Qué Significa Ser Un Hombre en El Siglo XXI

8/20/2019 Qué Significa Ser Un Hombre en El Siglo XXI

1/16

Daniel Medvedov

•

Q ué significa ser un H ombre en el S iglo XX

•

Madrid 2015


2/16

Hay diez tipos de hombres:

1. El Hombre Familia

2. El Hombre Médico

3. El Hombre de Negocios

4. El Hombre Marino

5. El Hombre Guerrero

6. El Hombre Arquitecto

7. El Hombre Artista

8. El Hombre Creador - Ingeniero

9. El Hombre Brujo

10. El Hombre Religioso

Vivir en el siglo XXI no difiere mucho de vivir unos tres mil años antes de Cristo. La clave es la integridad.

¿Qué es

IntegridaD ? •


3/16

•

¿Cuál es el secreto de Picasso?El secreto de este hombre singular fue su integridad. Es la integridad del genio.

¿Qué sentido tiene la palabra “integridad”?


4/16


5/16

Integridad[con minúscula es la misma que con mayúscula ]

•I N T E G R I D A D

Polimecánica educativa

En el siglo XXI, como en cualquier otro nuevo milenio, todos deberiamos empezar por seroriginales: necesitamos crear otras ciencias y otras artes. He aqui la Polimecánica Educativnuevo sistema de re-conocimiento que propone el re-conocerse a si mismo y a no respetaropiniones de los demás.

Instituto Integral

Todos queremos ser íntegros. También deseamos ser integrales, tener integridad y pensarintegralmente. Los griegos tenían palabras para cada uno de estos terminos:

ÍNTEGRO – AdyafthorosINTEGRAL- AkeraiosINTEGRALMENTE – HolokhlerosINTEGRIDAD - Adyaphtoria, Holokhleria, Kalokagathia


6/16

¡El clero mete su naríz hasta en los asuntos de integridad! ¿Qué sentido tendría la palabra“integridad”? En español el asunto se resuelve en los umbrales de la entereza, la capacidad Ser de “ser” “entero” y de allí el “enterarse” de algo, enteramente.Una visión es ‘entera”, es ‘integral” por excelencia.En la integridad, ya sabemos, las partes conviven en un todo armónico. Para alcanzar la

integridad necesitamos recoger las partes de un mismo todo y fundirlas en un crisol operati bajo el fuego de la visión. La totalidad es elegancia. ¡No hay ser más elegante que el seríntegro, el ser total!Pero hay que saber que el Ser es ‘total’, y es, de por sí, “íntegro”. No obstante, ser “totalitares un defecto de forma, es imponer una totalidad ficticia a unas partes que no pertenecen altodo con el cual se pretende operar. Se trata de la acción de reunir unas porciones que nocorresponden a un mismo “todo”. Esta acción paradójica indica que ciertas partes pertenece“todos” distintos. ¿Qué es “todo”? En griego hay dos palabras para definir este concepto: THolon y To Pan.“En to Pan”(Uno es Todo) —se decia en tiempos de Heráclito. “Pan ta Okto” (Todo es Och —respondían los pitagóricos . Es obvio, entonces, que “Uno es Ocho” ¿Qué diferencia hab

entre el griego HOLON y el otro termino, PAN?La imagen más coherente de la integridad y de la integralidad es el caso del Ser. El Serindividual es un todo que tiende hacia la unión con el Todo único, el Gran Ser del Cosmos.

¿Saben que hay un “Instituto Integral”? Parece un nombre copiado e imitado: Gurdieff lo usen París, durante las primeras décadas del siglo pasado. En griego, el Instituto Integral sellamaría HOLOKHLEROS ETHOS.

Un Instituto Integral se supone que une varios “todos”, para hacerlos “uno”. Un individuo“integrador (he aquí a Ken Wilber, como ejemplo) es alguien que propicia la “reunión” detodos los aspectos o elementos de “algo” y genera así la formación de un “todo”. Parecieraque lo “integral” es “global’: constituye un “todo”.

Un ser íntegro no carece de ninguna de sus partes, es una persona proba, recta, intachable,impecable. No por nada se llamaba “integridad” a la pureza de las vírgenes. Pero esa“integridad” virginal tiene que madurar. No podemos concebir el ser como a una virgen. A respetable categoria le basta al Alma, entidad que acompaña al Ser en su aventura existenciSi el Ser es el Principe Azul, el Alma es su Princesa. Cada una de las partes de un todo es parte “integral”. Pero los filósofos sostienen que esa “parte” entra en la composición del“todo” sin serle esencial, de modo que el “todo’ puede subsistir, aunque incompleto, sin ellsencillamente, puede prescindir de ella. No obstante, me pregunto, ¿Puede acaso ser el ”todincompleto?La respuesta es categórica: el Todo es, de por si, “completo”, total, pleno y unitario. Si algofalta, ya no es “total”.Este es un impasse.

Al Todo no le puede faltar nada.El problema tiene que ser resuelto y la resolución, como la solución, es parte del problema.¿Como integrar esos “todos” en un solo y único “todo”?

Pues, a través de la recolección, a través de la concentración, a través de la meditación, engriego METANOIA.


7/16

Con elegancia, vamos a recoger y a recogernos, y , en consecuencia, el Todo brillará en su pristina realidad.Recoge , amigo, es tiempo de irse, vamos, nos veremos en el País del Todo, en PANTOPIA,POLIMECANIA. Vamos a salir de PEDIADA, el país de los pies-planos, vamos con Cyrana visitar los imperios del Sol y de la Luna.

Por el tobogán de la nariz de Cyrano nos deslizaremos hacia los campos de la integridad ycompartiremos el pan de la PANSOPHIA. Adelante. . . El pasado no merece ni siquiera unrecuerdo. Olvídalo, pasa la página. Entérate: un nuevo siglo y un nuevo milenio polimecánte espera.Ya estamos en la contemporaneidad y no en la postmodernidad.Para más detalles sobre el viaje hacia el Sol, favor leer la mini-novela “La nariz de Cyrano”

ANEXO

Comentarios jordi ribot 2006-11-04 17:36

Querido Daniel:

Preguntas que diferencia habría entre los términos griegos pan y holón. Voy a aventurarme adar una respuesta.Creo que pan se podría traducir como un todo cerrado , y holón como un todo abierto. Creoque a través de un medio como el cómic podemos ver la diferencia entre ambos términos.Un cómic es una creación “cerrada” llevada a cabo por un dibujante. El “cerrado” en elcómic se refiere a la “conexión de momentos espacio-temporales, las viñetas, que discurrenuna a una poniendo de manifiesto una realidad continua y unificada, desde la primera a laúltima página. El acto de crear usando el cómic como medio concreto, con todas lasexigencias de dibujo, de guión que requiere el caso es una decisión del autor del “cerrado”,o cómic.

Para leer un cómic se requiere un estado “abierto”. “Abierto” querría decir la capacidad de percibir el devenir de las partes en función del hilo argumental que es la historieta en sí. Esobvio que el ser capaz de estar “abierto” para leer un cómic esconde la potencialidad dellector de entender argumentos, quizá con independencia del medio.

Espero que mi análisis sea correcto.Sería la bomba que hubiera un instituto integral y poder asumir el precio para estudiar enél. Recibe un afectuoso saludo, J.

•


8/16


9/16

•


10/16

Anexo

Men at work

The age of austerity has transformed work, but what it means to be a man has not caught up

By Allison J Pugh https://aeon.co/essay/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-man-in-the-age-of-austerity

•

Allison J Pugh

is an associate professor of sociology at the University of Virginia. Her latest book isTheTumbleweed Society: Working and Caring in an Age of Insecurity (2015).

•

When Gary Gilbert lost his job, it was devastating. A tradesman, he had joined hisemployer’s company only because he thought it offered a bit more security than endlesslychasing the next gig as a freelance operator, and that he could then provide a better future fohis son. The layoff came without warning. ‘I was crushed,’ he recalled. ‘Oh God. I’ve criedat night about it.’


11/16

While the layoff shattered his hopes and, Gary believes, was unwarranted, he refused to blame his employer. ‘I had no reason to take that job,’ he explained. ‘I thought I was going make a more stable environment, you know. And I was wrong, you know, but that – that wamy fault. I shouldn’t have done it. I never should have let my guard down. I never shouldhave put my livelihood in somebody else’s hands. It was the biggest mistake I ever made.’

Gary’s response is not untypical; recent research shows that Americans are more likely to blame themselves for job insecurity, even when it results from structural changes in theeconomy. I interviewed 80 people up and down the class ladder, and with varyingexperiences of job precariousness. I found that we do a lot to keep our strong feelings awayfrom the employer – we shrug our shoulders in resignation, we talk about layoffs as newopportunities for growth, we even convince ourselves we are glad not to keep working thereanyway. Most of all, we blame ourselves. And while that blame can be corrosive for bothmen and women, there is something unique in the scarring that results for men, who often sework as a primary measure of masculinity.

For working-class men, it is something of a crisis. There’s a lot of critical talk about themoral character of working-class men – generally conceived of as those with less than acollege degree – and most of it revolves around work, reflecting some latent anxiety aboutwho is shirking and who is carrying. We know they watch more television and do lesschildcare than working class woman and are less likely than more affluent men to work lonhours. Working-class men themselves value ‘being hardworking’ among the qualities they prize the most; for the white working-class men who march in the reserve army of US talkradio, working hard is highly prized, and deeply respected. It forms the bedrock of theiroutrage at those who, talk-radio culture likes to say, ‘refuse to work’. (For their part, blackmen value work but also talk about collective solidarity). Underneath the moral language on

both sides is the notion of work as the arbiter of honour in the US.

Yet the landscape of jobs in the US has radically altered the configuration of who does whatand for what benefit. In contrast to a few decades ago, a much higher percentage of womenand people of colour are in the labour force: about 47 per cent of workers today are women,compared with 38 per cent in 1970, while the 36 per cent of non-white workers is almostdouble their proportion in 1980. Meanwhile, the proportion of men with full-time jobs hasshrunk, from 80 per cent 45 years ago to just 66 per cent. The jobs men do have are alsoincreasingly insecure – at first due to shifts in types of work across the economy but, since1996, likely due to the spread of layoffs as a management tactic.

Work might still be a moral measure then, but the distribution of work is increasinglyuneven, with some men working too much and many men working too little, and bothensnared in conditions not entirely of their making. For men at the top, work colonises evermore of the day’s 24 hours, while those at the bottom, such as Gary, can face despair,hopelessness, even – as was reported recently – declining life expectancy. And men’schanged relationship to work bears implications for their changed relationships at home.


12/16

Masculinity has long been written in men’s relationship to work and, despite the onset offeminism, involved fathering, and the ‘slacker’, this is even truer today. In 1979, there was acertain rationality to the link between income and hours: the more you made, the less youworked. The bottom 20 per cent of earners were more likely than the top 20 per cent to workvery long hours. By 2006, that relationship had reversed. Now, the more money men make,

the more likely they are to put in what are often called ‘killer hours’. What is behind thereversal? Why would rich men work longer?Scholars debate the causes. Some credit the ‘long-hours premium’ that professional-managerial class men earn – meaning the extra money they get for near-constant availabilityand work – while others point to pay discrepancies within occupations acting as incentivesfor increased hours (men want to earn more than the guy in the next cubicle), and still othersattribute the trend to anxieties about job insecurity that grew in the 1980s and ’90s for whitecollar workers.But these arguments overlook the emotional resonance of work, its profound capacity to tellus something about ourselves. What it signals to men is a form of honourable masculinity, aexpressed in the moral code of ‘work devotion’, demanding an enormous time investment

and emotional commitment to the career or employer.

Men of the professional-managerial class are the big winners in this transformation of workFor them, ‘insecurity’ can look like ‘flexibility’, as they jump from company to company insearch of a better match for their skills. Highly educated workers are less likely than blue-collar or low-level service workers to suffer job displacement, and when they do, theyexperience less of a pay loss.

Still, it is well to remember that even at the top the choices can often be strangelyconstrained: for most men, their only ‘choice’ is either to work intensely or to get off the

train. This all-or-nothing scenario has dramatic implications for men, women and families,impeding many men from being the fathers they want to be, funnelling out of promisingcareers many women who resist the extreme schedule and, for heterosexual couples, creatinfamilies that can explode over mismatched goals and possibilities, or conform to moretraditional norms than the couple ever planned.

The transformation of work might have quickened the pace of the treadmill for professionalmen, but it has thrown other men off of it altogether. In the past 50 years, the number of menworking full-time has fallen from 83 per cent to 66 per cent; between the 1970s and the ’90sthe proportion of jobs lost by prime-age working men almost doubled. The change was evenmore dramatic for black men, partly because disproportionate numbers of them in the USwere employed in the dwindling manufacturing sector, not to mention the disproportionateimpact of incarceration policies.


13/16

For those men who do work, pay has stagnated, with the purchasing power of the averagehourly wage peaking more than 40 years ago – in 1973. These changes have accompanied twithering of unionised labour’s power, which the latest report puts at just 6.6 per cent of private-sector workers. Today, there are more than one and a half times as many ‘contingenworkers’ as there are union members in the US.

What does it mean to prize something – to understand it as a primary measure of what itmeans to live a life of value – when it is becoming scarcer? How do men reconcilethemselves to the likelihood of their own failure, particularly men with just a high! schooldegree, who are unemployed at more than three times the rate of college graduates? If workis what it means to be a man, what do you do when work disappears?

Abandoned by both employer and wife, Gary aims his ire at just one of theseOne option is to get angry. When I interviewed laid-off men for my recent book on jobinsecurity, their anger, or more often a wry bitterness, was impossible to forget. By and large

like Gary the laid-off tradesman, they were not angry at their employers. At home, however,they sounded a different note. ‘I have a very set opinion of relationships and how femaleshandle them,’ Gary told me, rather flatly. ‘It’s what I’ve seen consistently throughout mylife.’ On his third serious relationship, Gary talked about the ‘hurt that’s been caused to me by a lack of commitment on the part of other people’, and he complained that ‘marriage can be tossed out like a Pepsi can’. In the winds of uncertainty, Gary’s anger at women keepshim grounded.

Most Americans might expect very little from their employers – as one layoff survivor toldme: ‘Just a paycheck and a certain amount of respect, I would say.’ They might shrug theirshoulders about job insecurity as the inevitable cost of doing business in a globalisedeconomy (even though some economists have found that layoffs usually end up costing firmrather than boosting stock prices or productivity). At home, however, working! class menexpect more of their intimate partners, and brittle yearning turns those expectations into betrayal if they fall short. Abandoned by both employer and wife, Gary aims his ire at justone of these.

It is wrong, however, to read this anger as simply the outrage of a dethroned king who haslost his prerogative. Working-class men such as Gary long for a time when they had rights towomen’s loyalty, deference and caring labour, and when, in their view, theyearned that right by virtue of the hard work they themselves contributed. The transformation of work

dislodged their ability to put up their share of this bargain, one that netted them benefits, to be sure, but also involved years of their backbreaking labour. It is this morality tale thatenables them to count themselves wronged, and lends such intensity to their concerns aboutthose mythical emblems of entitlement: able-bodied people who refuse to work. What theywant, they maintain, is the opportunity to work hard for their rightful place, to be a workingclass hero.


14/16

Perhaps a more powerful response to the transformation of work is to change what counts ashonourable masculinity. Some men I spoke with seemed to be pursuing a form of‘independence’. They owed employers as little as they themselves were owed – which theymaintained was not very much indeed – and, at home, they cultivated a careful freedom, evewhen their feelings ran strong.

Stanley, an actor who had been laid off from several day jobs, was in the middle of a divorcBringing up the common trope of ‘working on a marriage’, he said that we need to redefinethe term. ‘Because the work changes,’ he said. ‘The work can be in letting go. That’s the

right thing to do. So, yeah, that’s all the work. Because I think bottling it up or denying it, ithat’s what happens, it’s not going to work either.’ Independence dislodged men from

domesticity, but although they sometimes celebrated it as freeing, their accounts often echoewith loneliness.

Others try to reshape masculinity not by shrinking obligation but by redirecting it towards thhome. Clark had been laid off repeatedly, and was now struggling to bring in enough money by working part-time in retail and playing in a band on weekends. He talked a lot about how

he was raising his daughter – making her home-cooked meals, meeting her at the bus,warning her about social media. ‘I wanted her to have a secure life, where she knew therewas somebody there for her,’ he said.

Precisely because active fatherhood is not a choice but part of an honourable soul itbecomes an alternative heroic masculinityThe news is full of stories of involved fathers doing it differently than their own distant dadsTo be sure, stay-at-home moms still outnumber stay-at-home dads by about 100 to one and,while fathers who live with their children have doubled their childcare time, they spendfewer hours with children than do mothers; meanwhile the percentage of non! residentfathers has increased sharply since 1960, with more than a third of children now livingwithout their dads. Still, many men today are finding purpose and meaning in a closerelationship to their children.

When I talked with men who were active caregivers, they would often inveigh against thosewell-meaning but clumsy comments from others exclaiming over their extraordinarydedication; as Owen described them: ‘Well-meaning people making comments like: “Oh,gosh. Most men would have walked away.” Yadda yadda yadda. And that used to make meso mad… I used to get offended by that.’ Characterising what they do as a commendablechoice is annoying because it implies that they might not have stepped up to do thisrefashioned masculine duty. It is precisely that it is not a choice, but instead part of theirgood character, their honourable soul, that makes active fatherhood an alternative heroicmasculinity.

Nonetheless, most working! class men such as Gary are trapped by a changing economy andan intransigent masculinity. Faced with changes that reduce the options for less-educatedmen, they have essentially three choices, none of them very likely. They can pursue moreeducation than their family background or their school success has prepared them for.


15/16

They can find a low-wage job in a high-growth sector, positions that are often consideredwomen’s work, such as a certified nurse practitioner or retail cashier. Or they can take onmore of the domestic labour at home, enabling their partners to take on more work to providfor the household. These are ‘choices’ that either force them to be class pioneers or genderinsurgents in their quest for a sustainable heroism; while both are laudable, we can hardly

expect them of most men, and yet this is precisely the dilemma that faces men today.What does it take to turn the anger of despairing men into violence? The grief andantagonism that erupt after every school shooting focus on either a prevailing gun culture ormental health problems, but masculinity is surely an indispensable component. Research hasshown that the roots of these paroxysms of violence are in the toxic relationship between‘masculinity threat’ – a man’s individual perception that he cannot live up to the ideals ofdominant masculinity – and a cultural betrayal, the sense that men are owed something theyare no longer getting.

In the meantime, the code of work devotion is nothing but lucky for employers, part of themoral glue that keeps us all beholden to the job. But if there’s a love affair happening withwork, it is in large part unrequited. Employers have backed away from the old reciprocitynorms, while affluent men labour ceaselessly to prove their mettle, and less advantaged menlanguish in despair. Is there any way we can respond?

Masculinity has long involved social norms that are widely understood and upheld but thatonly a few can actually live up toIt is worth pointing out that work precariousness is not inescapable; policies that encouragelonger-term employment do exist in other countries (and some states). They are of threekinds. The first rewards employers who want to offer stable work, through such ideas as‘short-time compensation’, or the use of unemployment insurance to enable work-sharing

instead of layoffs. The second builds stronger relationships between employers and workersincluding incentives for workplace training, or an improved accountability frameworkholding employers responsible even for subcontracted or outsourced labour. The third makeit easier for workers to do their jobs well, such as paid parental leave or measures to improvunpredictable scheduling.

But there’s reason for skepticism about any policies that fall short of those that amplifylabour’s voice, which in the US is now quite muted. Other rich countries with higher uniondensity take steps to enable both employer flexibility and worker security, through incomesupports and retraining. In the US, better enforcement of labour law provisions that protectthe right to organise would enable workers to slow down or impede layoffs, or to shape howthey happen. A more subtle outcome would nonetheless be just as important: some scholarsthink that, just like the black church seems to do for black men, unions could remind morewhite working-class men to prize not just ‘hard work’ but also solidarity and other values.


16/16

While we can tackle the distribution and character of work, it is less clear whether we candislodge its moral monopoly. Given radical economic shifts, perhaps more men will redefinthe honourable, so that dominant masculinity reflects other traits and qualities, perhaps evencontributions that more of them can reliably make. Still, we must not underestimate a coreattribute about masculinity: it has long involved social norms that are widely understood and

upheld but that only a few can actually live up to. Given that history, we cannot assume thatthe increased scarcity of a decent job will weaken the hold it has over honour, nor lead tomasculinity’s remaking. That will require another seismic shift, this time in the culturallandscape.

Names have been changed to protect participants’ confidentiality; all quotes appear in TheTumbleweed Society (2015) by Allison J Pugh•

Documents

Qué Significa Ser Un Hombre en El Siglo XXI