NEWS ON THE END OF THE WORLD
I have just seen two recent lectures, in video, delivered by Professor Eduardo Viveiro de Castro, and I want to recommend them to my readers. The first video — this lecture is titled ”Philosophy, Anthropology, and the End of the World” (http://vimeo.com/78892524); the second lecture has the title ”III Conference Curt Nimuendajú” (http://vimeo.com/81488754).
In this post, I will make a brief calling to these two lectures and, to begin with, I confess that I am faithful to Mr. de Castro’s ideas and I am, in practice, going to re-enact most of his own words. However, I am going to engage in some editing of the lectures so that I can emphasize some points as we go along. For this reason, those readers who intend to have a tighter grasp of the anthropologist’s thinking, should really watch the videos.
I am also going to make one observation concerning the dialogue — or the lack of dialogue — between the psychoanalysis and the new anthropology, keeping in mind the dramatic situation we are going through, from the civilizational standpoint.
In particular, I want to call my readers’ attention to the new battlefield, a war de facto, which the anthropology — via Bruno Latour and Viveiros de Castro — catch a glimpse of, a war between the Terranos and the Humans; they tell us who are the participants in the fight, and how the ‘alliances’ have been forged so far. Besides, what is fundamental: how the classical psychoanalysis has positioned itself in this new battlefield, facing this war that — in Latour’s words — we are already experiencing.
Before starting our journey, however, I want to give my testimony of the experience I had while I was watching these videos. I think that the most striking virtues of these anthropologists are their courage and lucidity, and I feel that, by watching their lectures both these virtues were mobilized in myself. Listening to de Castro, we come to understand the importance of G. Deleuze and F. Guattari’s Anti-Oedipus and of the Thousand Plateaus. There is a new sensibility going on, and the anthropology, propounded by this anthropologist, grasps and changes into a political project.
I. PHILOSOPHY, ANTHROPOLOGY, AND THE END OF THE WORLD.
Viveiros de Castro begins with two observations: what is our condition, on the moment, in the Western culture, and how the inhabitants of the indigenous America understand this tradition.
Let us start by the first question: there were successive deaths of the great transcendences in the last centuries. Emmanuel Kant departed from God/Man and from the World. These three instances died successively and their deaths define the present condition: 1) God died; 2) the modern Man died, and now 3) we have to face the death of the World, the end of the world. Without God, without Man, without World. Three centuries. Three deaths.
Today, there is this extensive unrest; those deaths bring about crises. We could live without God, we could live without Man; can we live without World? How do the philosophical and the anthropological thinking reorganize itself in relation to these deaths?
Davi Kopenawa, a Yanomami’s chief, has a book published in French and English titled “The fall of the sky” — the anthropologist Bruce Albert took part in this writing. In the book, Kopenawa asserts that ”the white sleep too much, but can only dream of themselves”. For Viveiros de Castro, that sentence has image of thought, it contains a theory and a criticism of the western philosophy: a criticism of our civilizational project. The sentence calls our attention to the idea that the Yanomamis ‘don’t dream only of themselves’. It is crucial, though, to point out that we see them differently, since we say that the Indians are animists, narcissists, primitive people who can only read themselves in the whole world! Davi thinks exactly the opposite and says ”the Westerners can’t see anything; they just stay drowsing away and don’t see anything”.
The thinking process is essentially the dreaming process for the Yanomamis: to dream of what is not human, to have the ability to dream and to leave from humanity. Davi Kopenawa withholds such ability in us, the white people, because for us, the whites, the thinking is focused in the ‘world of merchandise’, because we can only see ourselves. Once the white people only think of merchandises, they only dream of themselves — then cannot leave themselves, they cannot leave from humanity. For Kopenawa, being unable to dream of oneself means to be able to dream of the beings from the forest, the invisible beings, the souls, the animals.
The western thinking has a trajectory and in it, the thinking process was introjected and became a narcissist contemplation of itself: the western thinker probe the cognition, the imagination, the understanding of the man. The white people only think of themselves.
Kopenawa is denouncing what Freud said: everything dreamed of by the man is projection — plants, animals, etc. It always of ourselves that we dream. Is it possible to think of something else and then leave oneself? The white people cannot do it anymore.
Kopenawa belongs to a shamanic culture, and in this kind of culture, the access to the reality come about through dreaming, with the use of drugs and hallucinogens — this is very different from the white’s learning process of reading and writing. That is why the white are like an ‘axe on the ground’ when they are sleeping. They behave as if they were objects or as if they were dead — just dreaming of themselves. Conversely, for a shamanic culture, dreaming is a condition to find outwardness, out-ward space, and the white people have an inability to reach this out-ward space, an exterior space reached through thinking.
Add to that the fact that the white people are devastating the Earth in order to extract oil, ore, and, because of this, the sky is going to fall and the humankind is going to go underneath the ground and become spook! Those who keep all this mess standing — the Earth and the Sky — are the Shamans. The fall of the sky has happened many times before, and the reason has always been the same: that is what we, the white people, call ecological/environmental crisis.
The indigenous cosmologies tell us of successive cycles of destruction and creation — successive collapses of the Earth. Today, the white people promote, without restraint, the mineral exploration, deforestation, what is going to cause the end of the world. Kopenawa presents two issues: 1) the white people can only think of themselves; 2) the world is going to end. Kopenawa’s accusation that ‘we only think of ourselves’ demands an answer. How to respond to this? How to respond to the immanence? To the exteriority? In the West, this is reserved to the Art, not to the Science and to the Technique.
For the indigenous people we do prodigious objects and machines, but, in our sociological interactions, we are stupid, aggressive, scandalous, primitive, and clumsy. We, the white people, are seduced by the western technical portent and we are tempted to separate the technique from the society. Is it possible to achieve such separation? To the Yanomamis, it is useless: they just refuse the white culture in totum. We are, says Viveiros de Castro, pressed against ourselves and against the other people, once the three cornerstones of our civilization — God, Man, and the World — are in crisis. Our narcissism is incurable! The other peoples cannot help us and we are threatening to take everyone to the abyss.
What response can we provide for the other peoples who accuse us of ‘only dream of ourselves’? What can we do in this situation? The white ‘only dream of themselves’, and they do not include the ‘non-humans’ in their political universe. According to Viveiros de Castro, the end of the world is a fruitful topic from the philosophical and political perspective. By the way, the whites have destroyed the indigenous world consecutive times and, for this reason, only them, the Indians, know how to think about such topic, not, by all means, the whites.
Now, with the expectation of an environmental crisis, on a global scale, has put us on position similar to that of the Indians. However, it runs the risk of being annihilated by ourselves!
How will it be like to live after the end of the world? It is necessary to resume the question of the end of the world in the thinking. What is ending is the world that began in 1500. The end of the modern era has come.
II. THE COLLOQUIUM CURT NIMUENDAJÚ
This colloquium, delivered by Viveiros de Castro, in the end of 2013, is quite lengthy, and it took place at the CESTA/USP (Centre for Amerindians Studies). The event was an homage to the anthropologist Curt Nimuendajú, who did the first modern research of ethnology, a hundred years ago, in 1914. Nimuendajú’s research was on the legends of creation and destruction, mainly, on the world destruction, as the basis for the shamanic religion of the Apopukuvas-Guarani.
Nimuendajú had followers in his anthropology, for example, the works of Pierre and Helena Clastres, and several other ethnologists; today, his perspective is resumed in academic dissertations and theses. For Nimuendajú, as well as for these contemporary researchers, the Guarani had and still have an ample thinking, and speculative thinking, eschatological and cosmological, full of rights.
Now, we, the white Westerners, are also speculating and turning around the issue of the end of the world. The scientific legends, and others in the West, increasingly hypothesize on this topic, and such hypothesis has become everybody’s plight.
Many subjects were debated during that lengthy lecture and I am going to stick to two of them: a) the catastrophe that stalks us, and b) the political proposal, in course, brought by Bruno Latour and Viveiros de Castro.
THE CATASTROPHE THAT STALKS US.
We make a big mistake when we label as ‘environmental crisis’ the danger that stalks us, and it becomes crystal clear when Viveiros de Castro shows how grave is our issue.
Viveiros de Castro thinks that the major problem we face now is the fact that the planet is going into the Anthropocene — the third geological era of the quaternary period, an event that is going to last much longer than the species who named it! That is to say, the effects of the human action on the Earth system is going to outlast Homo sapiens. The Anthropocene — the era of man — is related to a new thermodynamic regime. This is a new world and nobody has any clue about what is going to happen next. Surely, we have a couple of speculations and projections — as accurate as those made by the Guarani — or else, we just have guesstimations on how the world is going to end. Our scenario is as much disquieting, today, as that of the Guarani.
The climate change is, indeed, one of the standards by which we understand the current crisis. There are many other parameters that trace many other changes in order to better measure what is going on.
Anthropocene, although it carries our name, does not praise us! What is meant by this term is that the humankind has become a geophysical force. Some argue that it is not the whole humankind that has become a geophysical force, but the capitalism, the ruling classes, the privileged societies and, mainly, the countries that use fossil fuels and energies in general, what causes disastrous effects on the population of the entire planet.
The problem is that the whole population on Earth tends to embrace the same standard of energetic consumption, which are modelled by those countries that lead the “anthropogenic locomotives”, those countries that bring forward the climate changes.
Then, what we are left with is some sort of figure-background inversion between the humankind and the environment! Let us go back to the argumentation: the Anthropocene designates the fact that the humankind has become a geophysical force. The name Gaia is also correlated to the notion of Anthropocene, however it happens in reverse. Earth has become a character, a political interlocutor, at the same time that man has become a geopolitical force, as if, we, the men, had gone to the background while the Earth had come to the foreground. This is a sudden inversion between figure and background that is doomed to go wrong!
It is a ghostly and ghastly inversion. In it, the notion of scale is gone: a geological time scale and an anthropological time scale — such scales had both an order and a magnitude very different. As a result, because of this inversion, we witness the breakdown of those scales to the point when there are striking changes in the atmospheric structure, in the movement of the winds, which alters the weather faster than the social systems! All this is, at least, ironic, and, at last, terrifying.
Considerations like these lead to another implication: to the idea of the end of Nature as a stationary or a very slow-moving background against which we have evolved, against which we could measure and gauge our actions. Instead, what we are experiencing nowadays is the inversion, the collapse of the scales.
Put in other words, what is really going on is the very destruction of the environment. From a certain viewpoint, the notion of environment has disappeared whereas there was an internalisation — an introspection — by the human side, and the plants and animals began to be seen as internal to the human environment and no longer the man as part of this same environment.
Isabella Stengers, a Belgian philosopher, refuses the idea of an environmental crisis, or even the very idea of a crisis. The idea of a crisis derives from the assumption that one can overcome it, and we are not going to overcome what is going on because it has already happened. We are living the aftermath of destructive human actions that have been carried out a while ago. Stengers prefers the expression ‘environmental catastrophe’. Many people believe such view is rather catastrophic, melancholic, and pessimistic— but this view was shared, according to Nimuendajú, by the Guarani in the figure of the shaman Apokokuvas-Guarani, between 1905 and 1912, when the anthropologist’s research was done.
This pessimism, said Nimuendajú, in the beginning of the twentieth century, was typical of a race, of a people tired of fighting, tired of being oppressed. For the Guarani, the land itself was tired. However, as we will soon see, those Indians are not just pessimistic, for they also imagine a world’s regeneration.
THE POLITICAL PROPOSAL
Bruno Latour thinks that today we live on a state of war. He also says that there is a crucial difference between state of war and police state, because in a war there is not an arbitrator, there is no third term. War is decided between two parts, without arbiter. In this war, on one side are the Humans, and he says this with manifest irony. The Humans, for Latour, is we, the modern man who intend to conquer the planet to the American consumption pattern. To the Humans, Latour oppose the Earthians — the Earth’s inhabitants.
It is necessary to decide on which side we are on that war. Latour also says that the decision cannot be made having as a base the scientific arguments once, on the one hand, the scientific consensus is massively biased toward the existence of a huge environmental crisis whose origin is anthropic, anthropogenic; on the other hand, that consensus does not prevent contestations! Some people say: it is not so serious; others say: it is not anthropogenic.
Thus, even though science can present incontrovertible facts, it cannot stop and will not stop the controversy and the endurance of the current existing order. That is true because the controversy does not take place between science and non-science, but because it is political; it is a contention over the kind of World, the kind of Earth that we want to live on. It is about a contest of values. The Indians are a kind of living answer: they are trying to show us that there is another way of life, other worlds beyond that of the whites!
Also, let us not forget that, for Viveiros de Castro, climate change sceptics are denialists, by analogy, with those historians who say that there was not a massive annihilation of Jewish people, there was not a shoah, and all this is just some Zionist conspiration! These people are simply denialists. People who are worried with the environmental catastrophe also call denialists those who cast a doubt on the current crisis — they deny obvious facts and through denial, they tell on which world they want to live, after all!
At the end of his last conference on Gaia and the Anthropocene, in February 2013, in Edinburgh, Bruno Latour said that there is a war between Humans and Earthians. For him, the Humans are the modern men. That is, for Latour, the Humans is not the Homo sapiens. The Humans are all those beings that belong to modernity, belong to the modern project, and it includes among the Humans the computers, the pets, the chemical weapons, the police dogs. All these entities are parts of the Humans’ army.
As to the Earthians, well, nobody knows for sure who he or she are. Who would be the Earthians? asks Latour. They would be counted among all the endangered species — seeds, animals, water, air, humans, North Pole, earth — all natural Human’s enemies, all ontologically jeopardized.
Nonetheless, there are humans among the Earthians. These are the “people of Gaia”, in a positive fiction of the term. The “people of Gaia” is in opposition to the ”people of Nature”, who are the modern people, individuals who believe on a transcendent nature, something with its own laws, something absolutely rational, surmountable, controllable — a negative fiction of the term.
Latour keeps asking: is it possible to accept as “people of Gaia” the pachamama, the Nature goddess, of whom the Amerindians speak and other non-modern people? For Latour, these peoples have adjusted themselves to the western environmentalist rhetoric in order to be heard by the domineering societies of the north hemisphere, and they have done this by making compatible their cosmologies and their existential projects. He does not believe that these peoples may belong to the “army of the Earthians”. It seems that there is some respect for the Earth in those peoples, but it is only appearance, for they are powerless inasmuch as their technology is weak and their population is tiny. According to Latour, these peoples, named traditional without technology, in a small number, do not have a way of life that could qualify them to be part of the “Earthians’ army”.
For Viveiros de Castro, such details seen by Latour as signs of impotency are precisely the details, which can become a crucial resource for a post-catastrophic future, something, by the way, that the French scholar believes that is going to happen. For the Brazilian anthropologist, we are the industrialized whites, in network, pharmacologically stabilized, beings who shall ‘descend’ — “lose the gigantic life’s proportions” — and this will be verified over and again.
Viveiros de Castro still inquires: are they really minorities and the small demographic number should not be taken into account, as proposed by Latour? The UN officially estimates in 370 million people the number of indigenous minorities on the planet — they would encapsulated in the nation-states, but they would not with such nation-states. That means, Viveiros de Castro points out, this minority is not so much of a minority. It is, therefore, a considerable “army of Earthians”.
III. WHAT DOES THE PSYCHOANALYSIS HAVE TO DO WITH ALL THIS?
I have some hints on this connection between psychoanalysis and the anthropological perspective discussed so far. To begin with, however, let me warn that the following ideas are of my own responsibility, neither Latour nor Viveiros de Castro have any part on them. I want also make it clear that we are going to deal here with a serious jest, a very serious one. For example, if both Latour and Viveiros de Castro would subject themselves to classic psychoanalysis, and if they would offer to a zealous psychoanalyst, in the very first session, the ideas above mentioned — news on the end of the world and a new political alliance between Earthians and Humans — and if they, the anthropologists, insisted, as showed above, on the idea that there is a planetary war going on, I believe they would be seen as demented, delirious fellows, with odd and dangerous fantasies. If the eminent psychoanalyst were a fearful person, I suspect that, beyond providing such diagnose, he would sneakily and immediately call an ambulance, and our heroes would be kindly but surely taken from the analyst’s office, in straightjackets, being medicated straightaway.
It might be funny and tragic to think about it, but I am afraid to say, such possibility would be very likely. Why would the “science of listening” consider these anthropologists’ acute perceptions as delirious and psychotic fantasies?
Sticking to this argumentative line, I would assert that the anthropologists’ perceptions are based on some data provided by the climate science itself, and their perceptions are based on a gargantuan deconstruction of the modern subjectivity.
Both issues above debated involve several emotional transferences, endless other deconstructions. Now, the psychoanalysis deconstructs the modern subjectivity as well. It is done by the articulation of a double subject — conscious and unconscious — and it is on this element that lies the psychoanalysis critical potential.
Nevertheless, the emotional and subjective deconstruction of the “people of Gaia” has gone too far and has been destroying the very psychoanalytical subjectivity! The “people of Gaia” is leaving its anthropocentric condition and starting to overcome the boundaries between-worlds, including its political universe, on the Earth they want live with other beings: Gaia, the plants, the animals, the invisible beings, the air, the weather, the seeds…
Those who have deconstructed themselves emotionally and cognitively, towards the “people of Gaia” can only listen to the two issues discussed in Viveiros de Castro’s lecture. The anthropocentric people cannot listen to and understand the proposals made above. Let me exemplify: Viveiros de Castro gave, in 2010, a lecture titled “The Anti-Narcissus: the place and function of anthropology in contemporary world”, at the SBPSP (Brazilian Psychoanalysis Society of São Paulo). The lecture was published on the Brazilian Journal of Psychoanalysis”, volume 44. On the same edition, two commentators were cautiously chosen among the analysts from the Institution. To my astonishment, they did not get anything right from the anthropologist’s lecture! I engaged myself in this debate on a previous post and until now I’m traumatized with that incident since the psychoanalysts/commentators could surely argue and disagree even a radical way with the ideas displayed on the Amerindian and the new anthropology; nonetheless, could not — as was the case — misunderstand so miserably what was said! They did not get even the jokes!
What happened was traumatic, but, for me, it was also revealing of the fact that the new sensibilities are not liable to be apprehended by the classic psychoanalysis. By classic psychoanalysis I am thinking of all those living under the auspices of “Civilisation and its Discontents”, “Totem and Taboo”, and “The Future of an Illusion”, all books by Mr Freud. So much so, as the ‘spirit of politics’ is Machiavelli and the PT (Worker’s Party) is around to demonstrate how true is the presence of that Founding father in the current politics, the psychoanalysis which I call classic lives under the aegis of Civilisation and its Discontents, and there is no way out of the ‘one-way’ civilisation proposed by Freud; in it, the notion of instinctual repression is unequivocal, even if the price to be paid for it are the wars, the world wars, by the way.
Let us not forget how much Herbert Marcuse, in Eros and Civilisation, tried to discontinue this one-way civilisation. The problem is that the world has changed and, nowadays, the price to be paid is not just the world wars (as if it was not enough!), a greater problem today is the end of the world!
Despite all this, between the reality and the Founding Father operating in this closed premises, the classic psychoanalysts give hands to the Founding Father rather than to the reality in front of their eyes!
On the centennial anniversary of Totem and Taboo, written by Sigmund Freud in 1913, the book deserved a reedition and some debates around Brazil. Freud aimed, as we now know, at formulating a new ”cosmology”, a new thought on the human condition and the world. In this cosmology, he tells the origin of the hominization starting with an initial move which threw man inside a society, a society henceforth managed by rules (taboos) and no longer by the sheer force of a despotic patriarch — a figure whose force was expressed through totems.
Now, at the core of our culture, we have, out of Totem and Taboo, a new killing and a new anthropophagic feast. Behold, we have become humans after a children’s insurrection, members of the primitive herds, who, once rebelled against the father’s despotism, rendered him powerless, killed him and devoured him. A columnist from Folha de São Paulo wrote, “This history would be forgotten, buried in the origin of humankind”, but it would be updated in the individuals through the Oedipus’ complex — thus, the social drama would re-enact itself repeatedly! In addition, he concludes: this narrative synthesized an anthropological, ethnological, philosophical, historical, social and psychoanalytical knowledge.
Is there any importance to the “psychoanalytical knowledge” that Freud, when treating the so-called ‘primitive people’, he had not freed himself from the linear, evolutionary, and Eurocentric view? I am sorry to say that, but for psychoanalysis, it does not matter, because, as Freud’s followers say: “his conclusions are totally defensible even today”.
I will give an example, from my personal experience: I have connections with some classic psychoanalysts — there is no shortage of debates and clinic supervisions in São Paulo — but I do not have a conversation with them about the Viveiros de Castro’s lecture. I rarely talk about the “people of Gaia” or the “army of the Earthians”, none the less, I keep fighting the universalism, I keep fighting the idea that Oedipus and castration give rise to the only available reality principle, and eventually, to my amazement, they cannot understand what I am talking about! At the beginning, I thought it could be just unwillingness, now I know it is not the case, it is something more serious, because, it is, indeed, an emotional and mental construction which do not allow them to cast any doubt on the world they inhabit, the modern world (when, if it consciously taken, such world is under accelerated deconstruction). It turns out to have its funny facet once nobody else has ever worried more about the reality, about the reality principle, about the acceptance of reality, than the classical psychoanalysts have!
The problem, the unexpected and unpredictable problem, for those classical psychoanalysts, is that the reality is changing! Again, it is surprising that it works that way, but it is so! The classical psychoanalysis is the most anthropogenic of all the human disciplines and, borrowing the Yanomami Davi Kopenawa’s lucid words, psychoanalysis has put the men to “dream of themselves”. As the major ally of the modern Humans, psychoanalysis does not see, and will not see, with good eyes, the Earthians, and it will not let be touched by the “people of Gaia”. Then, there — at the Brazilian Psychoanalysis Society — the discerning voice of Professor Viveiros de Castro cannot be neither heard nor understood.
The emotional and cognitive construction — having Oedipus at its core — prevent us from engaging in that hearing because the reality principle to which one has access is Oedipal what makes even more rigid the border between worlds. Oedipus rules sovereignly with the Humans — the modern humans and their endlessly lethal devices. For me, it discloses the fact that it is not only the denialism referred to by Viveiros de Castro, but, even more grave, what is at stake is a certain emotional and cognitive construction — modern and Oedipal.
Therefore, the ongoing war does not entail only persuasion and conviction; this war engages two opposing worldviews.
 With the impact I had when listening and understanding Professor Viveiros de Castro’s words in those two videos, I could not resist and I drew the anthropologist’s natal chart and its transits in the following years. Eduardo’s sign is Aries. He was born on April 19th, 1951, in Rio de Janeiro. He is an Arian and that is easily identifiable by astrologer who would listen to him. I do not know what his birth hour is, and that is why I cannot know his ascendant. However, just with the available data about him I am able to find out some information about him. His Sun is 28 degree and 43 minutes and the image Sabeu (traditional astrological symbol) says: a large audience confronts the performer who disappointed its expectations. How do I interpret this image? The Arian starts new worlds; this is his making, for he is an originator. By starting a new world, of course, he always frustrates many people’s expectations! It is unavoidable.
Viveiros de Castro’s Venus is at 5 degrees from Gemini, and his corresponding symbol sabeu says: a revolutionary magazine asking for action. Since 2011, Neptune in Pisces, one of the greatest gods of change, is squaring the anthropologist’s Venus, meaning that he has opened himself to the “unity of life”. Put differently, his way of loving and creating worlds since a couple of years now have changed, because the borders between worlds have collapsed. Neptune dissolve the borders between worlds and opens for all of us, when is passes by Venus or by the Sun, the ”unity of life”. In 2013, 2014, and 2015, Neptune has been squaring Gemini to 5 degrees — and it will go on for some years to come — so that Viveiros de Castro is and will be at the apex of this appropriation: world creation from the ‘unity of life’. Besides, that allows us to read poetically the symbol sabeu, which corresponds, to Venus: revolutionary writings that demand actions!
This transit of Neptune squaring Venus is, then, what’s up to give the special tonality to the two large transits over the anthropologist’s Sun. Uranus in Aries, the unpredictable, and Pluto in Capricorn, the transformer, they will respectively conjunct and square with the anthropologist’s Sun. Uranus, from 2015 on, will be in conjunction with the Sun and will be in exact conjunction in 2017 and 2018 — staying in conjunction for a couple of years ahead. Pluto will square Eduardo’s Sun starting in 2018, and such square will be full in 2022 — continuing for some years after that date. What does it mean? It means that these two transpersonal planets will bring up the genuine seeds of the anthropologist’s individuality, and with that, he will originate — since this is his best skill — new worlds from his maxim singularity. He who lives will see!
 “The Fall of the Sky: Words of a Yanomami Shaman” is the unique account of the life story of Davi Kopenawa. The book tells us about Kopenawa’s initiation as a shaman and about his first encounters with the white outsiders. It describes the rich culture, history, and ways of life of these inhabitants of the forest; besides, it does not shy away from presenting their impressions of the Western culture. This book was published in English and French and in Portuguese in 2014.
 Vol. 44, number 4, 15-26, whose topic is Alterity.
 Freud and the new origin of species. Márcio Selman-Silva, Folha de São Paulo, 29/12/2013.
 idem, ibidem.
 idem. Ibidem.
 idem. Ibidem.
 Maybe Bionians (W. R. Bion’s followers) are able to open themselves up to such listening because of their notion of unconscious with limitless potentiality. The primordial mind, the first reality of mentality, to Bion, could be thought of as transpersonal and even trans-speciesism — it is possible to think of it beyond the species Homo sapiens. Bion’s primordial mind belong to the very history of the cosmos and the future of it: it is the O, unnameable, infinite, formless, and it is towards the O that the mind expands itself. Bion, who was Melanie Klein’s disciple and analysant, starts from the Oedipal personality, but he tends to something beyond, to the infinite, to the O.