The concept of \u201creaction\u201d can be applied to every living form, but in the case of human beings it comes charged with special significance. During childbirth, brain matter reacts through the retina, and because of the \u201cdisappearance of the external nonhuman world\u201d fantasy drive, the \u201crecollection of the previous condition\u201d fantasy drive is activated, with the formation in the subject of an inner image (capability to imagine<\/i>). Assuming a dimension of \u201chealthy irrational\u201d, we can consider this to be the dimension that drives us to other human beings (the hope that there is a breast<\/i>).<\/p>\n
With TN (Teoria della nascita, or Birth Theory) we can hypothesize an \u201cethical reactivity\u201d, which in Massimo Fagioli\u2019s language is described as a rejection of destructiveness<\/i>. In fact, Ethics belongs to the internal reality of the subject and does not concern a justification-oriented logical rationality (rational critique<\/i>) of our behavior, nor can it be based on such abstract principles as good and evil, as it historically happened.<\/p>\n
This is how Fagioli put it:<\/p>\n
It\u2019s not that I don\u2019t hit a child because the rules say I can\u2019t do it, nor because it\u2019s bad. I don\u2019t hit him because my arm gets paralyzed. In other words: there\u2019s a physical reality that doesn\u2019t allow me to harm a child, my movement loses strength. It\u2019s not a prohibition of the superego nor one of reason, It\u2019s an inner reality. And I think this inner reality belongs to a great number of people, they just don\u2019t realize it.<\/p>\n
To this consideration we can add Eugenio Lecaldano\u2019s:<\/p>\n
Then the morality we need to confront violence, genocide, torture, discrimination is not the one made up of absolute norms and principles preached from on high by someone who claims they are based on reason: we need a morality that is rooted in our feelings and emotions. Those who moralize over our private lives in the name of their absolute, rational principles are merely continuing to propose the form of abstract morality that has proved totally ineffective throughout the history of the 20th century.<\/p>\n
The rational and religious foundations of good and evil have failed because they are affectless and abstracted from the real human world. The grounding in the affectivity of human feelings and emotions leads to an ethical reaction<\/i> that originates deep within the human identity \u2013 an identity that is irrational at birth<\/i>.<\/p>\n
Here Fagioli refers to an article in the Italian newspaper \u201cRepubblica\u201d:<\/p>\n
I don\u2019t like the idea of moral necessity because it recalls the idea that the split man is naturally bad. It says that it is necessary for reason to command and control what is not-reason, which would be beastly, ferocity of man towards other men. [\u2026] And I see two puppets supporting each other, the one blind called faith<\/b> and the other lame called reason<\/b>, saying each other that ethics questions happiness and deduces its principles from reason.<\/i><\/p>\n
On the basis of TN, therefore, we can hypothesize an absolutely new ethical approach, which is expressed through a \u201chealthy ethical reaction\u201d derived from the concept of the healthy irrational<\/i>. Indeed, this emergent idea \u2013 an idea never thought of before<\/i> \u2013 must confront the pathological aspects of denial and nullification that we still identify in justifications of a rational-ethical kind.<\/i> This ethical reaction dynamics<\/i>, which Fagioli defines as the reaction of the sensibility of thought without consciousness<\/i>, also invests the political and economic field by unmasking the various forms of dehumanization expressed in dictatorial and colonialist regimes and that are also present in all forms of racism.<\/p>\n
With TN we can identify ethical behavior<\/i> as a human behavior<\/i> that enhances the identity of the human subject and enables its development. The possibility of realizing such an ethical reaction<\/i> essentially starts from care<\/i>, personal training<\/i>, and research<\/i> as elaborated during Analisi Collettiva (collective analysis) by Fagioli. When a form of destructiveness (pathological aspects) is present, there can be no ethics either in relation to others or to the environment and other living beings. As examples in which the ethical model based on the violence of rational thought was mostly clearly expressed, I have chosen two particularly illustrative historical moments: Nazi Germany and the Catholic Inquisition. Without attempting to trace their history, they were used only to highlight how ethical aspects were altered by a violent rationality that allowed the destruction of the deepest human qualities both in the perpetrators and their victims.<\/p>\n
Bibliography<\/strong><\/p>\n\n