially, for those of us who consider ourselves well-intentioned and are thus most susceptible to unwitting biases.

Thanks, Julie

7 Desmitificações da Eleição de 2014

Cidadania & Cultura

Divisões Intraestaduais

Mais perenes do que qualquer partido ou movimento político, algumas ideias sobre o que move os eleitores se repetem a cada eleição. No entanto, dados e detalhamentos das votações desafiam esse senso comum. O Estadão Dados analisou 7 erros mais repetidos (JOSÉ ROBERTO DE TOLEDO, DANIEL BRAMATTI, DANIEL TRIELLI, DIEGO RABATONE, LUCAS DE ABREU MAIA E RODRIGO BURGARELLI, OESP, 28/10/14)

Mito 1

Foi o Nordeste que elegeu Dilma

Petista não teve menos de 40% dos votos em nenhuma das 5 regiões do Brasil

É claro que o desempenho de Dilma Rousseff (PT) no Nordeste foi crucial para sua vitória: a petista teve 20 milhões de votos no 2.º turno, equivalente a 72% do total de votos válidos na região. Mas a presidente reeleita obteve um apoio razoável em todas as cinco regiões. O menor porcentual de votos válidos foi no Sul: o apoio de 41% dos eleitores…

Ver o post original 1.328 mais palavras

Provocação: O que a mulher e o elefante têm em comum?

Próximo programa - 21/10/2014

The future….belongs to the feminine”, Nawal El Moutawakel.

Caros geonautas,

Diante do novo e inusitado, lembremos Rabelais: “O que e mulher e o elefante têm em comum?”

A vida como ela é”, diria o único reacionário do Brasil, claramente mais uma mera provação, com sexo, cultura e GabiLola Benvenutti, e parafraseando o anjo pornográfico, bonitinha e extraordinária.

Uma resposta a pergunta acima: nenhum dos dois sabem o poder que tem.

A professora e prostituta, GabiLola, lembra-nos mais uma vez, nesse mundo patriarcal da psicanálise do homem desbussolado, que o único que ainda não sabe, é o elefante.

Confira:

Vírus HIV pode ter partido de Kinshasa (RDC África)

Caro Ronaldo,

A ciência, e a verdade, ou como canta Marisa Monte na onde da filosofia de Nietzsche, “verdade uma ilusão”.

1- http://www.aidsorigins.com/

2- Book: http://www.aidsorigins.com/book-covers

3- http://www.aidsorigins.com/sections/river

From the Dust Jacket of The River
Submitted by admin on Tue, 18/10/2005 – 1:34pm
IT NOW SEEMS CERTAIN THAT HIV can be traced back to retroviruses found in certain species of African apes and monkeys. But why did these simian viruses suddenly transfer to the human species? Those who believe in a natural movement across the species barrier would be hard-pressed to explain why this transfer did not occur until the late twentieth century. Do we need to look elsewhere for the true source of HIV and AIDS?

4- Summary of Origins Debate: http://www.aidsorigins.com/origins-aids-pandemic

A Quick Guide to The Principal Theories and the Alleged Refutations
PREAMBLE: The oral polio vaccine (OPV) theory of origin of AIDS proposes that an experimental OPV made in a unique manner was administered to nearly one million Africans in the 1957-1960 period, leading to the infection of perhaps 10 to 500 people from the former Belgian Congo and Ruanda-Urundi with the pandemic strain of HIV-1, thus initiating the AIDS pandemic. (UNAIDS has proposed that by 2010 over 80 million people had been infected with HIV-1, of whom some 46 million had died from AIDS. Even if some statisticians claim that the true figures are nearer to two thirds of these, AIDS still represents the most disastrous infectious disease epidemic that our species has ever experienced.)
Certain opponents of the OPV theory have sought to personalise it as “Ed Hooper’s theory”, but the theory had already been proposed, discussed and published by many others (such as Louis Pascal, Jennifer Alexander, Mike Lecatsas, Blaine Elswood, Raphael Stricker and Tom Curtis) in the years 1987-1992, before I first heard about it in the summer of 1992. I compared it with the 15 or so other theories of origin I had been examining from 1990-1992, and found that (apart from the default bushmeat theory, which has it that HIV-1 was acquired by a human during the hunting of chimps or the preparation of chimpanzee bushmeat) this was the only hypothesis that stood up to scrutiny. In the years since 1992, I and many others

(including the great evolutionary biologist, Bill Hamilton)

have examined further evidence from many different sources, and found that OPV is in fact a far more compelling theory of origin than bushmeat. We now know that roughly 15% of at least two subspecies of wild chimpanzees are naturally infected with a simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) that is closely related to HIV-1. What has been crucial in the years since 2001 has been the gradual gathering of evidence from many different sources that batches of the experimental OPV were prepared locally in Africa in the cells of common chimpanzees and bonobos.
Let me now examine the two origins theories in a little more detail.
– See more at: http://www.aidsorigins.com/origins-aids-pandemic#sthash.7G8eL4xk.dpuf

5- http://www.aidsorigins.com/origins-of-aids-documentary-2003

The Origin of AIDS (Full Documentary)

E la nave va

{RCRISTO - Tecnologia e Informação}

Vírus HIV A pandemia do HIV hoje deve ter começado sua expansão global a partir de Kinshasa, capital da República Democrática do Congo (RDC), de acordo com um novo estudo publicado na Science. (divulgação).

Uma equipe internacional de cientistas, das Universidades de Oxford e Leuven, reconstruiu a história genética do HIV-1 grupo M pandêmica, o evento viu o HIV se espalhar pelo continente Africano e ao redor do mundo e concluiu que se originou em Kinshasa. A análise da equipe sugere que o ancestral comum do grupo M é altamente provável de ter surgido em Kinshasa por volta de 1920 (com 95% das datas estimadas entre 1909 e 1930).

O vírus HIV é conhecido por ter sido transmitido a partir de primatas e macacos para seres humanos – pelo menos 13 vezes – mas apenas um destes acontecimentos de transmissão originou uma pandemia humana. Foi somente com o evento que…

Ver o post original 752 mais palavras

Stanford startup, do curso para empresa BWS TECHNOLOGY

bons artistas copiam, grandes artistas roubam”, Picasso (*)

você é um hippie ou nerd?

Carta aberta aos colegas do curso online da Stanford University (Technology Entrepreneurships, BWS – Business World Strategy Group, 2013),

Versão em inglês: STANFORD ‘startup’ course to BWS TECHNOLOGY Company

Prezados colegas do curso online startup da Starford,

Eu gostaria de dividir com vocês sobre minha nova empresa, que acredito, tem algumas ideias discutidas em nosso grupo no curso online – Stanford Technology Entrepreneurships.

Nosso objetivo é ser uma empresa de desenvolvimento software e manufatura de equipamentos no Brasil.

Nós temos um acordo com nosso parceiro da China, para desenvolvimento de tecnologia e representação comercial para Brasil e América Latina.

Nossa logo:

technology

Eu fiz uma fusão e adaptação, entre o nome da empresa sugerida pelo Yan e a marca criada por Raul, mais a ideia ‘well safe’ dos investidores e amigos, adicionada a minha visão e síntese, em três palavras, da fronteira da ciência e da tecnologia no século XXI: Bits, Gens e Átomos.

Bits: evolução da engenharia eletrônica;

Genes: evolução da biologia e da engenharia genética;

Átomos e moléculas: a evolução da engenharia química

Você pode dizer, visão limitada, talvez, pode ser, eu não vejo nenhum problema nisso, “o futuro é incerto …. mas esta incerteza está no coração da criatividade humana“, mas deixe-me ser claro, é a minha visão e eu assumo o fato.

Como eu digo na conclusão da carta de apresentação da empresa: (…) Acreditamos e usar na prática e como princípio, a tecnologia mais sofisticada do universo: as relações humanas.

Gostaria de agradecer a todos vocês e um agradecimento especial ao Raúl Peralta Diaz e Yan Franzini. Ao Yan, porque a partir do nome do grupo, ‘BWS – Estratégia World Business’, foi onde eu comecei a adaptar o nome da empresa, e o Raúl, porque sua criação e design foi muito inspirador para mim.

Agradecimento a todos,

Oswaldo Conti-Bosso – Engenharia de ideias e laços sociais

http://www.BWSTECHNOLOGY.COM  / www.BWS.ind.br

(*) Steve Jobs entrevista, 1995. – (livre transcrição da conversa em inglês e tradução para o português):

(…) Você sabe, em última análise, tudo se resume a gosto, tudo se resume a gosto, tudo se resume a tentar se expor as melhores coisas que os seres humanos têm feito, e em seguida, tentar trazer essas coisas para o que você está fazendo.

Picasso tem uma frase, ele disse; “bons artistas copiam; grandes artistas roubam”.

Temos que saber; eu sempre tive uma ousado falta de vergonha de roubar grandes ideias, e eu acho que parte do que fez a Macintosh grande, era isso, as pessoas que trabalhavam eram músicos, poetas, artistas, zoólogos e historiadores, que também passou a ser os melhores cientistas da computação no mundo.

Mas se não fosse pela ciência da computação, essas pessoas estariam, você sabe, fazendo coisas incríveis na vida em outras áreas e trouxeram com eles, todos nos trouxe a isso, a esse esforço, uma arte muito liberais no ar sorte; muito baixa a muito; Estou artes liberais atitude que queremos polinizar o que de melhor vimos em outros campos,…., eu não acho que você conseguiria isso, se você é muito estreito,….

– Uma questão que eu perguntei a todos na série foi: você é um hippie ou nerd?

Oh, se eu tivesse que escolher um desses dois é claramente hippie, sim, para todas as pessoas com quem trabalhei foram claramente nessa categoria também, sim, …., bem perguntar a você o que é um hippie, eu sinto falta de uma palavra com muitas conotações, mas para mim você sabe porque eu cresci assim lembre-se que os anos sessenta aconteceu no início da década de setenta, certo? Temos que lembrar que a história, quando eu tinha uma idade maior, então eu vi muitas disso e muita coisa aconteceu em nosso quintal aqui. Na vida além de apenas um trabalho, uma família, dois carros na garagem e uma carreira, havia algo mais acontecendo, há um outro lado da moeda, que nós não falamos e experimentamos, lacunas maravilhas. Você sabe, apenas, realmente, quando tudo não é ordenado de forma perfeita, quando este tipo de lacuna de experiência, seja na Rússia ou algo assim e um monte de gente já partiu ao longo da história para descobrir o que era e se é um papel ou se é que você sabe tudo o que alguns místicos indianos poderia ser,  e o movimento hippie tem um pouco disso e eles queriam saber do que se tratava, e que, a vida não era sobre o que viram lá os seus pais, e o pêndulo oscilou demais para o outro lado foi uma loucura, mas houve uma coisa germânica aqui e é a mesma coisa que faz com que as pessoas querem ser poetas ao invés de banqueiros, você sabe, e eu acho que é uma coisa maravilhosa,  e eu acho que esse mesmo espírito pode ser colocado em produtos e esses produtos podem ser fabricados e dado as pessoas que fazem sentido, e esse espírito, se você falar com as pessoas que usam o Macintosh, eles adoram, e muitas vezes você não vê isso nas pessoas normalmente, mas você pode sentir que havia algo realmente maravilhoso. Então eu não acho que a maioria das melhores pessoas que eu tenho trabalhado com computadores, seja por causa de trabalhar com computadores; eles trabalham com computadores, porque eles são um melhor meio capaz de transmitir algum sentimento que você tem que você deseja compartilhar com outras pessoas, isso faz algum sentido para você?  E você sabe, antes de inventarem essas coisas, todas essas pessoas fizeram outras coisas, mas os computadores foram inventados e veio junto na onda, e fizeram todas essas pessoas se interessar na escola antes da escola e disseram, ei, essa é a forma que eu acho que posso dizer alguma uma coisa, você sabe?

(**) Technology Entrepreneurship Part 1 :

https://novoed.com/venture17/conversations/inbox

STANFORD startup course to BWS TECHNOLOGY Company

good artists copy, great artists steal”, Picasso (*)

are you a hippie or nerd?

Open letter to colleagues from the Stanford online course (Technology Entrepreneurship,  BWS – Business World Strategy Group – 2013)

Portuguese version: Stanford startup, do curso para empresa BWS TECHNOLOGY

Dear colleagues of Stanford online course Startup,

I would like to share with you about my new company which I believe has some ideas discussed in our BWS group.

Our goal is to become a company developing software and manufacturing equipment in Brazil.

We have an agreement with partner from China, for technology development and as commercial representation in Brazil and all Latin America.

The brand:

technology

I made a fusion and adaptation between the company name suggested by Yan and the brand created by Raul, plus the idea ‘well safe’ of investors and friends, and added to my vision and synthesis in three words of the frontier of science and technology in XXI century: Bits, Genes and Atoms.

Bits: the evolution of electronic engineering;

Genes: the evolution of biology and genetic engineering;

Atoms and Molecules: the evolution of chemical engineering

You may say, limited vision, perhaps, can be, I see no problem with it, because the “the Future is uncertain…. but this uncertainty is at very heart of human creativity”, but let me be clear, it´s my vision and I stand by that.

As I say at the conclusion of the cover letter of the company: (…) We believe and use in practice and as a principle, the most sophisticated technology in the universe: human being relationships.

I would like to thank all of you and to give a special thanks to Raúl Peralta Diaz and Yan Franzini. To Yan, because from “BWS – Business World Strategy” it was where I started to adapt my company name, and to Raúl, because his creation and design was very inspiring to me.

Best wishes for all,

Oswaldo Conti-Bosso – Engineering of ideas and social ties relationships

http://www.BWSTECHNOLOGY.COM  / www.BWS.ind.br

(*) Steve Jobs interview, 1995 (speech-free translation):

(…) You know, ultimately it comes down to taste, it comes down to taste, its it comes down to trying to expose yourself to the best thing that humans have done and then try to bring those things in to what you are doing.

Picasso had saying; he said; “good artists copy; great artists steals”.

We have you know; always; I am been shameless about stealing great ideas and I think of part of what made macintosh great was that the people working on it were musicians and poets and artists and zoologists and historians who also happened to be the best computer scientist in the world.

but if it hadn’t been for computer science these people have all been you know doing amazing things in life in the field and they brought with them we all brought to this to this effort up a very liberal arts, …., I am liberal arts attitude that we want to pollen the best we saw in these other fields into this field and I am I don´t think you get that if you are very narrow….

– One other questions I asked everyone in the series was are you a hippie or nerd?

Oh if I had to Pick one of these two is clearly hippie, yeah it that, for all the people I work with were clearly in that category too, yeah,…., well ask yourself what is a hippie, I miss in a word as a lotta connotations but to me you know because I grew up  so remember that the sixties happend in the erly seventies right we have to remember that stoy when I had aged so I saw a lot this and a lot happened right in our backyard here and so to me the spark of  that, that there was something beyond serve what you see every day there is something going on here in life beyond Just a job in a family and two cars in the garage in a career, there something more going on there is another side to the coin that we don´t talk about and we experience the wonders gaps Just a realy when everything is not ordered in perfect when this kind a gap experience this in Russia or something and a lot of people have set off throughout history find out what that was and whether it is a role or whether it is you know some indian mystics whatever myght be and the hippie moviment got a little bit of that and they wanted to find out what that was about and that life was not about what they saw there parents and the pendulum swung too far the other way it was crazy but there was a German something here  and it is the same thing that causes people to want to be poets instad bankers, you know, and I think that is a wonderful think and I think that same spirit can be put into products and its products can be manufactured and given to people making sense thart spirit if you talk to people use the Macintosh they will love it you don´t hear people loving things products very often really but you can feel it and there was something really wonderful , so I don´t  think that most that the really best people that I have work with have work with computers for the sake working with computers they work with computers becouse they are the medium the best capable of transmitting some feeling that you have that you want to share with other people, does that make any sense to you? And you know, before they invented these things that all these people did other things but computers were invented and they did come along and all these people did get interested in school before school and said hey  this is the medium that I think I can say something, you know?

(**) Technology Entrepreneurship Part 1 :

https://novoed.com/venture17/conversations/inbox