êthos mystéthikos - Chapter 10 (From the work in progress: The Poetized Critique) By M. Santos

 

10. BREAKING UP INDIVIDUALISM AS BASIC MOTIVATION (2)

It is no exaggeration to say that the phenomenal dimension is the same as what the Hindus called Maya, that is, appearance, deception and illusion. However, it is precisely the practice of loving works, based on immediate knowledge, that allows us to get rid of this veil of all individualism, and, finally, to separate ourselves from this illusion, which is the world of Negativity in life.

In this sense, love for the truth must really be the engine of all creative and ingenious production, compassionate production that opens the way to freedom in the sphere of Humanity's Consciousness.

In economics and even in philosophy, individualism can be understood as a moral, economic or political doctrine that values ​​individual autonomy in the pursuit of freedom and satisfaction of natural inclinations.

From now on, we will proceed, highlighting the world view that the appearance/thing itself dichotomy will show us, from the point of view of the world of representation, which is governed by space and time, that is, by the principle of individuation.

In the world, reality consists of the combined perspective of separate individuals, moral agents being some of these individuals as well.

These initial considerations lead us to see that, when an individual is faced with another, both see themselves as being radically different, and this is only due to what is seen, through the prism of the phenomenon.

However, the 'world' of Cosmic Energy does not contain such differences, since this is the 'world' properly fifth dimensional and of the thing itself, that is, the Idea (the Sphere) of Consciousness.

Therefore, the Sphere is a 'world' impassible to any dichotomy and, thus, only through an overcoming of the individuation principle will it be possible to glimpse this relevant aspect of mysthesis, where the 'aesthetic' possibility of an 'ethics' becomes founded on the knowledge of this ideal nature, interior and common to everyone and everything else.

It is worth remembering that the foundation of love ethics cannot be found except through the immediate experience of the world, that is, in direct relationships with beings, but not in the hypostasis of reason, as a Kant would defend, for example.

If we think in terms of a dialectic of the individual and the thing in itself, we will see that J. P. Sartre, in the Critique of Dialectical Reason, in accordance with the dialectic of determinations in hypostasis and in historical reality, not only sought a renewal of the materialist dialectic, but also , also, reiterated the criticism of Hegelian idealism, with new formulations.

Since then, the debate around the foundation of dialectics has suggested new routes to “dialectical materialism”.

Dialectics (or the "path between ideas") is a way of thinking and expressing thought, and it was born in the beginnings of philosophy. Its origin is a matter of dispute between two Greek philosophers. On the one hand, Zeno of Elea (c. 490-430 BC) and, on the other hand, Socrates (469-399 BC), to whom we can attribute the foundation of the dialectical method, which consists of a method of seeking knowledge, based on in the art of dialogue.

But, in Hegel's Science of Logic, dialectics is developed and structured in an objective way, like the 'thought of God'.

Taking this as a hypostasis, which, according to modern and contemporary reflection - is just a cognitive mistake, characterized by the attribution of concrete and objective existence (substantial existence) to a fictitious, abstract reality or merely restricted to the incorporeality of human thought - the mysthetic , however, might object that, ultimately, if thinking the sphere is incorporeal, then constructing a sphere should be as well.

Now, in this sense, mystesis cannot be reduced to mere religious consciousness that will come to itself conceptually.

Hegel presented God as the only true reality. But the sphere of the divine cannot be apprehended in the real/carnal truth of philosophers, but as representational knowledge.

Otherwise, the forms of feeling and representation would never support the sphere of thought.

Therefore, even the individual is a mere phenomenon, existing only for the knowledge linked to the principle of reason.

But neither the thing itself nor the subject of knowledge, the spectator exempt from all phenomena, are both unaffected in some way by birth and death. In that sense, both don't even exist.

Even so, these two are conditions for the possibility of empirical knowledge of the world. Now, not existing here means that: what is fifth-dimensional, and therefore metaquatic, is given as non-existing on the lower plane, that is, on the ‘Cartesian plane’.

Therefore, multiplicity and divisibility belong only to the three-dimensional plane (fourth-dimensional if we add the chronology), dimension of the phenomenon, although both emanate from one and the same fifth-dimensional Cosmic Nature/Energy, always present in every living being and in everything else.

Thus, this mystéthika conception of ours is the one that overcomes the difference between the I and the non-I, thus defining the characteristic of real and true knowledge, with regard to epistemology, that is, to the theory of knowledge, where the epistemic value decisive must not despise the playfulness of life. Therefore, in mysthesis there is something free from error, and this is because it perpetuates itself as being simply Beautiful.

Now, still thinking about the theory of knowledge, where the thing itself is completely different from its phenomenon, and entirely free from apparent forms and which never prosper for human freedom, insofar as it does not allow us to 'appear' of an idea: in this sense, mystetically speaking, phenomena, if they are based solely on objectivity, would not be alien to the thing in itself.

Therefore, even the most universal form of all representation, being object for a subject (Objeckt-fur-ein-Subjeckt-sein is the German expression) does not concern the world of phenomena, but in a mystéthiko sense; much less to representable and subordinate forms, since they all receive their common expression from the principle of reason, to which time and space are recognized as belonging, and therefore also the plurality of succession, which is possible only in causality.

In this sense, causality, by the expression principle of individuation, we treat here as being synonymous terms.

Now, in the realm of ethics, individualism imbricated in selfishness is the expression of the wild animal's old survival instinct. But if this instinct still prevails in present-day civilization, then that means that we have not yet surpassed barbarism, and that, therefore, we are hardly different from animals in general, despite all the advances in science and technology in the 21st century. .

Mystéthika can take better care of all this, as contemporary human values ​​still seem to be guided by the medieval way of knowing, that of the powerful formulation principium individuationis.

Therefore, our proposal for a mystéthika review of axiology in general should not be neglected, in the sense that compassionate works are the keynote for the realization of a more solidary and creative civilization, something indispensable to the real possibility of the free exercise of democratic citizenship. , in a universal sense, that is, in terms of the citizens of the world.

Now, the free and compassionate exercise of this planetary citizenship must be the rule and not the exception. However, without the mystéthika review, already suggested in the dialogical-dialectical-epistemic procedure, we will hardly have the good exercise of local citizenship, since a deep tendency of social injustice still reigns on Earth. In short, current democratic regimes lack the basics to break with the dominant hypocrisy, that is, they lack at least enough capital for the well-being of citizens in general, and this as a rule and not as another exception, in the sense of further social exclusion of the vast majority deprived of capital by the totalitarian regime of maintenance of Negativity in life.

Mysthesis also suggests something like an integral formation, based on the freedom of musical and artistic creation in general, for example. With this, the importance of balance and harmony in the context of healthy civilizational improvement is highlighted, based on sensitivity and empathy developed and improved since childhood; and not a vulgar training, fixed only on technicist and even scientistic individualism, as the basis of an education for the industry and commerce of selfishness.

Now, this is not a retrograde proposal to renounce technological and scientific advances, on the contrary, what is suggested is an even more effective qualitative leap, since the Idea of ​​Humanity is not averse to technological ultra sophistication, especially when this merges indissolubly with the works of love. That is to say, any technological expansion will always be welcome, as long as it is not linked to a minority beneficent technocratic vision. 

In short, technological advances will continue to be nothing more than a humanitarian disgrace, unless they effectively detach themselves from merely mercantile interests and consolidate themselves as democratized embodiments of the works of creative geniuses.

Therefore, democracy, technocracy and social justice are standards that mysthesys naturally wears, especially when they all merge indissolubly with the works of love.

The first mystéthika view is the founder of the phenomenon of compassion in aesthetics and ethics. Having in it its real expression, there is, therefore, some basis for metaquantics, since, when the dialectical-dialogical-epistemic procedure enters the scene, and that, in this way, an individual immediately recognizes himself in the other, seeing, mystically, your own true being.

Consequently, the practical wisdom of doing just and good (Rechttun und Wohltun) would exactly coincide, in the result, with the deepest doctrine of theoretical wisdom that has reached the furthest, and thus a practical philosopher, that is, someone just and a benefactor, is a noble human being who expresses in his acts only the same knowledge resulting from the greatest ingenuity and the most laborious investigation of the merely theoretical philosopher.

However, the excellence of praxis is above all theoretical wisdom, which is always a mere imperfect work that comes along the broad path of deduction, in order to reach at a single stroke what is morally noble.

As much as he lacks intellectual excellence, with his work, the sage makes manifest the deepest knowledge, the highest wisdom, and thus puts to shame the most brilliant of the learned.

Now, what good is it to be the most learned theorist, if you betray with your actions that that great truth of compassion remained foreign to your heart. Namely, that the works of love make everyone unified and peaceful, compassionate and generous. Because where your treasure is, there your heart will be. (Matthew 6:21)

Note that the biblical quotation was used here as a mere illustration, never with the intention of proposing something of a religious nature to our treaty.

Let us also note that the deepest knowledge of the human attitude and of the broader sense of humanity is only possible for the artist and the sage. In other words, we can say that the aesthetic possibility of a metaphysics of ethics will always be unfeasible, insofar as knowledge remains as a mirage, that is, in that illusion and Maia's deception.

In this sense, immediate knowledge of human conduct proclaims something identical to what originally ran in Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7, in the dialogue between Uddalaka and his son Śvetaketu, the age-old expression tat-vam asi. And in doing so, the veil of deceit crumbles, eventually becomes nothing. This is our mystéthiko nihilism, therefore the most desirable.

At this point, we can say that we are dealing with a nihilistic mystéthika, but only if this is in harmony with the correct meaning of the dialogical-dialectical-epistemic procedure of this 'reduction to nothing', and therefore in the same way as we are suggesting here.

For just as in dreams we find ourselves, within all the people who appear there and everything else, the same happens, too, in the wake of compassionate acts, although this is not something so easy to discern by the senses. common in general. 

That's why, that tat-vam asi of Hinduism indicates here, that, in the last term, we are the others too, mainly from the metaquantum point of view of Cosmic Energy. Now, this point of view is what is just being prefigured in this mystéthika, and this is because it is not yet the most appropriate moment to deal solely with the metaquantum sphere of knowledge.

But since when and how did humanity decide to guide its conduct, based on subjective moral knowledge, and when did we stop considering our existence through immediate knowledge, that is, by something very well delineated, in the countless works of creative geniuses spread around the world, even from the most ancient pictorial art? Here is a problem that the reader will be able to answer at the end of this very simple work. At least that's what we ardently desire, and that's why we're insisting on putting his imagination into full swing.

However, we already know, so far, that we should not launch any attempts at normative prescriptions for Vital Energy. 

Therefore, what is now pointed out is only the need for immediate knowledge to enter the scene, at least so that one can intuit the natural foundation of human freedom in the Beauty.

Since this can only occur without appeals to the imperatives of reason, then this embracing of knowledge itself will be possible. 

In this way, we base the way to a free existence in the constant and playful creative exercise, therefore, free for and through the works of love as well.

However, and it is worth remembering, the selfish motivations and the consequences of what is done, both form the basis of the set that will keep the human being always imprisoned within the limits of the principle of individuation, therefore, in the world of suffering.

However, the mystéthika that we are proposing suggests that the ethical significance of human conduct becomes grounded on the basis of aesthetic intuition, that is, on the ingenious way of knowing and acting. And this implies an expansion of the metaphysics of the beautiful, in the sense of an aestheticization so broad that it is capable of encompassing even all ordinary epistemology, since, in philosophy, the highest level of meaning is what gives access to the judgments of ethics, especially when dealing with current terms such as, for example, bioethics and cyber ethics. 

However, let us emphasize at this point that mysthesis is not merely a philosophical discourse.

Now, just as aesthetic intuition demands the rupture of individualism, no one will be properly wise if their worldview and their conduct remain guided by an ethics of ethnic and even cultural difference between human being and human being; an ethics based, so to speak, on the individual surface and not on the immeasurable Idea of ​​Humanity in the immeasurable depth of each human being.

Finally, we will highlight what has been well characterized so far: the primacy of a good attitude, that is, of love in action over ethical theories; and the primacy of the work of genius over all mere aesthetic and even scientific indoctrination. 

In this way, the basis of mystéthika can now be understood, as the truth that every human being shares in the same essence, and this can be conceived, however subtly, from that most appropriate and oldest expression tat-vam asi.