êthos mystéthikos - Chapter 14 (From the work in progress: The Poetized Critique) By M. Santos

 

14. METAPHYSICS OF BEAUTIFUL, ETHICS AND EMPIRISM (1)

What we want now is to better clarify mysthesis as a type of intuitive anaminesis. In this way, what our poetic critique proposes is aesthetic intuition as the condition of possibility of all knowledge and meaning, since the dialogical-dialectical-epistemic procedure occurs in the nunc stans.

To do so, we will begin this topic with a digression, gathering some metaphors that help us to better understand how it was possible to mystetize the aesthetic, epistemic and ethical elements in the sphere of Beauty.

If even the individual character can be annulled by the suppression of individualism, in a complete and transcendental metamorphosis, that is, in a broad conversion of consciousness (metanoia), then this type of conversion is, in fact, a global change of mentality, in addition to implying an expansion of it as well.

However, such expansion does not occur only in the merely extensive and massive aspect, in the brain, or rather, it is not something related to the quantitative increase of the scientific intelligence quotient, nor even to some structural and volume expansion of the central organ of rational intelligence. .

Once it is understood that the expansion of consciousness now in focus implies the realization of the freedom of the creative genius in this world, then, it is important to remember that Nicolas Malebranche (1638 - 1715), a French priest and rationalist philosopher who sought to synthesize the thought of Augustine of Hippo and René Descartes, in order to demonstrate God's active role in all aspects of the world; he suggested, in his Christian mysticism, that the notion of freedom should be understood as Effective Grace, and that regeneration is the only immediate manifestation of freedom capable of making the human being come to the knowledge of himself, that is, to the knowledge of the its very essence, in which it rests and escapes the influence of motives, the same ones that move in another sphere of knowledge, where the object of knowledge ceases to be a mere phenomenon.

In this sense, it should be noted that Cartesianism also entered into a synthesis with Augustinianism, on the basis of an initial common Platonism. In this way, the relations between God and the world and between spirit and matter, that is, its two fundamental problems of Cartesianism, remained as a kind of philosophical heritage.

With regard to the first problem, Malebranche conceived God as a single cause, and, in relation to the second, he denied, as did Descartes and Spinoza, regarding any and all interaction between spirit and matter, resorting to God to explain. the relationships between spirit and matter, in a gnosiology that devalued sensitive knowledge, especially that of the external senses, and attributes to ideas all the value of knowledge.

In this way, ideas would be nothing more than the intelligible object itself, that is, they would become ideas outside the empiricist subject, in the sense of being only in God, ‘who’ would only allow us to intuit them (ontologism).

However, Malebranche felt the need to prove the existence of God and to know what his nature is, despite suggesting that God is present in our spirit, as the revealer of ideas. So he claimed that if we don't have an idea of ​​God, we don't have an idea of ​​the nature of our soul either, that is, what we have is just a vague intuition of his contingent existence.

Thus, regarding the nature of God, Malebranche resorted to the ontological argument, typical of the Platonists and Augustinians; claiming that such a nature resides in the unknowable.

At this point, it is important to note that mystéthika accepts some elements of mysticism in general and of Christian mysticism in particular, but never in its entirety. Even because, mystesis proposes to be epistemic, therefore, the term God does not serve us properly, except from the point of view of the metaphysics of the beautiful and through the, already emphasized, dialogical-dialectical-epistemic procedure of the works of love.

God, here, can be understood as energy and immutable truth in things, that is, as love in itself, in the sense of being the core of the metaquantum field of fifth-dimensional Cosmic Energy.

Now, other mystic synonyms may also help us at this point, namely: Idea of ​​Humanity and Conscience of Humanity. Or even, if we limit ourselves to the language of Christian mysticism, something would sound like Christ Consciousness.

However, mystéthika, in this sense, will prefer the most intimate terminology of its innovative intentions, that is, it has its own terms like Diamond Consciousness, or even Christ-Kundalini Conscious.

Furthermore, we know that, in the Christian way of saying, the overcoming of selfishness would be an effect of the illuminating grace of the Spirit, and by which the individual is reborn from a μετάνοια, that is, from a change of understanding and mentality. Thus, by the 'death of the natural human being', insatiable beast of desire; a new human being would take place, the wise one enlightened by the divine Spirit, from the new birth in the 'spiritual waters' of baptism. Thus, the ancient adamic myth can be understood, in these terms, as that of the human being of decay, while the Christ, or the second Adam, would be the human being of the ascension, and the one who reached the full freedom of the mystical union with God.

However, it must be understood here that this type of ascension of the human to Christ cannot be promoted, not even for religious reason, but, rather, only by emptying oneself, in theological language, in kenosis, the emptying of the divine logos, precisely proposed in the scholastic discipline of Systematic Christology.

This kenotic doctrine is the great Christological passage that sheds light on the dogma of Christ's incarnation. In it, the revealed truth is precisely what results from the thought of the apostle Paul, when he turned to the advent of the historical Jesus, in order to illustrate the doctrine of the humiliation of the Son of God, that is, the teaching that God made himself as someone who had no reputation at all, or rather emptied himself of himself, in the person of Yeshua Ben Yosef, this being the meaning of the literal translation of the Greek ekenõsen, from which the technical term kenosis, mentioned in the New Testament, in the epistle of Saint Paul to the Philippians 2:5-7, being able to extend until the 11th verse.

That is, Yeshua did not consider that being equal with God was something he should cling to; but he emptied himself, becoming a servant, being made in the likeness of men.

According to these biblical fragments, cited above, the Christ always existed in the form of God and equal to God, but, in incarnating in the phenomenon of Jesus of Nazareth, he had to humble himself, taking the form of a servant, in place of the preexisting form of God.

Now, to men, as was the case of Jesus, the evil of sin is attributed, a term that was inherited from that false notion of human nature decadent, since always, of suffering and death in the identification with the Adamic myth manifested throughout and in the temporal bond, which has accumulated the many generations until today, at least according to the dogmatics of sin, in the Christian church in general.

Hamartiology is the name given to this doctrine about sin, and the term comes from the transliterated Greek hamartia, that is, it refers to something that has the same meaning that we can attribute to what happened when, for example, in antiquity, an archer missed the target.

Regarding the notion of Negativity in life, we emphasize that the feeling of guilt, inculcated over millennia by the doctrine of sin, is still a decisive factor that reinforces and sustains the greed and selfishness of individuals in general, that is, the systems of government and those of religions in general to strengthen themselves by instilling fear, and this all limits the overview, preventing it from focusing on a broader and liberating spectrum in life, limiting it to just being a struggle for survival, guided by the selfishness so common and inherent to the human race.

Therefore, it is no exaggeration to say that such selfishness has reproduced itself, forming a kind of hereditary and mortal temporal bond of generations, always powerless in the face of survival impulses and generalized fear.

Now, a species incapable of popularizing the importance of the harmony of extremes (of the animal and the high spirit) will also remain incapable of knowing that disinterested and blameless truth of the works of love. Often he will refuse to treat himself with proper empathy/compassion.

In this way, sin can be understood as the constant affirmation of the wild and insatiable will, while redemption would be the affirmation that concretizes the works of love, that is, the negation of Negativity in the life of those who, before, conformed to the need. imperative of animal individualism. For, as metaphysical pessimism suggests, it is ten times easier to generate a desire than to satisfy it permanently, so all kinds of suffering that anguish human beings arise from this.

Mystetically speaking, redemption can occur by overcoming the illusion and deception manifested after the belief in sin has arisen. Thus, anxiety, fear and belief in scarcity form the basis of the driving force of Negativity in life.

In this sense, Christ the Redeemer emerged as the greatest representative of the negation of Negativity in life. In this way, the sinful ill-will and selfishness of each individual follows instead of good-will and compassion.

That is, in Christ-Kundalini, the dialogic-dialectic-epistemic of existence unsubmissive to the impositions of irresistible savage will occurs.

Now, that notion of Christ Consciousness, embodied in the works of men who love and who promote the good will of God, is an excellent metaphor, to clarify the understanding of our Idea of ​​Humanity and the works of love, those that make us accessible to the sphere fifth dimensional.

However, we must point out that the Christian theological doctrine of the second century, Docetism, (ETIM. from the Greek δοκέω, to seem), although considered heretical by the early church, held that the body of Jesus of Nazarene was a mere illusion of human appearance, but he was not really a human being, in the full sense of his limitations. Therefore, the martyrdom of the crucifixion would have been a type of 'spiritual fraud', as was the holiness of the Messiah itself.

We know that there were no Docetists as a specific sect or religion, but only as a current of thought that crossed different strata of the Church. Docetism was refuted by both the Catholic Church and the Protestants, according to the theology of the Gospel of Saint John, in the first chapter, where it is stated that the Word became flesh. Later Christian authors, such as Inácio de Antioquia and Irineu de Lião, made the most important theological contributions to the eradication of Docetism as a school of thought, especially the latter author, who, in his work Adversus Haereses, 2nd century AD, defended the main ideas of the divine incarnation, that is, he presented the theology of Christocentrism and the recapitulation, in Christ, of the human being fallen into sin, in addition to the logical-theological union between Creation, sin and redemption.

The origin of Docetism is generally attributed to the ancient Gnostic currents, which believed in an evil and corrupt material world, and which tried to rationally combine the revelation of the sacred scriptures with Greek philosophy.

However, even Gnosticism would be definitively condemned as heresy, more precisely in the period from October 8th to November 1st, 451 AD. C, at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon.

Centuries later, free will was reaffirmed and the notion of human depravity was denied, according to the proposal of Anselm of Canterbury (1033 - 1109). He argued that faith precedes reason and that reason can expand faith.

The masterpiece on Anselm's theory of knowledge is his famous treatise De Veritate, in which the existence of an absolute truth is affirmed, in which all other truths participate. Furthermore, he was the forerunner of modern rationalism.

It is no exaggeration to say that, in Western culture, the figure of Jesus Christ is a symbol of the negation of ill will by the wise affirmation of divine good will.

As we have just pointed out, ill-will can be understood here as the will of the beast, the animal impulse to survive. This beast can be compared to a human being, like Cain in the book of Genesis, who murdered his brother in a thoughtless impulse, in a blind and ignorant impulse that whoever kills a human being kills, in a certain sense, himself.

Now, with exactly the same necessity with which the stone falls, the bloodthirsty wolf sinks its claws into the flesh of its victim, without its understanding being able to understand that the cutthroat and the beheaded are identical.

And, as we already know, necessity is the realm of nature; freedom is the kingdom of grace. However, nature and grace, here, must always be understood in the sense of our mystéthika, and never as something tainted with the old rancidity of religious resentment in general, nor with some theological stratagem.

Therefore, we can understand that human freedom still remains a mystery, and modern Christianity gradually lost the relevant significance of the past, quickly degenerating into a kind of superficial optimism, something that Luther had already observed in his work De Servo Arbítrio, published in 1525. .

Long before that, Pelagius, a British ascetic monk, who was born and lived between the years 350–423, on his travels to Rome and North Africa, around 405 he went to Palestine, where he wrote two books on sin, free will and grace, Of nature and Of free will. He was heavily criticized by Augustine and Jerome, and later condemned as a heretic by the Bishop of Rome (AD 417-418) and the Council of Ephesus (AD 431).

Both Augustine and Luther both developed theories contrary to the doctrine of Pelagius. In them, no sincere virtue or holiness would derive from the good deed, but from faith, also understood as a category of knowledge as enlightenment.

This would be the redeeming grace of every malevolent nature of the human being and that which is capable of setting him free, independently of any individual merit, that is, the freedom of salvation is given by enlightenment and grace, through faith, and as knowledge and change of orientation of ego need, which only serves the utilitarian understanding prevailing in the world, even in our distant 21st century.

Still alluding to Luther, we highlight the work Christian Liberty, where we read that good works are spontaneously born when faith is present, as a sign or reflection of them. It is love capable of overcoming all selfishness.

In this way, human works would always be culpable and defective, always incapable of satisfying the great divine justice. Therefore, in the Christian view of the Reformation period, it was already about the five soles, which are Latin phrases that define fundamental principles of the Protestant Reformation in contradiction with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Latin word sola means "only". Therefore, five soles summarize the reformers' basic theological creeds, pillars they believed to be essential to Christian life and practice.

The Catholic church believes in all five points, excluding the words "sola". Sola fide (faith alone) Sola scriptura (Scripture alone) Solus Christus (Christ alone) Sola gratia (grace alone) Soli Deo gloria (glory to God alone).

Such conservative and religious expressions pointed to the impossibility of salvation through works. In this way, no human being could free himself from evil and achieve salvation. Although Catholicism still remains dogmatically advocating, since the writings of Saint Cyprian of Carthage, a third-century bishop, that it is not possible to attain salvation outside the church (extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

This axiom is often used as a synthesis of the doctrine that the Church is necessary for the salvation of human beings.

However, it is also worth noting that mysthesys is strictly away from any traditionalist vision and from religious faith, as if something were capable of freeing the human being, by the effect of some supernatural grace, we will not even consider any intention directed at that. , if not metaphorically.

Even because, for the mystéthiko knowledge itself, both the utilitarian selfishness of mercantile science and the equally self-serving creed of religions, both must be freely disowned.

But we also know that denying Negativity in the members of the body (to operate the works of love) can only occur unintentionally; and it must result from the intimate relationship between creative intuition, sapiential clairvoyance and the idea, that is, as something suddenly given, as if in a blow received from outside the sphere of reason. Therefore, the suspension of selfishness in living is the fundamental element to freedom, understood here as the breaking of that necessary causal chain, and which determines the human being as a being who suffers in the 'wheel of Samsara'.

As meditation is an exercise in religious devotion too, which often composes systems of ascetic morality, so let it be noted here that: we prefer to take it only from the point of view of the development of the human spirit, and not implying any indication prescriptive to conduct nor relating to the indication for some kind of adherence to deism, not even to theism.

Meditating, therefore, can serve in the denial of wanting and in the improvement of the experience of freedom, because it is something that is only achieved through the knowledge of one's own personal essence, through which, there may be a possibility of externalizing this freedom, in the works of human beings, that is, it can happen that the works of love are carried out, when, through immediate knowledge, obtained in meditation, for example; the motives corresponding to Negativity in life fail to have an effect on the consciousness of the compassionate agent.

Mystetically speaking, if we follow the Kantian distinction between phenomenon and thing-in-itself, we will soon find the correlate of the Idea in the in-itself of life. In the first case, as it is a question of the world that appears to us according to the principle of reason, it is something subject to time, space, and causality, and all this refers directly to the scope of the necessity of Negativity in life.

But only in the second case can we refer to freedom in the proper sense, that is, belonging exclusively to Cosmic Energy.

In this way, as everything in the phenomenal world follows the law of causality, then, the human being can only present himself as a determined entity in all his actions, as well as everything that motivates him, and which are nothing more than mere derivations. of the general forms of understanding in the nature of the human animal.

Therefore, since the human being is entirely under the scope of necessity, then, we can only speak of human freedom in terms of total and immediate self-knowledge, that is, after the removal of the animal barrier of understanding.

When we consider that our willing is preceded by something that is presupposed as a foundation, and that explains our capacity for decision and action, we assume that this preceding element is always some motive, and that the principle at work is what we call the law of motivation and the principle of sufficient reason for acting. So this principle simply says that: every act of will can be explained as arising from a motive. Now, the link between motive and act is that of cause and effect, the same that has universal application in changes in the material world.

In this way, motivation is causality seen from within. Therefore, what will always remain as the determinant of the fundamental motives of their actions is something of the essence of the human being. Thus, rational formulations are entirely ineffective in either impelling or preventing, from the core, the flow of human desires. At the most, those formulations can only encourage or reduce the conflict between want and duty, sickening and increasing the positive basis of the common human being, that is, increasing the suffering of attachment to Negativity in life.

In this way, taking illusion as a natural good, the demands imposed on the individual by the empirical character will never cease. Even so, no 'moral straitjacket' will be strong enough to contain the Cosmic Energy in its absolutely free expansion.

David Hume had already highlighted this ineffectiveness of reason to stop a passion, in the famous Treatise on Human Nature, a work published between the years 1739-1740 and which is considered by specialists to be the main work of the British empiricist philosopher. For Hume, the foundation of human nature stems from the search for minimizing pain and maximizing pleasure.

It is worth emphasizing that the basis of psychosocial morality derives from intelligible character, and that every psychological, moral or spiritual attribute will only be a variation of the same and unique essence of the human being.

Throughout the formation of the individual, in his relationship with the outside world, there is a type of character, derived from the intelligible aspect and that makes up the personal mark and by which someone subsists socially, responding to the natural gregarious sense, constituting the experience in community, determinant of utilitarian actions and, in a way, responsible for the survival instinct as well, which is the determinant in the configuration of every acquired character, and also of the tendency to comfort in the gregarious human being.

Without this, the social dialog of affecting and being affected in relationships would be unlikely, because human behavior is formed, in a more generic sense, based on the routines of actions within a given social niche, where the individual makes himself known, and in the which society imposes sanctions reproving or favorable to the conduct.

Therefore, every particular attitude of the human being will ultimately respond to the intelligible character, through which and, by virtue of the given reasons, only one decision at a time will be possible, and, therefore, deciding and acting in this way is necessary. , that is, it does not provide authentic freedom, as occurs in the works of love.

Thus, it is up to the common human being, in his individual acts, only the capacity for some elective decision that can be confused with full freedom. But such a decision, however, is just another conflict between motives, where the strongest will necessarily prevail.

In this way, the fact that a choice appears to us as indeterminate, initially, is nothing more than the mistake of individual empirical freedom, and as if we could, in the same situation, sometimes decide in a certain way, opting for a 'yes' and then for a 'no'. This is because, since the reasons were presented, the decision has already been determined, and it is up to the intellect only to clarify their nature, but never to determine that original Energy, as this is inaccessible to it by the understanding.

Therefore, what the human being wants is what he will continue to want for life, and it will only be up to him to change the way in which he will seek to achieve the desired end, through self-interested knowledge, that is, the individual will never have his total freedom in what he invariably wants. In short, only your wanting to act out of compassion, that is, if you deny Negativity in life, only in this way will you be based on the freedom of the Cosmic Energy that always determines you a priori.

Still in clarification of the above, if a human being under equal conditions could act now in one way now in another, then, in the meantime, that original Energy would have changed, therefore it would reside only in time, where change is possible.

In this way, either individual energy would cease to be a mere phenomenon or time would become the determinant of the thing itself.

Now, we know that a phenomenon is nothing more than a pure objectification of Energy, therefore, from the moment the desire is consciously suppressed, the underlying essence is simultaneously suppressed in its own foundation, however, that human phenomenon will still last in time. , although the motives corresponding to selfish individualism no longer exert any determining effect on it.

Therefore, the negation of Negativity in life must present itself in the human phenomenon itself, and in order to generate a phenomenal contradiction in what is determined by reason, or rather, it can only occur as a dialogical-dialectical-epistemic procedure.

So, only from the moment in which the principle of individuation is overcome, that is, when one obtains the immediate knowledge of one's own personal energetic identity in the Originating Energy, and with the totality of the collective phenomenon active in the works of love, only in this way can conceive of the full freedom of the Idea of ​​Humanity.

Thus, when the knowledge of this essence proper to the creative genius recognizes selfishness as the source of all suffering, creative genius as a disinterested and logically blind power, to which no ultimatum corresponds to it, and which recognizes that this suffering also does not originate from not having, but, rather, being in life and always wanting to have more, but without ever being able to acquire, through the individual will, that full freedom.

Therefore, the dialogical-dialectical-epistemic procedure is immediate at the moment, as we understand it, it is expressed from the state of sapience and by the self-abnegation in which one can arrive at the radical suppression of the desire of Negativity in life.

In this way, it is clear that, to the one who has achieved such knowledge of his own individualistic essence, enough for the negation of Negativity in life, he has found the way to free himself from the suffering of a life oscillating between desire and boredom.

According to what we have just exposed, the impossibility of total freedom of the common human being stands out, but this is when we consider the human being only as submitted to the principle of individuation.

However, there must be, and our mystéthika insists that there must be a possibility of letting go of this claustrophobic knowledge, and in which beings in general are held to be free in themselves, given the non-intuitive nature of this, in contrast to that of the gaze. exclusively through the principle of reason.

In this way it is possible that freedom itself enters the scene, based on that pure subject of knowledge in every creative genius.

But as long as the individual remains involved in causality, he will only know things in relation to other things, and motives will present themselves to him, always by the old desires in constant renewal.

On the contrary, when he sees beyond the principle of individuation, arriving at the knowledge of the whole, from the ideas of things, then, such immediate knowledge will suspend any animal desire, because the torture of chronology will also be suspended.

All this digression has been taken, so far, only to better illustrate what we intend to propose, and because Christian doctrine, and thus theology in general, does not have relevant and sufficient metaphysical content to adequately describe the essence/nature of the human being, not even that of their conduct in the world, although mysticism in general, whether Christian or not, has much to contribute, as metaphors for the clarification of our mystéthika, in the eyes of the reader.

Similarly to what we are dealing with in this poetic critique of reason and intuition, in order to present mysthesys and metaquantics as the two neologisms that will lead us to a more accurate scope of the Idea of ​​Humanity. This freedom and 'salvation', which could only occur through overcoming individualism and selfishness, all this brings us back to the metaphysics of beauty, that is, to our central guide and starting point.

Therefore, it is not the theological and doctrinal apparatuses of the Judeo-Christian tradition that actually serve us, even so, we use them as metaphors.

Note that, in mysthesis, the creative genius is the real human being, therefore free, in the sense of being the expression of the Idea of ​​Humanity in the works of love.

Rather, the ordinary human being is nothing more than a fleeting illusion, in the sense of always being trapped in individualism, consequently trapped in mortal personal consciousness, and fixating on it more and more as Negativity in life.

Now, the power for the works of love is in the common human being too, however, he still cannot deny the Negativity in life and welcome the Beauty in his heart, so he will continue to see in the ordinary logic, but without access to the Consciousness of Humanity. , until it awakens, at least, in an aesthetic intuition, even if it is in the most fleeting of them.

Thus, when it comes to that free use of reason, already suggested by Kant, our mystéthika prefers never to be understood as a repetitive mechanics, because here we are not acting as mere parrots of the theology and philosophy of the dead, even when such a philosophy is favorable to us.

Therefore, the epistemic truth of the Idea of ​​Humanity is immutable and points to the necessary denial of the illusion of the world of selfish individuals, therefore, every selfish person is necessarily opposed to it, through any merely religious and even scientific desire for freedom, that is, through that which is nothing more than something empirically representable or even dogmatized by religions.

Note also that such an Idea never changes. However, the human way of relating to it changes, and it can even improve without measure. Finally, one reaches the peak in the works of love, one reaches freedom, thus concretized in life. In short, by such an intuitive elevation, the fifth dimensional sphere of Human Consciousness is reached in the now.

Even because, in the conceptual duo transcendental ideality and empirical reality, we understand, mystethically, that empirical reality depends on the founding transcendental ideality, regarding the ingenious mode of knowledge, something that, in general, science has always ignored, at least until the emergence of quantum physics.

Here, therefore, is one of our main justifications for proposing mystéthika as the discourse in which the barrier of understanding ceases to affect the subject's relationship with epistemic knowledge, in terms of the nullity of chronology and phenomena, at the main 'moment' of aesthetic intuition.

Now, we know that all scientific demarcation is constructed through the empirical study of how things happen, from the point of view of merely phenomenal observation. In this sense, when we mystetize the importance of imagination and the metaphysics of the beautiful, even with regard to scientific domains, we rise to a broader understanding of the scientific field, and this will require that such field be extended, to the epistemic limit of Consciousness. of Humanity.

Otherwise, the domains of science will remain eternally circumscribed within the limits of the mystical ocean.

That's why we use the expression negation of Negativity in life. In this sense, the effective need for utilitarianism and individualistic interests, still widely accepted as the norm of social conduct in general, once overcome, will leave only the void of the old scientific method.

However, we emphasize that: mysthesis is the main partner of this void (quantum vacuum) that will always remain for us, as soon as the myth of scientism is definitively demystified in the ordinary collective consciousness.

A useful metaphor here would be to say of poetry as a kind of pure intuitive reflection, an anamenesis, if we prefer the term. Thus, mysthesis can be assimilated as the epistemic threshold of poetic language, as it proposes non-linear judgments, and also because it escapes the cerebral dogmatism of logicist intellectualism.

At this point, it is worth remembering that our figure of the triad, that is, the heart (figuring strength and emotion), the pineal (figuring the Cosmic Eye of pure intuition) and, these two having to be composed with the intellect, but without never keep it in exclusivist prominence as to mystéthiko knowledge.

From this we can delineate future metaquantics as the science of omniscient consciousness, yet playful and loving. Therefore, the intellect, isolated, is incapable of even entering the conceptual five-dimensionality of mystéthikos judgments.

Especially because, mysthesis proposes a type of cosmological immanentism of energy, therefore, moving away from all religious theologism and other creeds and the like. It is, if still understood as a metaphysics, the metaphysics of cosmic energy as a total unity (Metaphysik der kosmischen Energie als Totalitäts-Einheit).

We said “if still as metaphysics” because mysthesis, in fact, is the propaedeutic to all the metaquantics that will follow from it. Now, here we are just inaugurating the neologisms and the proper procedure, but this is still not metaquantum itself, as it does not fit in this book.

At this point, we must emphasize that knowledge as immediate truth is what occurs in existing as an Expression of Energy in the world, and whose necessary correlate is the work of creative genius, which we are also calling works of love, as they are the ones that they do so in a disinterested way, based on the immediate knowledge of the determinations of Energy in the world. However, these are works that we cannot get hold of, it is quite true, but even so, these works of genius remain in the world, and their value is not merely financial; rather, such value resides in the possibility of overcoming suffering, and this can unfold as freedom in the face of the aforementioned Negativity in life.

Therefore, no one takes possession of the Cosmic Eye of the creative genius, because the artist and the sage act in the world, so as to overcome, thereby, even mere piety disguised as genuine compassion.

For there is nothing more guaranteed for happiness than wanting to be what you are. In this sense, the creative genius, by becoming what it is, becomes the center of itself and the object of the Idea of ​​Humanity.

So, if the only difference is whether such liberating knowledge comes from the suffering of what is known in abstractum or from the suffering felt immediately as intuitive knowledge, at this point, the metaquantum notion of self-conscious Energy gains its first contours, which is of immediate interest as it unfolds. of our mystéthika. In this way, the freedom that, as we saw in the first part of our exposition on the metaphysics of the beautiful, which belongs exclusively to the thing in itself, that which occurs from the metaphysical perspective and through the overcoming of the principle of individuation, even such freedom would not be mystically satisfying.

Although there are two ways to reach the denial of individualism, namely, one that corresponds to knowledge, freely acquired by those who perceive the suffering of the whole world, and, the other, which corresponds to knowledge, acquired through the excessive pain felt in the meat itself.

Even so, ultimately, only the immediate knowledge of mysthesis will be the only best way to reach the definitive negation of Negativity in life.

As Negativity in life cannot be suppressed, if not through immediate knowledge, then the only way of 'salvation' is to intuit Energy in its act freely, in order for the individual phenomenon to make itself known in its own essence. It is only as a result of this knowledge that one will be able to see oneself and, thus, also, put an end to suffering, which was previously inseparable from the human phenomenon.

In other words, such genius knowledge is possible for the human being, and that means that it is only through him that Energy can reach the knowledge of its own essence as well, as well as the possibility of suppressing itself through this same self-knowledge, that is, suppress itself as food for Negativity in the life of individual human consciousness.

Therefore, practices such as abortion and suicide are not definitive paths to freedom, because they do not go beyond that knowledge of what is their necessary condition, therefore, they do not suppress Negativity, but only some individual phenomenon. In these cases, only something of the individual is denied, but not the human species as a whole, which, in a way, if it occurred, would represent a total denial of our world as a representation as well.

However, such practices do not refer to dissatisfaction with life as a whole, which should be denied as an expression of the total will, but rather to dissatisfaction only with the conditions under which one lives.

Thus, Vital Energy is never renounced, but only when living under certain conditions. This means that, to commit suicide or kill someone, for example, far from being a denial of Negativity, it is, rather, its reaffirmation even more self-interested, because it aims to acquire an even more selfish life, in a utopia of power. dominate circumstances even more favorable to individualism itself. What would we say of a nuclear war?

As can be seen, the suicidal person ardently desires life, but not under the conditions in which he has it, and, when he cannot stop wanting through knowledge and ordinary conduct, he then decides to kill himself to stop suffering.

In this way, suffering approaches and, as such, opens up the possibility of negating Negativity, but it rejects it by destroying the individual phenomenon, the body, in such a way that Negativity remains unbreakable.

In other words, by destroying himself, the suicidal person denies the possibility of attaining that disinterested and genial knowledge, which would definitely set him free in the works of love.

As only knowledge in overcoming the principle of individuation will generate, in human beings, the possibility of Denial of individualism, something that a few can already achieve through pure self-knowledge, then, in most cases it is necessary that this knowledge is accompanied by intense personal suffering, in order to break all selfishness, which, as a false essence of the human being, has the power to constantly reassert itself in him as Negativity in all good living. Negativity that feeds countless dogmatisms, which impose hardships in the name of religious salvation. But none of them is honest enough to admit that, without the expressions of Beauty, vulgarly usurped for the institutional interests of religions, without this there can be no religious possibility of alleviating suffering, something that religions in general only manage to increase, because , they can propose nothing more than dogmas to maintain the subservience of their suffering faithful always within the scope of herd training.

Now, even the Beautiful, when in the enclosure of dogmatics, will appear weakened.

From what has been exposed so far, we perceive that it is not in the individual, that is, that full freedom will not occur in the particular and determined human being, since he will always have his action subject to necessity.

But, from the moment that wanting no longer echoes in him, then selfishness will be overcome and, thus, he will no longer present himself as a mere individual, but as a pure subject of knowledge, the correlate of the Idea of ​​Humanity. Soon, he will be free from that determination, to which every individual submits, always wanting not to suffer in life, but not knowing how to deny only the adverse conditions and under which it is offered to him as Negativity.

In short, the average human being will never be free unless he realizes the immeasurable liberating power that emanates from the works of creative geniuses.

Therefore, only when the human gaze rises from the particular to the universal and becomes the pure subject of knowledge will this human being begin to consider his individual suffering as a mere example of the suffering of humanity and the whole world.

Then, the resignation of desire will assume the meaning for freedom, admitting it from the Idea of ​​Humanity.

Thus, having the sufferer assumed the form of simple and pure knowledge, he will give way to the annuller of all individualism. Then, in the works of love, the path of complete 'redemption' will become evident, and only in this way can the common human being be free, as are the sages and other creative geniuses.

It is here that the need for the state of asceticism occurs, as a purposeful break of the will by refusing the pleasant and seeking the unpleasant. Practice by which one who seeks the negation of Negativity in life tries to succeed, but without prospering, since even the most austere religious practice is not purely disinterested, therefore it does not adequately lead to the works of love.

This can be verified in chastity, for example, where, although individuality is affirmed through the sexual impulse, the subject feels capable of denying it by deciding not to satisfy his impulses.

Other practices such as fasting, voluntary poverty and self-punishment are also used to intentionally but not disinterestedly curb energy, which as a natural tendency is constantly reasserting itself as Negativity in human selfishness.

Since the knowledge, from which the negation of Negativity derives, is intuitive and not abstract, the acts and conducts, based on ascetic practices will present themselves as imperfect expressions of the works of love, as they are merely intellectual efforts, therefore, they will never prosper, if not in the maintenance of the old suffering in the War Field.

Even the examples that we find in the experience of penitents, described in Indian literature, and even among Christians, who showed this ascetic state of denial of individuality, all of them cannot deny Negativity in life, because they always start with the task , in an attempt to cancel the phenomenon and not the selfishness itself.

At this point, the considerable kind of distinction reappears, between the artist and the sage and between aesthetics and ethics.

However, since what 'motivates' them is the spontaneous and naturally disinterested 'motivation', it should not be categorically stated that the work of both is still some affirmation of individualism, that is, is something still incapable of denying the Negativity in life. Especially when you can contact the realization of the works of love.

However, we must emphasize that the observation is decisive here only as a mystéthika power that disempowers the tyranny of scientism.

In fact, a real and immediate support for ethics is that metaphysics, expounded in Christian writings, as well as that other, expressed in the sacred books of India. This is because such agreement between peoples and such disparate times presents itself as factual proof that everything that is expressed through this way of thinking points to the essentiality of human nature.

Finally, for ethics, in essence, we proposed nothing new, and we agree with that already originally ethical wisdom, the one that is built from the very matter of ethics, namely, that the individualistic human will suffers.

And all this, having seen so far, was only to discuss the inability of the intentional ascetic state to be equivalent to the works of love, whether those of the authentic sage, or those of genius or even ordinary artists.

In short, even the ecstasy of the most refined ascetic state cannot compare with the realization of the most elementary of genuinely disinterested attitudes.