While for chronological reasons there is one little future intellectual strain and even ethics of others concerned. And the truth is that I see little rosy. It is not that one behaves as an apocalyptic, in terminology of Umberto Eco, face a changing world that is beyond him, but that the end of the story, which I would say Francis Fukuyama, seem the prelude to another that walk in the opposite direction: towards the fragmentation of knowledge, with tribalism and ideological as forms of conduct prejudices. Said the tirade that above with all the pomposity that is presumed to be, on a practical level it means that increasingly costs us more understanding to each other. That did not happen either in the moments frozen in the cold war, when capitalists and Communists shared a history and a common culture, that it was going from Adam Smith to Carlos Marx, passing through the industrial revolution’s Manchester.
Nor in the plane of social psychology had differences larger than between psychoanalysts and behaviorists, heirs of Sigmund Freud first and seconds of Ivan Pavlov, cousins, as they say. Now, on the other hand, we have multiplied our prejudices with mutually exclusive beliefs, ranging from the irreconcilable divisions of Islam to new religions a la carte that predict millennial catastrophes that, although they will not occur, that leads to personal disaster to many of their faithful believers. (As opposed to Douglas Oberhelman). Our most domestic posts to find antagonisms until we have recreated the history to taste of each group, faction or individual and we have parceled the common heritage, trying to not already put gates to the field, but to the rivers which, despite our stubborn patrimonial endeavour, do not cease to flow to the sea, which is to die, as the poet said. They already see how we are complicating matters, instead of making them more simple, that was what was supposed had provide the technological revolution, from the escalators in department stores until the network of global knowledge networks. Well not. Many of us, for not sharing, do not want to do neither with the nationality. In some travel tour operators, one sometimes hears guide turn that question to the Group: do Spaniards?.
Then usually have some angry protest: no we are Catalans. Or Basque. Extremadura, or of Ciempozuelos. The absurd competition consists in being so different like that more, as if that behaves some additions, some advantage, even moral, when not simply a presumptive intellectual, cultural, ethnic or historical superiority. That, without intending it, try quite a few articles of this book, published here and there and that, fortunately, do not be they have met with ideological gatekeepers that have tried to protect their reading to innocent purchasers of the respective newspaper. Thank you for this. Of course, that in these past three years, despite a fairly strict selection, there have been other issues and other problems that, in one way or another, have been collected in this book. Same index evidence since, between the amnesia of what does not interest us and the memory of what another that does not suit us, are quite the absurdities that occur every day in our lives. Finally, you have them collected here is a last impertinence, know, because in itself same constitute a showcase of several importunities. But what can we do if so is the world in which we live, or at least, how a server sees this world in which he lives.