êthos mystéthikos - Chapter 17 (From the work in progress: The Poetized Critique) By M. Santos

17. ARTICULATIONS OF ACCESS TO THE IDEA OF HUMANITY (1) 

Egoism is defined as the attitude of those who put their interests, opinions, desires, needs first, to the detriment of other people with whom they relate directly as well as the social environment as a whole.

We do not have to accept that this is all linked to the basic natural impulse to survive, therefore, to insecurity and fear as well. Thus, from the point of view of prevailing morality, selfishness can be understood as a fundamental anti-moral power. Even because, so far, no philosophical treatise has been written on the morality of selfishness, in the sense of anti-moral potency, as we are describing it here.

However, when we think of altruism, we can either write moral treatises or read countless of them, until we understand that all authentic altruism is always amoral. In this way, we will be able to understand the meaning of this altruistic a-morality in the very function of Vital Energy.

That is to say, everything that Energy provides in the life of the living flows as a miraculous gift, in the sense that a master of Negativity in life, an infanticide, for example, has as much energy for his actions as a creative genius in the exercise. of compassionate works.

Since altruism is that disinterested love for one's neighbor, whether in philanthropy or even in self-denial, then we can admit that mysthesis gives prominence to this notion, mainly in the fact that the works of love are nothing more than the voluntary actions of an individual. benefit others, that is, altruistic works in general.

Thus, if we think about the works of love according to the thought of Auguste Comte (1798-1857), we would say that they stem from this tendency or inclination of an instinctive nature and that incites the human being to concern for the other, and that, despite , its spontaneous action must be improved by positivist education, thus avoiding the antagonistic action of the natural instincts of selfishness.

However, this positive education that Comte dealt with must submit to the dialogical-dialectical-epistemic procedure, since the future metaquantum will demand an unfolded approach to what we can already call mystéthika education at this point.

Submitting to the dialogical-dialectical-epistemic procedure means to minimally include the understanding that the nunc stans is the present time of everything that lives, and that, in this way, outside it there is no other temporal possibility for the living but illusory, because, although the Cosmic Energy is that which is particularly objectified in each thing, it itself cannot, however, be represented under the categories of time and space, because life is certain to it, and to life only the present is certain.

Now, fifth-dimensionality is precisely this aionic locus present where everything else is always awake.

As Comte's positivism still presupposes a strict connection with the principle of reason of ordinary science, therefore, the metanoia mystéthika must occur in such a way as to take advantage only of the purified knowledge of what Conte summarized in his beautiful motto: “Love as a principle, order base and progress finally.

Therefore, one can only decide to deny wanting Negativity in life through clear and unequivocal knowledge of the immediate real world; never by a subjective knowledge, merely utilitarian and based on causal needs.

That is why we do not try to insist on normative precepts nor will we develop any doctrine of duties, both in common life and in the sciences as well.

We know that all suffering belongs to the human being, the only being conscious of suffering in this world. But, as such, that is, in itself, suffering is nothing, it is impassible to any empirical examination, even if it is purely positive together with pain, it cannot, however, be the object of analysis and measurement but of an approach. mystéthika. Therefore, the nihilism that we propose in this essay is characterized by the complete annulment of selfishness arising from suffering reinforced by individualist utilitarianism. Thus, being an expression of Negativity in the conscious and unconscious life of humans, suffering can and must be reduced to nothing, through the works of love that 'anchor' the fifth-dimensionality of the Idea of ​​Humanity in the nature of this planet.

This is because, in the valley of suffering and tears of this worst possible world, the greatest privilege of the human being is only the knowledge capable of embracing the whole of existence, regardless of the illusions of time, namely, through the cosmic eye of pure aesthetic intuition. . Now, by knowing immediately and by practicing the works of love, inherent to this way of knowing, creative geniuses begin to live as if suffering, that is, negativity in life, were nothing.

Even because, in mysthesis, it is the reiterated dialectical-dialogical-epistemic procedure that tends to annul the persistence of pain in human life. In this way, by intensifying the qualitative and quantitative of the works of love, the entire chronology of the world in black and white will be fully suspended in the aionic Idea of ​​Humanity.

Mysthetically speaking, from the more than fleeting millisecond of the dialectical-dialogical-epistemic procedure, the human being becomes capable of making complete reminiscence, and, in this way, starting to live in full freedom and in the indissoluble harmony of Humanity's Consciousness.

It is popularly said that living is an art, and we are trying precisely to propose a mystethization of the Old World in black and white, mainly based on elements of the theory of knowledge, implied in the contemporary aesthetics of the metaphysics of the beautiful, without neglecting the presuppositions of philosophical romanticism. Without despising even the presuppositions of the empiricists, we suggest the 'aestheticization of ethics', as something opportune and indispensable as well.

Now, the in-itself will be definitively elucidated in the future metaquantum, the world having taken as a starting point the dialectical-dialogical-epistemic procedure of mysthesis. However, we already warn that a mere relevant elucidation of the term metaquantum would not fit in this volume, because this will require a separate work.

Finally, it is clear that the mystéthiko knowledge in question cannot be that of a merely scientific understanding. That is why we say that, in our way of thinking, the purpose of the metaphysics of ethics was to expose the forms of human conduct, but without the last term of this resting on any ethical judgment, much less on any empirical evaluation.

It is no exaggeration to say that there is beauty in all things. Therefore, we can say mysthetically that: the Beautiful is the cosmic truth that makes the bridge to the fifth dimensional sphere. Because both beautiful art and a good attitude both depend on a disinterested look at the world. Now, the merely utilitarian gaze will never see that beauty that surrounds and underlies wonders.

Note further that Life itself cannot be limited to the box of human understanding. That is to say, what understanding achieves is also life, but not life in its absoluteness; unless the understanding of that cord of the Idea of ​​Humanity.

In this sense, let us remember that the autonomy of feeling, proposed by the German romanticism of the sturm und drang, places it as autonomous in the face of merely instrumentalized reason, that of the old and ordinary worldview limited by understanding.

Based on this, we take it for granted that the knowledge that refers to the essence of beauty must always be disinterested, because this is the most perfect and true knowledge of the essence of the world and what privileges us, to the point that we can present the mystéthika of Idea of ​​Humanity as the foundation and condition of possibility of any and all unshakable knowledge, even of all significance, up to, and why not say, the foundation without which no authentically epistemic knowledge can occur.

However, when we propose mystéthika as a discourse, we intend that the reader's creative imagination be put into action, because we understand that in this way our disinterested effort will never fail. But it is worth remembering that not even the keenest imagination is capable of embracing the abyssal breadth of the mystery, the enigma of life in a world in black and white.

Kant had already understood that only the formal aspect of the object is considered in aesthetic enjoyment, and not its specified and palpable existence. But even so, Schopenhauer observed that the aesthetic judgment of taste and beauty is, at its root, disinterested, that is, it removes objects from their space-time relationships and lets them subsist singularly in reflection, that is, as a form that triggers the subjective and pleasurable game of the imagination with the understanding.

As we can see, mystéthika should not propose its judgments without first observing this detachment and this withdrawal of objects from every imaginable chronology. Even because, it will not be possible to present something relevant about the Idea of ​​Humanity, if one intends to keep the mystéthikos judgments at the same level of the logical, scientific, aesthetic and ethical judgments of ordinary philosophy.

It is worth remembering that Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (1768-1834) was the one who, when starting his Dialectic, stated that philosophy as a conscious production of knowledge belongs, in a way, to the world of art. Therefore, already in Schleiermacher, Aesthetics, as a theory of sensation, was understood, in general, in opposition to Logic. But, as far as praxis is concerned, that is, the eminently pragmatic plan and the teleology of action, it was, in general, taken as dissociated from art and the pleasure that aesthetic enjoyment provides.

Ernst Schleiermacher became known as the father of modern hermeneutics because, according to Gadamer (1900-2002), he was responsible for developing a true doctrine of the art of understanding, rather than a mere aggregation of observations.

The rigid separation in the aesthetics of that time, between genius and mere sense of taste, could only be saved by making all men artists or philosophers, instead of scrupulously distinguishing between, for example, writers and readers. In this way, and starting from the logical premise that no one can live in two worlds, then, the reconstruction of the meaning of the (Kunstwelt) world of art becomes crucial to the adequate interpretation of Schleiermacher's philosophy. And even in the constitution of the concept of the contemporary world as well, because from the introduction of his Aesthetics we were able to understand that, for that theologian and philosopher, the main object of investigation is the ethical meaning of the artistic impulse in general. Thus, beyond that, one could only speak of the cosmic meaning, the result of which is the world of art itself, this microcosm that forms part of the series of things, and which is necessarily linked to the total spirit of the world.

In this way, aesthetics would form part of an ethics that Schleiermacher always understood pragmatically, that is, as the science of everything that is possible through human freedom, because, for him, there was a need for conscious expression, something that would resolve the difference between the artistic and the non-artistic, and that, in this way, would highlight the determining role of aesthetics.

In his last reflections on the concept of art, Schleiermacher referred to paradigmatic cognition, something that turns inspiration and excitement into art. Therefore, Beauty was understood, in this Aesthetics, as the universal artistic element of art, and artistic activity as the one that connects with other human activities, and it is up to us to determine the ethical meaning of art. Something that we already understand and that we are doing, in a way, when we establish mysthesis as the propaedeutic to the entire metaquantum of the aionic now.

Therefore, artistic activity can be understood here as a correlate of the work of art as well. In this way, even the artistic impulse of human nature is understood as a kind of pure aesthetic, whose aim would be to join the infinite unity of Divine art, in a kind of mystic union of the artist with the Cosmic Energy of nature. Something already suggested in Boehme's German philosophical mysticism, and which, among other mystics, is finally rooted in the elements of the multi-millenary Hindu mysticism.

If we follow Gadamer's perspective on philosophical hermeneutics, we can agree that it is a little strange to try to bring poetry together with the art of speech, for example. Even because, what characterizes and gives dignity to art is precisely that, in it, language is not logical discourse, that is, the fact that art has a unity of meaning and in a way that is independent of any logical-causal relationship, as is the case in a standard rhetorical dialectic, that is, in speaking and being addressed and persuaded, etc.

On the other hand, Schleiermacher's concept of 'artistic thinking', under which he brings together the art of poetry and the art of discourse, considers, on the contrary, not the product, but the subject's mode of behavior. Thus, speaking is also conceived purely as art, that is, abstracting from any relation to objectives and things in question, as an expression of a plastic productivity, for example. And yet, the passage between the artistic and the artless must be fluid, just as the passage from artless understanding to an artful, immediate procedure is fluent.

Therefore, while human production in general occurs mechanically, that is, according to causal laws and rules, but never in a brilliant and non-analog-chronological way. So, in this case, the performer will merely perform a conscious composition, as an individual production and of very low scope, even though it is widely popularized around the world.

Thus, we emphasize that creative production, in the authentic sense, is the one that will no longer be regulated, like what happens in manufactures, for example. In this way, artistic thinking would constitute a type of free 'dialogue'; whereas, ordinary thinking would merely be responsible for conducting dialogue (Gesprächführung).

Later, Benedetto Croce, in his almost homonymous work of 1902, Aesthetics as a science of expression and general linguistics, took up the critical elements of Schleiermacherian Aesthetics, reconsidering and re-admitting it to the whole of the science of ethics. However, the inaccuracies and contradictions attributed to the aesthetic writings in question were suppressed through the realization that Schleiermacher intuited that, beyond the mere subjective representation, the work of art as an expression of the truth of a particular conscience, would be a form of thought, distinct from the conventional logical form, but still immanently formed, at least in anthropological terms. Metaphysics, therefore, but in the sense of that decadent and always impossible to ascend to the level of science, according to the model in force at the time of Schleiermacher. (See Glossary, Wissenschaftslehre).

The genius artist himself is the one who forms the patterns and sets the rules, he is the one who creates new forms of linguistic use, in literary composition for example. Schleiermacher took these differences very seriously. However, from the hermeneutic side, this ingenious production corresponds to the fact that: genius needs guesswork, guessing right away, which, in the final analysis, presupposes a kind of congeniality.

If now, however, the limits between production without art and production with art are shifting; mechanical or ingenious, to the extent that what is expressed is always an individuality and that, in it, there always operates a moment of ingenuity free from rules - as happens with children who grow up in a language, for example - will follow from that. all that: the ultimate foundation of all understanding will always have to be a divinatory act of that congeniality whose possibility rests on a prior binding of all individualities.

Schleiermacher, for example, had already taken as the main object of his aesthetic investigation, the ethical meaning of the artistic impulse in general, emphasizing that this world forms part of the series of things, and is therefore linked to the spirit of the world; and that this is another and higher formulation of the question of the connection of art with nature.

In this way, he intended to differentiate art from art theory, so he pointed to an approach in which the pleasure of the Beautiful is the authentic object of aesthetic science. This would require both receptivity and productivity, which are, in this case, the two sides of the same coin, and whose differentiation is almost imperceptible.

Therefore, the object of art merely as productivity should be taken only from its most prominent characters, but not properly in the sense of that disinterested art we are dealing with. Even because pure contemplation, arising from aesthetic enjoyment, is a very peculiar state and way of seeing the world, positioning oneself and acting in it, and is capable of leading the human being to a more essential experience, even based on overcoming of mere individualistic images and representations.

This is all very interesting to our mystéthika on screen, because the song of a bird, for example, in wonderful melodies at dusk, demands nothing from our understanding, although it invades us in a pleasant way and allows us to imagine, for example, the idea of ​​freedom, without any rational appeals. Even because, the very nature of the bird is freedom, which, in addition to singing, also flying expresses in the world, as something that invites us to 'know' what cannot be logically represented, but only intuited through sound and of the 'image' that the bird prints on us.

In this way, an external thing starts to be correlated to our being itself indestructible, therefore, it becomes an idea.

Now, this indestructible being of ours is the same that relates to the fifth-dimensional sphere of the Idea of ​​Humanity.

Following this line of reflection, we can emphasize what Goethe already assumed, that is, that plastic art, for example, is related to the visible and the external appearance of the natural. This purely natural one we call naive, insofar as it is ethically pleasing to us as well.

The naive objects are, therefore, the scope of art, which must be an ethical expression of the natural as well, that is, the objects that point to both sides are the most appropriate, that is, the naive as natural is twinned with the ' real', and the 'real' without ethical relation we call ordinary.

Finally, in art and science, as well as in acting and acting, everything depends on whether objects are apprehended purely and treated according to their nature. Even so, from the point of view of mystéthika, the world of art can be considered as an independent cosmic network, formed by visible and invisible forces of reception, all of this grounded in creative geniuses and in their works, the works of love. These welcoming forces are the ones that can lead us to a place of unconditional compassion and full independence (freedom) in the Idea of ​​Humanity.

Such a sphere where the microcosmic Negativity of egocentric reality will end up reduced to nothing, is even something deeper, a human reality of mutual zeal. Therefore, reality that becomes enlightened, nirvanic. That is if we want to refer to it in terms of Pure Land Buddhism, for example.