TTIP vs. BRICS: Consequences on Geopolitics and Internacional Relations of the XXIst. Century

The TTIP is a proposal on negotiations between the EU and the USA in order to create the largest free international trade area by extension, population and volume of trade of all existing ones. In our view, TTIP would be the geoeconomic answer to BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), as a comercial, geopolitical and cooperation space in other areas such as the military, in both that TTIP reproduce on a commercial scale the political and military alliance already existing between good part of the EU and USA by the NATO. In this paper we will try to explain why the possible rivalry between TTIP and BRICS would reproduce in the XXIst. Century the schemes of “Cold War” inherited from XXth. Century, that in turn reproduced the geopolitical confrontations arising from the theory of Haltford McKinder pivot area and the traditional opposition between thalassocratic imperialisms (government on the seas and oceans) and tellurocratic imperialisms (government on an enormous portion of emerged land). Likewise, we will try to show why, at a dialectic of States level, the most populated, territorially extensive and with greater amount of resources political societies will be those that have the greatest ability to impose a particular model of international relations and its geopolitical hegemony on a universal scale in response to this viable confrontation between TTIP, plus TTP, vs. BRICS.

Mecánicas emocionales y proyectivas en las estrategias de activación patrimonial y museística

Las mecánicas patrimoniales se han basado tradicionalmente en factores racionales, marginando aquellos de carácter más emotivo o relacional. Además, en los últimos tiempos el sesgo economicista las ha obligado a buscar la rentabilidad y participar en el juego de la oferta y la demanda, con unos resultados muy poco esperanzadores. Cambiar ese estado de cosas pasa por cambiar radicalmente las estrategias puestas en marcha, basarse en la interlocución, conocer las relaciones entre el patrimonio y los colectivos sociales y, sobre todo, cambiar nuestra manera de pensar en el patrimonio.

What Heraclitus and Parmenides have in common on Reality and Deception

It is usually assumed that Heraclitus is, exclusively, the philosopher of flux, diversity and opposition while Parmenides puts the case for unity and changelessness. However, there is a significant common understanding of things (though in differing contexts), not simply an accidental similarity of understanding. Both philosophers, critically, distinguish two realms: on the one hand, there is the one, common realm, identical for all, which is grasped by the ‘logos that is common’(Heraclitus) or the steady nous (Parmenides) that follows a right method in order to interpret the real. On the other hand, the realm of multiplicity seen and heard by the senses, when interpreted by ‘barbarian souls’, is not understood in its common unity. Analogously, when grasped by the wandering weak nous it does not comprehend the real’s basic unity. In this paper I attempt to defend the thesis that both thinkers claim that the common logos (to put it in Heraclitean terms) or the steady intellect (to say it with Parmenides) grasp and affirm the unity of the real.