Jérôme Lindon had translated the bible book about Jonas, it seems to me to illustrate the situation of some one without a social status. A kind of human nothingness, an outcast.

Recently I received a murderous message on my blog. Also I do not disclose my name, says the anonymous comentator, because these words are intended to be read by you, poor little shit … Built yourself a life rather than squatting your parents to vomit on people … Now is the turn of the mayor … and take care of your daughter, look for work rather than to smear good people who are active themselves! They do not spend their time to masturbate in front of a computer.

Larvatus Prodeo, I advance masked wrote René Descartes, a philosopher who had  a view on morality a rather easy to summarize. Until we have understood through science how the world works, and can act in this world with all the lights of reason, we must learn to settle for the morals and customs of his time. That is why the big man will eventually say that the best thing for a philosopher is to adopt the attitude of a priest or a professor or a journalist or anything as long as those who are disturbed by his thoughts can not whack it. That’s what René Descartes referred to the provisional morality. The morality we adopt before people can live fully in the light of science and reason.

This view will be continued by another philosopher, not a son of Touraine, a Jew of Portuguese descent who spent much of his life in Holland, Benedict Spinoza. He managed to explain what comes after morality. It is Ethics. Ethics is morality which adopts the perspective of reason. When you obey a moral rule, you do not argue. If the rule says you must not have sexual relations with your neighbor, it is best to snatch your eyes than watching this neighbor with lust, you have two possible attitudes about it . A moral attitude and an ethical attitude. If your attitude is moral, you will think that adultery is good or bad, but you do not discuss the rule, nor its merits. Because it is a commandment. If you have an ethical attitude you think of the pleasures and enjoyment that you can draw from your neighborhood, and the amount of trouble and strife that this relationship can bring. You do the sum of the joys and sorrows, and you make your choice after careful weighing. Morality is a set of rules of behavior which govern by fear, or faith, or belief. Ethics is a practical knowledge of laws of nature that pushes us to choose what is good or bad for us.

Immanuel Kant’s attempt to formulate a rule of reason, as it can be applied to any practical situations. In sum, he will give his Ethics practical reason. Spinoza already admitted that the human being to be happy, must seek the happiness of others, of all humanity. Diminish the happiness of your neighbor is less chance of being happy. According to this principle, Kant therefore admit that all our behavior should be emulated by all others. In other words, I must act so that if I do something, everyone must do the same thing without putting the world to catastrophe. Specifically, I have drawn from my behavior a maxim, and this maxim can become the rule that determines the will of all. If I consume the energy of an average american, I release the universal maxim: every person can consume the energy of an average american. Now I know that if this maxim determines the will of all people of the earth, we run to the disaster. The rule is not ethical, I must reduce my intake. Similarly in the current state of thinking, if I think the rule says: thou shalt love thy neighbor with pleasure, can be applied to all mankind, we go to civil war.

Friedrich Nietzsche not like the will be determined by a rule. Insofar as for him, it is not the rule that shows the way to the will, but rather the contrary. The will, which manifests its power by force trace a path that the weak have no choice but to follow.  And the good, far from being an idea came from the deity, the beautiful, is the quality of lords, strong men (then, in a world still dominated by men today, this is not the quality of women). If our society is increasingly the party of the victims, said the philosopher, it is because the weak have their intelligence in the service of a morality that tends to prevail and cover the party of the strong. The moral of the victims is a moral full of resentment, inspired by christianity. Victims hate strength and power and would condemn it. Nietzsche’s superman want to substitute what is good for him, the superhuman who sees beyond good and evil to the morality of the weak .

The contemporary philosopher René Girard, born in Avignon, who spent his life at Stanford, echoes this thought by allowing us to characterize further what makes the difference between morals and ethics. It is the sacred. Morality is a set of mandatory terms that date back to the dawn of time, and if we can not discuss it, it is that we know they are not debatable. And why? Because this origin is divine. So either we deny the divinity, which is the most common attitude today, and we reject morality, we accuse it fo making  us feel guilty, to prevent us to enjoy, to express ourselves, to think freely. Or, we give it credit blind, and we adopt his commandments blindly, which is even the case of religious, so rare they are. It is faith. Rene Girard, like René Descartes, choose to give the religious feeling of morality a temporary credit. For the contemporary philosopher, we are wrong to accuse religion, or church, or I do not know what scarecrow, to deprive us from enjoying the neighbor. The real obstacle to my enjoyment, it is not god, this is not the pope, it is not even me. The obstacle is the neighbor, or worse, the neighbor desire.

Suffice to say that the philosopher asks us to practice thinking, that is to say, ethics, closest (in this) from cartesian inspiration. Until the reason enlighten me, it is better to rely on tradition and avoid taking it for a fool. For one thing as tradition, religion and morality are aware, it is the violence.

Violence is not just a moral concern, it is also the obsession of modern states: thugs who threatened from all sides. Basically, Girard goes further than Spinoza, the only one way to be happy is to be at peace. Because violence is the problem most consistent and most repeatable, the most banal of human history. Violence is Evil. With a capital letter. It haunts the human religions since ancient societies and their barbarous sacrifices, until the crucifixion of Jesus. Violence is evil. With a lowercase letter. It concerns the modern states and governments of left and right. It is not difficult to engage in violence. A trifle, a flip, and it does become wild. It is much more difficult to stop it, if not impossible.

What is the origin of human violence and what is its particularity? Unlike Nietzsche, Girard will doubt that man is capable of desiring spontaneously, and therefore a fortiori, that it is capable of will. For him, the human brain is a huge machine to simulate, and man is the animal that has pushed further the ability to imitate. Humans not only imitate to learn. They also mimics what others desire. And precisely this ability to desire has no limits. That, says the philosopher, is the source of all human violence. Because if I covet my neighbor that  is beautiful, feminine beauty is coveted all over the word associated to prestige and class. And if I want my neighbor, I guess he has a je ne sais quoi that I lack, that leads me to be her rival. Hell, said Jean Paul Sartre, is other people. He could not say better. Morality either does could not say better, when it imposes on me a rule that I do not understand because I believe myself capable of dominating violence. For this desire that Girard calls mimetic desire is an inexhaustible mine of conflict that drives people to covet the property of others and to despise his own.

The men are not able to stop their violence, and human cultures, all human cultures, are that large systems intended to protect men against their violence by multiplying prohibitions. Because as I said, the problem with violence is that we can not stop it. Intervene in a fight is to increase the fighting, increase the scuffle. Hence the reflex to keep out. However, there is something very special in our society. The gradual disappearance of all taboos and prohibitions. What happens there, why our society violence is not degenerating in a final clash, nuclear for example? What is this special protection which allows our company to dispense with the religious and practical wisdom? Has it developed precisely this culture of nonviolence, and reached that thought and ethics foreshadowed by earlier philosophers? How can one speak of a culture of non-violence in a society obsessed with terrorism and insecurity, bringing the war beyond its borders and lives from the nuclear industry and weapons trade? And how to say this society is really out of religion when it claims to know everything except the nature and origin of religion on which it is still silent? And finally, most importantly, if our society has shifted from morality to ethics, can we explain the transformation and especially find a reason?

A set of questions that will be another text and an opportunity to deepen our presentation of Rene Girard.

Between pride and desire - Entre la fierté et le désir

A une perte totale ou partielle de curiosité vitale. Dans le cas de Meursault (l’Étranger de Camus) cet état privilégié fait complètement partie de la pure essence individuelle. Dans le cas de Roquentin (La nausée de Sartre) c’est un état de grâce soudain qui, sans raison apparente, s’empare du héros par la nausée. Dans beaucoup d’autres œuvres, la structure métaphysique est moins apparente; elle doit être dégagée de la fiction qui l’exprime tout en la cachant. L’alcool, les drogues, l’extrême douleur physique, les abus érotiques peuvent endommager ou tuer le désir. A la fin le héros atteint un état de stupéfaction lucide qui est l’étape romantique finale. Bien entendu cette absence de désir n’a rien à voir avec l’abstinence ou la sobriété. Mais le héros déclare que dans cette indifférence il accomplit par caprice et presque sans s’en apercevoir ce que d’autres font poussés par le désir.

L'histoire d'amour d'un héros somnambule - The love story of a somnambulic hero

Le héros somnambulique vit dans la mauvaise foi. Il essaie de résoudre le conflit entre la fierté et le désir sans le formuler clairement. Il faut peut-être une fierté plus radicale pour poser le problème franchement. A l’époque où il écrivait La soirée avec Monsieur Teste, Paul Valéry était un homme qui avait cette sorte de fierté. Le Valérisme fait contraster le vaniteux qui désire en imitant les Autres avec l’homme fier qui ne désire plus rien que son propre néant. Seul à être un individualiste digne de ce nom, l’homme fier ne cherche plus à échapper à son néant par le désir; c’est plutôt par une véritable ascèse mentale qu’il fait de son néant un objet d’adoration. Son but est toujours l’autonomie divine mais il a changé la direction de son effort. Fonder toute l’existence sur le néant que l’on trouve en soi-même, c’est transformer l’impotence en omnipotence, agrandir l’île de Robinson Crusoé aux dimensions de l’Infini.

Nondesire once more becomes a privilege as it was for the wise man or the christian saint. But the desiring subject recoils in terror before the idea of absolute renunciation. He looks for loopholes. He wants to create a personality in which the absence of desire has not been won with difficulty out of the anarchy of instincts and metaphysical passion. The somnabulist hero of American writers is the solution to this problem. Nondesire in this hero has nothing to do with the triumph of the mind over evil forces, nor with the self-discipline extolled by the great religions and higher humanisms. Il makes one think rather of a numbing of the senses, of a total or partial loss of vital curiosity.

In the case of Meursault (Camus Stranger) this privilege state is merged with the pure individual essence. In Roquentin (the Nausea of Sartre), it si a sudden gift of grace, which, without any reason, descends on the hero in the form of nausea. In many other works the metaphysical structure is less apparent; it has to be disengaged from the fiction which at once expresses and conceals it. Alcohol, narcotics, extreme physical pain, erotic abuses can destroy or deaden desire. In the end the hero reaches a stage of lucid stupefaction which constitutes the final romantic pose. This nondesire of course has nothing in common with abstinence or sobriety. But the hero claims that in his indifference he accomplishes by caprice and almost without being aware of it, what Others accomplish by desire.

This somnambulist hero lives on bad faith. He tries to resolve the conflict between pride and desire without ever clearly formulating it. Perhaps a more radical pride is needed to present the problem frankly. At the time of writing The Evening with M. Teste Paul valéry was a man with that sort of pride. Valéryism contrats the vaniteux who desires through the Other and for the Other with the proud man who no longer desires anything but his own nothingness. The only individualist worthy of the name, the proud man is no longer looking for escape from his nothingness in desire; rather after a radical mental askesis he makes that nothingness the very object of his adoration. His aim is still divine autonomy but the direction of his effort is reversed. To found the whole of existence on that nothingness which one carries inside himself is to transform impotence into omnipotence, inflate the inner desert island of Robison Crusoe to the dimensions of infinity.

Apartment Rental Paris Centre on “Ile Saint-Louis”

The term dofollow applies to a links followed or not by a search engine.

No follow?

Anyway some search engines like Yahoo follow all links and it’s not a criteria for ranking and popularity for your website. Unfortunately if you are a commercial, 90% of business pass through Google, so good luck!

Earlier this year, David Leonhardt speculated on how the search engines treat NoFollow links.  For those who might be a little green, NoFollow links are not totally ignored by the search engines.  For those who really, really green, NoFollow links are believed to be totally ignored by the search engines (because they have the rel=”nofollow” attribute in the link code).

In 2005, Google’s spam team created this HTML attribute do deter comment spammers. That’s when the NoFollow tag (rel=”nofollow”) was born and a new category of professionnal commentators was needed for a new generation of dofollow bloggers. Adding “no follow” to comments prevented search engine spiders from crawling the links so that there were no passive benefit from leaving comments.

Why comment a dofollow blog?

Blog’s tend to receive a much higher PR and faster than regular sites for many reasons: automated features (RSS and ping’s), trackback system that is a kind of automated link-exchange system, plugins that maintain the internal link structure automated, updated new and fresh content (search engines adore it), inter-activity between bloggers (post comments make the pages longer), and so on …

Preliminary observation of the blog

Make sure that the blogger is still alive and that the last post has not been published in Julius Ceasar’s days. Make sure that the blog has already published comments. A blog with no comment is likely to stay impassive after your visit.
Be more confident if you are in a wordpress blog.

Check previous comments

Blogs that pretend to be dofollow often not even allow signature link. The signature is the link you insert with the comment when you fill the name and website field above the comment field.

Blogs that pretend to be dofollow which are in nofollow.

Blogs that are dofollow but with a Lucia kind of pluggin.

The first thing you have to do is find do follow blog

To find a do follow blog  use search engines with the following keywords: “comment dofollow blog” “dofollow blog list”.

Professionnal Comment as different as spam

Commenting could indeed become a full time job taught in university. A post on the internet gave me the idea as long as many people get paid to write in the area of novel or journalism, why not commentator? They would compel bloggers to be more comment luvers and picky about what they are letting pass through the web, and it would be to search engine to find whether you are arriving on a blog full of bad comments…

Rules to quality comments

Your comment must have pertinence in the considered blog. Pertinence is talking about the post, add some idea, add a plus, not only say “good” or “yes i like it”. Your comment have to bring information and science. Just to get link juice back to your site your are a spammer if for you it doesn’t matter that your post is irrelevant, way too long, not readable, etc.

Pertinent or relevant comment don’t need to be flattering.

Pluggins

Comment Luv – Dofollow pluggins – Lucia – Keywords Luv -

How will you make your comment (and your link) more popular

When you got a good comment published never forget to ping it. Use for exemple a
Pingler Website.

Do follow blog list

http://www.grand-pressigny.com

http://awesomenorms.info

http://www.stephanmiller.com/

http://www.apartrental.com

http://blog.mrandmrssmith.com

http://www.mikeroosa.com/

http://www.prwatch.org/

http://mr.hokya.com

http://www.seodeo.de

http://www.apartrental.com

http://freebloghelp.com

http://linkbuildersassociated.ning.com

http://www.grand-pressigny.com

http://flyunity.net

http://ezineblog.org/

http://icttrends.com

http://www.apartrental.com

http://www.1winedude.com/

http://mundoporlibre.com/

http://dfhu.org/blog/

http://www.grand-pressigny.com