a êthos mystéthikos - Chapter 23 (From the work in progress: The Poetized Critique) By M. Santos

 

IS NATURAL BEAUTY NOT ETHICAL?

So far, our work has been motivated to make this approximation of such complex concepts successful, in addition to demonstrating the theoretical sustainability of mysthesis, based on what we define as the step of returning from the metaphysics of ethics to the metaphysics of the beautiful.

From now on, we will recapitulate some essential fundamentals that assure us that we have not incurred in mere empty prolixism.

An ancient Chinese aphorism, authored anonymously, tells us that the spirit of the void (wuji) is pregnant with galaxies, human beings and history. Being empty is like having the whole universe inside you. An empty circle is the diagram that represents (wuji), which is the monistic aspect of the absolute, as the dualistic aspect is represented by the yin-yang diagram. The wuji diagram was first introduced by Song dynasty philosopher Zhou Dunyi (周敦頤, 1017–1073) in his work Taijitu shuo, 太極圖說.

The modern Taoist canon, compiled during the Ming dynasty, has at least six variations of taijitu. Two of them depicting the primal sky of taiji (太極先天圖, tàijí xiāntiān tú) and the wuji diagram (無極圖, wújí tú), both studied extensively during the Qing dynasty for their possible connection with Zhou Dunyi's taijitu. (Check glossary)

Now, the definition of art as the mediation of the unspeakable and the world of the idea has been very important to us along our mysthetic journey up to this point, since the time of Goethe this definition has been a common topic of aesthetics, and we too find the same definition in German romanticism and in the young Hölderlin, the author of the novel Hyperion, published in 1796, a friend of Hegel and Schelling.

In Hyperion, the general occasion is imagined in a sequence of letters, written by a young Greek to his German friend, Bellarmine. In the letters Hyperion laments the dismal state of his country, Greece, in the 18th century, which lived under Turkish rule, in contrast to the harmony and spiritual vitality of classical Greek antiquity.

All that was mentioned above was to serve as inspiration for us now, when we set out for a more direct answer to the question that entitles the present chapter. In this sense, we can respond with an argument in the sinc et nunc style, that is, the natural Beauty is ethical since everything emanates from the natural order of the universe, before being artificialized, by the interference of human reason. With the expression all this, we want to refer to the ethos, as a set of fundamental customs and habits in terms of behavior, institutions, tasks, etc., as well as culture, which involves values, ideas and beliefs; to everything that characterizes a certain collectivity, period and region. (On éthos and êthos, check the glossary)

However, when we remember that a part of classical rhetoric is focused on the study of social customs, then, in this sense, if we think in terms of those devices, those of the interference of reason in nature; that is, from the point of view of rhetoric and the inherent subdiscipline of oratory, perhaps a negative answer to the central question of this topic is the most appropriate.

However, and since vision is the most perfect mode of sensitive knowledge, let us also remember that the world of ideas is precisely what grounds the world of doxa. Similarly, the eternal subject of knowing, which is the mainstay of the whole of this fugacity called the phenomenal world, and which is the essentiality of what makes it finite as well, but which, however, makes possible the aesthetic conception of an idea, since the The essentiality of things is accessed by what grounds the experience of pure seeing. In this sense, vision, light, colors and ideas (like the cosmic eye, for example), all this should lead us to the contemplation of what we call the Idea of ​​Humanity.

In the mystéthic way of thinking, there is no relevant justification that represents any advance in the process of overcoming universal suffering, that is, any passage and advance of Ethics in relation to Aesthetics. Especially when it comes to the 'vision' of the Idea, and when we consider the possibility of 'salvation' in nothingness, for example.

In short, what happens to the wise human being must also happen to the artist, at least within the scope of the nunc stans of the metaphysics of the beautiful. In this way, mystéthika must not accept that the liberation of one or the other would be of a more lasting character, at least theoretically, even if one considers the course of ascetic behavior over the years, since freedom concerns the intensity of the metaphysical moment. in the beautiful (it is a question of intensity and quality, therefore), but not of quantification and chronological extensiveness, nor even of more or less durable organic life. Even because, it is about freedom from the boring chains of Χρόνος (Chronos, as empirical time divided into past, present and future), so that it is possible for mortals to enjoy eternity Αίων (Aeon, associated with spherical time, the orb or circle which encompasses the universe and the zodiac of the constellations most familiar to humans) well in the manner of the gods, for the creative genius generates the same works of love that make him in no way inferior to the best of all gods.

In astronomy, an aeon is defined as one billion years (109 years, abbreviated AE). Roger Penrose uses the word aeon to describe the period between successive and cyclic Big Bangs within the context of conformal cyclic cosmology.

Plato used the word aeon to denote the eternal world of ideas, which he conceived to be "behind" the perceived world, as demonstrated in his famous allegory of the cave. But the word aeon originally meant "life", "life force" or "being", "generation" or "a period of time", although it tended to be translated "age", in the sense of "ages", "for forever", "timeless" or "for eternity". It is a Latin transliteration of the Koine Greek word ὁ αἰών (ho aion), from Archaic αἰϝών (aiwon). In Homer, it usually refers to life or life expectancy. Its more recent meaning is more or less similar to the Sanskrit word kalpa and the Hebrew word olam.

Although the term aeon can be used in reference to a period of a billion years (especially in geology, cosmology, and astronomy), its most common usage is for any long, indefinite period. Aeon can also refer to the four eons on the geological timescale that make up Earth's history, the Hadean, Archean, Proterozoic, and the current eon, Phanerozoic.

No negativity in life! This has been our nihilistic motto so far, that is, when we critically reflect on whether the 'liberation' provided by art, as one that could not be definitive, but only fleeting within the scope of philosophical pessimism. Now, however, note at this point that the nothing in question can be understood here as a lesser evil than Negativity in the life of this world, that is, nothing as being something better than the totality of beings that suffer in the limitations of a life canned in time, or rather, empirical time.

However, let us also remember that even metaphysical pessimism did not propose any ethics to us, because its theory does not admit rational justifications for any type of duty or even some imperative of reason that helps us in the 'correct' direction of human conduct. Rather, the old coercive and imperative forms were rejected, even those derived from the philosophy of human habits. Even because, the pure subject that knows is the most perfect objectivity of the human spirit, a precious concept that presented us with a decisive clue about the essence of creative genius.

But if we want to understand the idea of ​​the sage better now, and in order to be able to see accurately how the Beautiful and the Ethical are intertwined, to the point of even merging into an indivisible whole, then we cannot fail to maintain, as far as it concerns the immediate knowledge of the Idea of ​​Humanity, which, by nature, is Ethical. And, it is in this sense that we consider the development of biological life as being what gave rise to complex and superintelligent organisms in the entire universe, based on what we mysthetically call DNA and divine logos, among which, human beings are considered as the crown jewel on this planet.

Already the development of practical intelligence was what gave science to men, but, as we can see today, it seems that they took the scientific and technological apparatus as an end in itself. Now, as we have shown, it is up to creative geniuses to demonstrate to the world that the purpose of intelligence must be to unfold itself in the immediate superconsciousness, capable of entering the sphere of the Idea of ​​Humanity, where only Life is the eternal reference of time. , therefore, where the genius consciousness is perpetuated as the Conscience of Humanity.

However, humanity in general is still dazzled by the will-o'-the-wisp of scientific and technological advances, even when such advances remain as deadly and self-serving as ever before. This encourages us to understand even better the negation of Negativity in life. Therefore, it is important to consider that, within the acts of the will, there is no middle term between determination and freedom. In this sense, the freedom of doing differs radically from the freedom of not wanting. In this way, freedom would thus belong to the scope of pure indeterminacy and the dishonest idea of ​​free will of the human animal.

But, now, our point of innovation here is precisely the realization that, from the point of view of mystéthika, we are sure that the truth of every attitude cannot manifest itself except on the basis of the Idea of ​​Humanity, that is, but as an authentic expression of the Beautiful, and which, without it, could not properly deal with some epistemic truth, therefore, everything else would remain reduced to the mere plane of 'truths' imprisoned in illusory causality.

Such 'truths' of egoism would only be epistemic if the dialogical-dialectical-epistemic procedure qualifies them for that, that is, for the level of pure intuitive knowledge of the unique and universal nature, the Cosmic Energy.

As long as this does not occur, every human being will remain as the wolf of the other human being, something that comes from the illusion of 'independent' wills and that assert themselves only in their individual impulses. And this is one of the main impediments to the possibility of a conduct free from the domain of negativity, and something that can only occur by overcoming individualism, when taken as a vital principle, but which, in fact, is just what still sustains Negativity. in life.

We already know that, when looking at the competitive world, the creative and cooperative element may seem impotent, but what actually happens is just the opposite, that is, since the Idea of ​​Humanity is really the Real in immediate knowledge, then , cooperative creativity should be what makes everything else possible.

Therefore, the essence of individualism is the fleetingness of selfishness, which does not have, so to speak, that qualitative differential of creative genius, which, as it is also the essence of works of love, is naturally cooperative and beneficial as well.

Therefore, mystéthika is what grounds the possibility of any and all epistemically secure meaning and knowledge. Therefore, we are assuming mysthesis as a kind of practical mystique of the artist, the one who donates his gaze; and also of the sage, who gives everything he does in life to others, and all this out of pure compassion.

So this is mystéthika, when we accept that both artist and sage are guided mutatis mutandis by disinterested compassion, therefore, whatever the type of their production, this can only be understood as works of love.

Even because, the civilizing principle of compassion does not appeal to the merely rational findings of relationships, because it does not derive only from studies, but from the immediate intuition of the Idea of ​​Humanity, revealed with the disappearance of selfishness, that is, when the true nobility of the human being.

In this way, the spirit of struggle against one's peers is followed by the spirit of sympathy and collaborative compassion, freed by the understanding of that tat-tvam asi of Hinduism. Thus, the human being reaches such a principle, which is the foundation of all moral truth, namely, he no longer contributes to increasing the suffering of any being, always acting on the basis of loving identification with the other and not on difference. . Thus, each creative genius becomes the nullifying solution and not the promoter of Negativity in life.

Now, from the western point of view, this could be understood as an ethics of compassion, whose most finished formulation is in the sapiential and evangelical principle known as the Golden Law, love your neighbor as yourself.

But not even an ethic of piety would make it possible for human beings to achieve happiness and definitive freedom, if they remain in the world as a living Negativity. For the most complete form of 'salvation' for the human being can only be found in the total renunciation of the world of Negativity in life, as well as all its individual demands, in a contradiction of selfishness in itself, and through the conscious denial, of that whole of Negativity in the life of each individual.

Thus, all this would culminate in a wanting nothingness of Negativity in life, or rather, in the 'nihilist salvation' of mysthesis through the Nothingness of Negativity that the Idea of ​​Humanity is. This is the culmination of mystéthika so far.

One of the most important moral norms that emerged in the history of mankind was that Golden Law. But this norm emerged in different times and cultures, and not just in the Judeo-Christian tradition, as is often claimed. Its writing sometimes assumes a beneficent and active character, of doing what is good, other times it is non-malefic, therefore negative, in the sense of not doing what is bad. All of these, however, have the same objective, which is to preserve the dignity of the human person, fostering cooperation and compassion that are indispensable for peace on Earth.

But now, without the commitment of men to the good will of the works of love, whether they are creative geniuses in action or simply ordinary people, not even peace on the continents will be something of a broad spectrum, let alone peace on the entire planet.

Confucius himself (551 BC - 489 BC) already said that, what you do not want for yourself, do not do to other people, and Rabbi Hillel, on the 31st Sabbat (60 BC - 10 AD) said: do not do to others, what you don't want them to do to you; and Jesus Christ (c 30 AD) said that whatever you want people to do to you, do it also to them.

As can be seen, the homo mystéthikos is the human being who has overcome all the lacking horizons of the common human, and even the world of Negativity in life, having reached the perfect consciousness of himself and making it viable to the external world, to then finally, to be able to renounce everything else and subsist only in the Idea of ​​Humanity, as pure and desire-free knowledge, and, in this way, to be able to be a phenomenon in the world, without being, however, a perpetual prisoner of it.

Now, considering that human suffering is one of the most indispensable elements to the theory of metaphysical pessimism, we can make it clear, from now on, that, at first, a negative answer would fit in the question of this topic, in the sense that neither intuition neither aesthetics nor the clairvoyance of the wise propose a complete overcoming of human suffering, since, if one is fleeting, the other would merely be more lasting in pain.

Now, it is worth remembering that mystéthika has already identified epistemic knowledge as the one in which one definitively overcomes time, space and all causality. Therefore, the fugacity and durability of the empiricist chronology of the world are the same as nothing in the face of the Beautiful, given in the snapshot of the dialogical-dialectical-epistemic procedure. Here is another interesting aspect of mystéthiko nihilism, already mentioned in this treatise.

We know that the term eudemonology corresponds to the notion of human life as a blissful existence, and that the philosophy of pessimism was not only concerned with that. Therefore, seen from an aesthetic perspective, or rather, as immediate knowledge, human happiness can be treated as a will to life in the absence of Negativity. At least this is what mysthesis proposes, and in this it also differs from the metaphysics of the beautiful, although admitting that the immediate knowledge of aesthetic intuition would already be enough for the concretization of the works of love. In other words, mysthesys admits that artistic works, the genuinely disinterested ones, are vivid expressions of human freedom, but only if performed on the basis of the perfect intuition of the Idea of ​​Humanity. Furthermore, it is admitted that even a scientific creation can be an authentic disinterested and fully compassionate expression, therefore, a work of love too, perfectly concretized in a world riddled with selfishness.

But, one could still try to argue that the work of art still expresses some banal attachment, even if it is produced by a disinterested attitude and without direct relation to the common course of the world. However, the attachment to the world is not based on the idea of ​​art, but on the mercantilism imposed on art objects. Even because, if someone calls himself an artist, but produces works in series, as if it were an industry, he will hardly be genuinely intuiting the Idea of ​​Humanity, at most he will be glimpsing something clouded with some idea, but which, in the end, is merely the suffering and frivolous notion of profit, disguised as artistic and compassionate work.

Now, in response to this argument, mystéthika also states that, after the dialogical-dialectical-epistemic procedure, even if the human being loses sight of the Idea of ​​Humanity, this in turn will never disconnect from the human. In short, the mystetized human being can even momentarily leave the Idea, however, even so, the Idea will never leave the homo mysthetikos. We emphasize this, and to better demonstrate that the mysticized human being is not the same esthetic genius of the metaphysics of the beautiful, that is, the homo mysthetikos is the one who has become fully free in the Idea of ​​Humanity, even if he still feels some discomfort during the realization. of his compassionate works. For this reason, mystéthika prefers to use the broader expression, creative genius, than that which only serves the metaphysics of the beautiful, esthetic genius.

Thus, even eudaimonia, while some proposal of relevant moral teleology would still be based on an original error and accommodated on the common 'shaky ground' of scientific knowledge and commodified technologies, therefore not compassionate.

We know that a post-meditative attitude is always safer, more fruitful and definitive than an impulsive and thoughtless one, even if for merely useful purposes. But, in general, in the production of creative geniuses, the 'irrational' element is really indispensable, and, therefore, the production of compassionate works is as if coming from the indeterminate in time and space, as in the case of the artist, when he writes poetry, or when he paints a canvas, for example. But even the creation of an unprecedented technology can be a mystéthika work, in the sense of being irrational and indeterminate in space-time, as long as it has its origin in the Idea of ​​Humanity, and, therefore, is not conceived on the basis of selfishness but in the purest altruism, like that of a mother who breastfeeds her baby, like that of a father who defends his children in the face of danger.

Let us remember further, that that cosmic eye of the pure subject of knowledge is the final (fifth-dimensional) stage of expanded human consciousness, and that which consists solely in the immediate knowledge of the essence of the world. Therefore, happiness and unhappiness, both are illusory states that can be overcome and that disappear in the eyes of those who create brilliantly. And all this comes from the fact that, at the moment of abandoning ourselves to the purely immediate intuiting, we free ourselves from all wanting, and, with that, as if we enter another world, where everything that previously made us tend towards Negativity in life, and which shook us so vehemently, disappears. Therefore, doing good is the attitude common to the artist and the sage, and both are disinterested, that is, they do not appeal to the principle of reason or to individualism.

This type of attitude can be verified in the world, but, in the most common view of the majority, it is still considered as nothing, that is, as an attitude without reason, and, in the eyes of the current 'moral', just some action to be taken. more driven by madness. However, in the eyes of the artist and the sage (homo mysthetikos), such an attitude is motivated by pure intuition, therefore, it occurs only in the highest realm of what is understood by freedom.

Now, a free intuition, that is, without the need to feed Negativity in life, should also be unreasonable and useless to the systematized individualistic selfishness of the old world in black and white, or rather, of the world as an old concentration camp.

As we can see, and from what everything leads us to believe, the principle of reason leaves no room for the minimum of relevant freedom. In other words, what we are considering here is that the attitude of the sage, similarly the attitude of the artist, does not appeal to ethical and moral imperatives. This is because, in both cases, the principle of reason cannot exert any influence on the consciousness of the active subject in the Idea of ​​Humanity, even if such subject suffers some relapse into the passivity of capitalist suffering self-indulgence.

Let us also remember that, in addition to representation, there is the subject through himself, as the cosmic eye of the particular. In this sense, the metaphysics of pessimism alluded to the considerations that are anchored in Kant's thought. In fact, in his system, everything that is more objectively apprehended is only and solely a purified representation of reason, but not a phenomenon to which a noumenon corresponds, as Kant wanted. Even because, in mysthesika, noúmenon is the idea that we have of some quantity, whereas the numeral is how we express that quantity. Now, Noumenus is still within the scope of intelligible reality, as an object of reason (nous) and in opposition to sensible reality. For Kant, the noumenon is the aspect by which the thing in itself escapes our sensible perception, whose possibilities do not go beyond the phenomenon, which is, therefore, the only knowable one. So the term 'noúmenon' (more properly noumenon) means 'what is thought'. And, its plural 'noumena', concerns the things that are thought. Since being thought cannot be understood otherwise here than as what is thought by reason (or even by intellectual intuition), then, the noumenon is generally equated with what is intelligible, the mundus intelligibilis, opposed, since Plato, to the mundus. sensibilis, or worlds of phenomena.

But at this point it should be noted that mysthesis will prefer an even more emphatic radicalism, even purist, that is, the intelligible mystéthiko only has indefectible epistemic value because it is immovably supported by the Idea of ​​Humanity. Even because, when asking if there is something more than the simple representation, the subject discovers himself as the starting point for universal cognition, or rather, he discovers himself as a mystéthiko subject. And, when he sees himself, at the same time as a subject and as an object, in the double position of contemplator and contemplated, he discovers in himself something immediately and not representable to the ordinary subject of knowledge, that is, he discovers Cosmic Energy as intimate. propellant of the 'I' and of life, Energy that is objectified by the body. However, the mystéthiko subject discovers himself as a unique and universal energetic record at the same time, that is, he discovers himself as an indissoluble human being, although diluted in the Consciousness of Humanity.

Therefore, Cosmic Energy is the in-itself of the body, that is, the thing-in-itself as a mystéthika consciousness, however, it is not just a canned human consciousness, rather, it is the interior magnetism itself and through which the transformations in the three kingdoms take place. of earthly nature.

Finally, it is concluded that only a being that is the result and work of himself can be understood as free, and unconditionally responsible for his actions. Because we know that time, space and causality 'influence' on intelligence, limiting it in the shadow of Maia, or, as Plato also stated, keeping the knowledge of the real limited to the limits of the dark cave, that of Negativity in life, the world in black and white.

From all that we have exposed so far, we can understand that a blissful rationalist life does not exist, properly speaking, because the desires of Negativity in life persist in reason and torture us. In this sense, therefore, we must renounce that aimed at the definitive overcoming of mere moral freedom, and to the detriment of primitive volitional energies, that is, those that give power to the selfishness of the old survival instinct. Now, if we really live in the Idea of ​​Humanity, such indissoluble cooperation by the synergistic power of the works of love will dissolve the need to have to fight one another for the survival of the strongest.

Based on this, then, we have to insist that selfishness is like trying against the mystéthiko movement of knowledge of the thing in itself in the immediate of the Idea of ​​Humanity, which will always condition us in the original error, because, what points to the possibility of Human freedom is precisely this break with the necessary impulse of the will to Negativity in life.

Logically, it is only by means of concepts that we note the succession and diversity of phenomena, as well as of everything else that is determined in the world, from the lowest degrees of natural force, to the supreme conscious activity of creative geniuses, and , philosophy knows this well, since the metaphysics of the beautiful. However, it was she herself who described something about ideas, which only artists and sages achieve, through the perenniality of contemplative enthusiasm and genius creations. Through enthusiasm as the mark of genius achievement in any instance of human activity. And, in the case of our mystéthika of speeches, such enthusiasm is much more than present, it is alive and active in the Idea of ​​Humanity.

Now, as the mystéthiko knowledge to live better is being taken from the point of view of the Idea of ​​Humanity, then we must also remember, that, although it intends to be a treaty of the Happy Life, the 'Schopenhauer's Aphorisms' warn us that this life does not exist, in the common sense, and it is better to renounce the torture of desires and seek the improvement of moral forces, to the detriment of properly volitional energies.

Finally, when we deal with Beauty, we reflect on a unique Idea capable of presenting human behavior in an honest and clear way, and we suggest 'salvation' in beauty. Now, when we turn to the final considerations of our mystéthika activity, we must consider an expression of the same level, but this time related to the metaphysics of ethics, and which proposes salvation in nothing.

Finally, for those who understand that the simple use of the term 'salvation' would already imply the entry into the scene of a philosophical optimism in that metaphysical pessimism, albeit surreptitiously, it is good to reinforce that metaphysical pessimism contradicts such an argument. , considering that wanting nothingness cannot imply optimism, whether practical or theoretical, because optimism and salvation in nothingness would be, from the point of view of reason, a contradictory type of optimism in itself.

It seems to us that it is only from the point of view of the phenomenon, that is, when we empirically observe the behavior of the artist and the sage, that it would be possible to admit to some differentiation of duration in the contemplative state that calms the suffering. This is because the essence of genius is the ability to apprehend their idea in actual things, and since this can only occur in a purely objective contemplation, in which all relations disappear - especially the relations of things with their own will disappear from their own consciousness - - then genius can also be defined as the most perfect objectivity of the spirit, that is, the capacity to proceed purely intuiting, to lose oneself in intuition, to abandon knowledge in the service of Negativity, that is, to lose sight of every interest, his will and his ends, of getting rid of his personality and remaining as a pure knowing subject, a clear cosmic eye. It is precisely this ability that differentiates the genius from the ordinary human being.

Finally, in ethics, the sage's action implies an incessant contemplation of the foundation of action, and in this, perhaps, we can differentiate between the last two sections of Schopenhauer's magnum opus, as well as confront theory and praxis, Marx and Schopenhauer, mysthetically, some day. But this is not the crucial object of this discourse, and therefore it can be done on another occasion. On the other hand, we take it for granted that, while the esthete contemplates the truth of the Beautiful, the sage, free from any observance of commandments, contemplates the truth of his own attitude. But, this occurs without sticking to the necessary impositions of Negativity in life. Acting in this way, artist and sage, both practice works of love (put love into action), but not with a moral purpose, but as a free attitude and arising from a complete denial of the will to Negativity in life.

Thus, and by proceeding purely intuiting and getting lost in intuition, the two become indistinguishable. Now, this truth of one's own attitude is the 'painting of the self-portrait' and the 'poetic biography' too, where the human being, artist, sage and even scientist can fully free themselves in the immediate knowledge of the Idea of Humanity, or rather, in what is the most supreme good common to all and fully accessible through this mysthesis of self-knowledge.