êthos mystéthikos - Chapter 13 (From the work in progress: The Poetized Critique) By M. Santos

 

13. THE ARTIST, THE SAGE AND SELF-KNOWLEDGE

It was Arthur Schopenhauer who stated that: in the realm of intelligence there is no room for pain, only knowledge.

After qualitatively privileging 'musical intelligence', we will continue our discourse, and, in order to make what we intend in this section to be even clearer, a brief digression is necessary, since it has been evident, so far, that knowledge of the thing in itself must be independent of the principle of reason as well as of any individualistic interest.

According to the sources of his objects, Kant divided the sciences into: rational science derived from principles and empirical science derived from data.

It is in our interest here to assume that, in the Critique of Pure Reason, philosophy cannot be learned because there is no rational system of all philosophical knowledge, that is, a philosophy that remains as a unified idea, nor can it be expected that the knowledge that one already possesses will, in fact, be a constituent part of some future rational system of philosophy, such as mathematical knowledge could claim it or even empirical-scientist natural science could claim it.

So what we have is that philosophy not only can't be learned, it shouldn't be learned either. For, then, philosophy would no longer be rational, according to its subjective origin, since it would not be acquired by enlightened and autonomous human reason, but only learned historically, that is, in the way it presents itself, described as the system of philosophy. .

Such heteronomous learning would strip human beings of their spiritual maturity and return them to the baby walker.

From the so-called historical science, which would be merely descriptive, we can rediscover this sense of history, for example, in naturalis historia, which is continued in Schopenhauer with the term morphology.

Schopenhauer used the term Historie according to the most recent understanding of history of his time, that is, in the sense of a causal-genetic explanation of things, attributing it to etiology.

It is known that Schopenhauer criticized Hegel as a representative of such a philosophy of history and that his criticism has much deeper roots than a mere polemic, strategically populist and in favor of the dissemination of metaphysical pessimism.

To do so, it is sufficient to note that Schopenhauer perceived the Kantian distinction between philosophy and philosophizing.

Anyone who has read the Critique of Criticism can attest to the breadth of Schopenhauerian understanding of the Selbstreflexion of thought, therefore, also of the essentially philosophical objects of that work.

In the causal-genetic explanation of things, Schopenhauerian etiology suggests the abandonment of merely productive knowledge (τέχνη), although theoretically grounded, but which thus serves the will to life, only as its instrument.

We understand, therefore, that philosophy assumes some relevance only through a mystéthiko motto, such as: To philosophize is to live!

In this way, Mysthesis is also to affirm and strengthen the natural order of things through conscious self-reflection. On the contrary, however, living from philosophy is just another utilitarian expression of vile selfishness, something that only aims to strengthen Negativity in life.

Even philosophy, in wishing to be like other sciences, re-indoctrinates itself in the service of Negativity in life, that is, it has to want [aber wollen muss man]. In this way, it ends up fostering even more the self-deception of consciousness (Selbstverblendung des Gewissens).

Therefore, only the mystéthiko genius is capable of reversing such nullity of the world (Nichtigkeit der Welt) as a phenomenon and representation. That is to say, in transcendental ideality, the Self creates almost ex nihilo, the basic structure of the world as will and representation, under the presupposition of its limitation to empirical reality.

However, ex nihilo nihil fit, in this way, this epistemic nullity of the world, to be reversed, is what corresponds to that utilitarian spirit of the time of the French (1789 - 1799) and industrial (1760 - 1840) revolutions, as well as to the spirit of the German (Post-Kantian) idealism, begun in the 1790s.

But metaphysical pessimism has already warned us that: reason is not the light that shines from the sky, but only a signpost of the way, set by ourselves in the direction of the chosen objective, so that it shows the direction when the objective is hidden. . However, we can dispose of reason either towards hell or towards heaven. (SCHOPENHAUER, A.HN I, 54, Berlin, 1813 K).

As Schopenhauer did, we also prefer to depart from this philosophy as a science, as we understand that critical reflection on the condition of the possibility of experience is both presupposed and self-evident, as is the true task of philosophy, even in the realm of of transcendental idealism.

Therefore, Philosophizing is the sphere of thought proper to metaphysical pessimism, while academic philosophy in general, for example, would be the sphere of thought in which the constitution of the world is presented as a mere systematic and rational conception of knowledge.

The very principle of reason, to which the other sciences are content to refer all things, is not relevant to pure philosophizing, since nothing in it must be taken as a presupposition, but everything is equally strange and problematic to it, not only the relations of phenomena. , but also the phenomena themselves.

Admiration, as already pointed out by Plato and Aristotle, is the starting point for the most advanced epistemic knowledge.

The Greek meaning of the word admiration is astonishment, understood here as attitude, in the same sense, expressed by the verb (θαυμάζειν) thaumazein, what occurs to us when we wake up to certain genuine reflections, as a manifestation of the natural desire to know.

Indeed, it was out of admiration that men began to philosophize, both in the beginning and now. (in Metaphysics - 982 b-l3/14)

Just investigating the mere origin of the world and other things is not properly philosophizing, because the world that arises exclusively through the forms of phenomena depends on the principle of reason and, therefore, only has meaning and validity through the synthesis of the understanding.

In this way, since Greek antiquity, especially with the Aristotelian determination of first philosophy, all this strengthens that idea in metaphysical pessimism, that the world is my representation.

As we know, the term ontology was later popularized by the German philosopher Christian Wolff, who defined it as philosophia prima, the science of being as being.

But, even before the classification of Andronicus of Rhodes, Aristotle himself stated that his studies were about first principles (peri tōn prōtōn archōn) because it is a body of knowledge independent of any empirical activity and any sensory experience.

These overriding principles form the basic, fundamental, and self-evident assumption, which cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption.

In this sense, the philosophical metaphysics that asks about beings as such and contemplates beings in general, looking for being as and the first principle (την πρώτη ουσία), is superior to physics, which, although it investigates the whole of nature and beings, it merely deals with a definite and limited genus of being called physis. (Vidi glossary)

However, in mysthesis, the negation of Negativity in life occurs at the heart of the aesthetic intuition of the world (ästhetische Intuition der Welt) and this implies the suspension of both time and all wanting, in the nunc stans.

Now, denying Negativity in life is the same as refusing to assume the world only from the point of view of physis, in the sense of the illusory world of the animal survival instinct.

Therefore, in the philosophizing and in the living of mysthesis, the admiration continues, that is, the fascination in the dialogical-dialectical-epistemic procedure; at the expense of the tedious apathy of being content with the mere savage appearance of the world.

In this way, even philosophy cannot reach events as a whole, nor the world as absolute reality, as a thing in itself. Therefore, humanity remains captive and dependent on the faculty of empirical representation, and thus will remain immeasurably below the Idea of ​​Humanity, especially within the scope of academic philosophy.

If the case is only a dogmatic-systematic of metaphysical pessimism, then one cannot assume that primacy of critical-transcendental philosophizing that mirrors the Idea of ​​Humanity in the creative genius, the pure subject of knowledge.

And this is because the apparent metaphysical dogmatics of the cosmological and monadic Will cannot confuse empirical reality with absolute reality and supplant the question of the transcendental ideality of the world as representation.

However, in the metaphysics of the beautiful, the aesthetic genius is the one that spontaneously reflects to self-consciousness, to what Schopenhauer called the idealistic-transcendental sense of the will, the one that reaches the Essence of the world (Wesen der Welt).

This serves us here, at least, to justify the two aspects of the will, namely: the transcendental and the empirical will, which, incidentally, was understood unilaterally in the history of reception in favor of the second, in the sense of the subsisting cause as a thing.

In its origin, the expression had an affinity with the (Platonic) idea of ​​the world, originating the idea in the transcendental ideality of the union of imagination (Einbildungskraft) (action of the will as spontaneity over knowledge) and reason. Even so, it is the imagination that sets in motion, with the attention of self-consciousness (Aufmerksamkeit des Selbstbewusstseins), all empirical knowledge and imagination, becoming aware of the representations, thus arising in the internal sense of their immediate presence (to see -to-be-represented = κατ'εντελεχειαν, Vorgestelltwerden) and, moreover, unites them in a total representation (to-be-represented = κατά δυναμιν) latent/inatual with an extensive magnitude, and thus makes possible the passage to the external direction.

This total non-actual representation (inaktuelle Gesamtvorstellung) is normally called in everyday empirical thinking, which does not deal with first philosophy, the “objective real world”.

From the subjective point of view, these occurrences of representations are experienced in the internal sense, immediately as intensive magnitude. (Vidi Glossary, KAMATA)

However, within the scope of mysthesis, that of the imagination becoming conscious of the representations, thus arising in the internal sense of its immediate presence, the (coming-to-be-represented = κατ'εντελεχειαν, Vorgestelltwerden, has a very intimate relationship with the dialogical-dialectical-epistemic procedure.

Even because, Cosmic Energy is the transcendental condition of possibility of all experience in general, in this sense, we say that such Energy is exposed both to the empirical and transcendental and dialectical sense of knowledge and even in the experiences, but always acting in affirmation to Negativity in life; unless creative genius intervenes on this energetic determinism and submits it to the compassionate service of the works of love.

Therefore, only after establishing the dialogical-dialectical-epistemic procedure, that is, the works of love of creative geniuses, only in this way, the human being recognizes himself magnanimous, in the mystetic reminiscence, and thus is welcomed again in the sphere of the Idea of Humanity. We said it again because, the procedure highlighted here has something very similar to that old notion of Platonism, namely, anamnesis.

In this sense, aesthetic intuition and reminiscence come together in mystéthika, and this brotherhood is what generates the very condition of possibility of any and all decisive knowledge, as well as any relevant meaning as well.

Now, if we must ask how the two spheres of thought of transcendental ideality and empirical reality relate to each other, this is due to the fact that this is precisely the central problem of the transcendental foundation of philosophy of nature.

If not, then how would it be possible to identify the immediate presence of the consciousness of spontaneity, as something belonging to the transcendental will, in the circle of problems of first philosophy, that is, of what is known to us immediately with the empirical will to live, and that is effective in the world as representation, as a principle of self-preservation (Selbsterhaltungsprinzip) and which thus belongs to the secondary circle of problems of empirical reality?

We know that a bridge connecting heterogeneous ones is traditionally called an analogy. But it is not a question here of homogeneous objects to which some mathematical analogy could be applied, therefore, proportional to the constitutive result, but of qualitatively very different states of affairs, on which, according to Kant, only the philosophical analogy could be applied. .

However, in mystéthika, the two spheres of thought of transcendental ideality and empirical reality will depend on the dialogic-dialectical-epistemic procedure of the creative genius, and not on analogical procedures in the scope of merely cerebral reason.

Even because, both the transcendental ideality and the empirical reality are perfectly understood in Humanity's Consciousness.

Now, such Consciousness is already something of the fifth-dimensionality, so it will be up to future metaquantics to provide us with the decisive clarifications here. But for now, our function is simply to present the rudiments of mysthesis in this work.

At this point we must also emphasize that it is not a philosophical or mathematical analogy, since it is not a matter of executing a method in the search for a result. Rather, what mysthesis proposes is a type of anamnesis, understood here as a pure seeing that accesses the akashic records, even in the now of the body, the immediate object of ideal knowledge.

However, in this sense, we are already dealing with information within the scope of DNA, therefore, in the now of the nunc stans, and not with some procedure that demands the a posteriori of analytics.

Now, being the corporeal energy something detectable, then, this akashic is nothing more than an immense database on energy. In this way, mystically, we say that there is a confluence of tachyonic (or fifth dimensional) energies on planet Earth, with DNA as the point of convergence.

Currently, it is quantum genetics that is concerned with clarifying the details of this harmonic confluence between the zero-point energy dimension and living organisms. Something we already know to be real.

But, in the old days, even philosophy in general would assume this to be just a kind of thinking connected to religious faith, similar to the mystery of the admirabile commercium between God and human being.

However, what the metaphysics of the beautiful suggested to us was a type of knowledge in us, re-obtained from the aesthetic intuition of the external world, starting with the actual human body itself. And the elucidation provided in this intuition is the innermost fact of self-awareness.

But let us also observe that even what is exposed in clear concepts is always a debasement in view of the Idea, notwithstanding that, in the fact of self-consciousness, the consciousness of spontaneity, immediately present to the inner sense, can be named by transcendental will, that is, cosmic energy.

Now, as we suggest Cosmic Energy originally equated with the spontaneity of self-awareness, even in transcendental ideality. Thus, self-awareness and apperception can be used as synonyms too, when the 'principles of pure understanding' are taken up again, observing the 'analogies of experience' and penetrating into the deep thoughts of the synthetic unit of apperception, namely the multitude world as a whole, which rests on the laws of our intellect and is therefore unbreakable.

But this, only if those principles of pure understanding are taken in accordance with what the mysthesis is suggesting, that is, in accordance with the dialogical-dialectical-epistemic procedure.

Schopenhauer, in seeking to reconcile the critical difference between the phenomenon and the thing-in-itself as the speculative transition to the metaphysics of totality-unity (Metaphysik des All-Einen), compromised the systematic claim of his philosophy. He himself expressed this weakness by describing metphysical pessimism as being an 'immanent dogmatism'.

Still on the transcendental ideality and the empirical reality of the world as will and representation - philosophizing and philosophy in Schopenhauer, we must consider the ambivalent point of view, that is, the two spheres of thought, namely: (1) the question of the conditions of possibility of the world as will and representation in view of its transcendental ideality, in which the determination of the concept of transcendental will has great significance, and, (2) the question of the constitution of the world as will and representation in its empirical reality, insofar as in which it is seen as something already fixed (festehend). (Vidi Glossary, KAMATA)

This ambivalence must be interpreted as consistent in itself, in view of the analogy of the will by the flexible conception of this two-dimensional philosophy, which does not presuppose anything as being known in itself, and which also finds an adequate relationship with the unknown and the insurmountable, which they certainly belong also to Schopenhauer's organic philosophy, as opposed to the rigid and monistic systematic claim in general. However, we must emphasize that, in mysthesis, metaquantum is being foreshadowed as the most appropriate language of fifth-dimensional science.

It is well known that phenomena, in general, are nothing outside our representations. This is precisely what we mean when we speak of phenomenal transcendental ideality.

Thus, from the autonomous enterprise of idealist reason, we can see that, under the spiritual needs of the present, the application of the systematic explanatory mode and the ontological principle in the development of the ethical world (which, in the last line, point to the tat tvam asi of the Hindus) is what takes the first position in all phenomena of nature and spirit.

This explanation of the world from a single principle is possible when the positive conditions carry within them the necessary presuppositions of this explanation.

But a development of this type is nothing more than the gradual transition from a potential state to an actual state, or the realization of dispositions, by force of the drive to realize them. This drive is the 'will', the condition of each development as an attribute and principle of the human world alone, since, in an absolute sense, we will always have to resort to the mystéthika of Cosmic Energy as a principle.

Then, and finally, despite the crucial historical importance of the natural sciences in the formation of the modern world, the mystéthiko genius does not need this knowledge to carry out the works of love in this world still so lacking in compassion and social harmony.