Symbols, embellishments, mystifications
I discovered I had been called on a brief note regarding a habit now in vogue, even in highly civilized countries, that exhumes questionable practices that were more esoteric in earlier days.
In confirming my objective position, I found the interventions in favor of these practices to be inconsistent, not only because they failed to give any reasons, but also because they failed to show even a minimum of logic or rigor in their exposition. In particular, I found the piece by Mr. Lanari feeble and disjointed because it did not address the topic directly but wandered off amid pseudo-literary allusions that are irrelevant. Among other things, when I re-read his piece, I noticed that earlier I had missed the epithet of "antisocial" he attributed to me.
But excuse me: Aren't the anti-social ones the ones who cover themselves with "brass farthings", and consider themselves different from other mortals precisely because they have mysterious badges and tattoos stuck to their bodies for the purpose ? not only visual but symbolic and ideological ? of displaying themselves as a tribe set apart from other ordinary people, like me, who do not wear any such badges on my body?
Given that the issue has implications for psychoanalysis, I would hand the case over to Dr. Freud. Returning to the issue of the tattoos/piercings, I am reminded of a similar situation that took place years ago: wife swapping, which at the time I had mercilessly stigmatized, as I now stigmatize tattoos and piercings. Later I also objected to a self-styled "Neo-naturism" which endorsed the cause of a sort of naturism in a bathing suit (naturism allowing the option of wearing a bathing suit). In fact, ideas should be examined it from a cultural point of view, and this requires study, reading, reflections; one must stand up against faulty logic and not just swallow everything. Naturism as a philosophy is strong, not weak, as it is accused of being today. Naturism is not relativistic, but has been contaminated by relativism. Let me give another kind of example which regards homosexuality but without dwelling on the issue or passing judgment.
An English politician, very prominent, visited to the Pope, boasting his conversion, among other things. According to the newspaper reports, the politician asked the Pope to "give up" on the issue of homosexuality; his request was rejected. It would seem to me that the politician firstly showed his own ignorance of the fact for the Church it is matter of ethics, and then proved himself naive and ill-mannered for treating the Pope like a merchant or a provincial politician. So this was a relativistic faux pas, because for the Church the issue is based on one of those non-negotiable principles.
The principles of naturism are likewise nonnegotiable, such as full-body nudity. It certainly is not the end of the world if one, at a time of uncertainty, one stains oneself with a tattoo. But bear in mind one thing: besides the significance and the aesthetic principle being violated, it is an unjustified coverage of one's body.
And then there are the hygiene implications that this practice involves, as recently explained by official medicine, alerting us to the danger of infection (and the use of non-toxic colors does not exclude the possibility of incurring allergies).
I'm sorry to say: in Italy there are Mayors of formerly prominent cities who cannot distinguish a church from a mosque, or a bell tower from a minaret: relativism and ignorance!
The same holds true for those young people who accept the fad of tattooing/piercing, without understanding the meaning of such practices, which can be described as psychosoma-mystifying, imposed by market logic, civil degradation, a decline in cultural level, a real plague of our time.
I wanted to take a position in relation to the now stale issue of tattoos in the attempt to make people understand that it has a lot to do with relativism.
Then, as I reread the editorials in which I was called into question, I realized that I had been too soft: In fact I should have said to the three or four writers that, not only are they ignorant, but they do not even know the meaning of words. For example, confusing racism with xenophobia, irrespective of whether the two concepts may sometimes. If staining your skin has nothing to do with your race, it is also true that it has nothing to do with being, for example, foreign. Xenophobia comes from the Greek word “xénos” which means "foreigner", but also "guest".
It is also interesting to note that the Greek language is full of concepts related to high psychology. With regards to the paragraph by a certain Antonella Bacci, p.19 Info no. 52, in addition to insulting me without knowing me, he practically justified circumcision by saying that the uncircumcised might develop a condition known as phimosis, I feel it is my duty to ask myself and ask you: What kind of reasoning is this?
Most men who have their glans covered do not develop phimosis. Phimosis is a recurring infection of the glans and it is cured by a surgical removal of the fraenum.
This is a surgical procedure so it is not mandatory (though sometimes a necessity). However it is mandatory among certain peoples for religious reasons, a practice that reminds me so much of the deplored (and horrible) female mutilation.