DEATH AND ITS ASPECTS
Chapter 7. DEATH AND ITS ASPECTS
Celebrating the New Year will burn in hell
Our classes are held in a perpetual educational institution that is complete, you can enter, but can not get out. Entrance — ruble output — ten. But in principle, even ten rubles will not save anyone, because “claw stuck — the bird is the abyss.” We continue the tradition of the Christmas lectures.
Usually the New year people rest and relax. In technical analysis, in the economic sphere there is a very important phrase: “The majority is always wrong”. This applies to how to play the stock market. If everything is put on the increase in stock — should be immediately put down, on the contrary, because “majority is always wrong”. Any decent person from traditionalists can subscribe it. If people around you do something, don’t do this ever, do something the opposite and be right.
Usually before the New year we, normal people, conservative revolutionaries, sealants, Eurasians begins the era of intense ascetic attention. The study is accompanied by fasting. You know that people who begin to walk until the seventh of January, cursed. They will burn in hell. So drink, walk and have fun only after the seventh and prior to that Vice versa. 1st of January — the beginning of a fundamental, brutal self-loathing.At this time, it is necessary to wear a cilice, a hair shirt, that is, to turn to something opposite to all those salads Olivier, visiting friends, “call your parents”, etc. In this time of need skit.
Our lectures set up for the correct celebration of the New year and especially the beginning. So we talk about the most appropriate this winter solstice about the subject of death and its aspects, adjusting our consciousness to the lower point, which is now up to nature, the cosmic sun.
Who died, that never lived
I would like to start with the phrase, which I propose to remember not only for today’s lecture, but also to the end of your earthly days. The phrase at the time, said Eugene Vsevolodovich Golovin. I don’t know where he found it, since he seems to always make reference to different authors. Perhaps this is his phrase, and perhaps this phrase is an “absolute phrase”. I remember that 20 years ago, waking up in a strange state, Evgeny Vsevolodovich said, “Who died, that never lived”.
It shocked me, because to think about this phrase endlessly. What he had in mind, we will try to understand in the course of our lectures, “Death and its aspects”.
It is clear that death can neither comprehend nor imagine without life. Death causes our imagination to life and is an equally vague, mysterious and unfixed concept. We’re going to talk about death and life, to understand death.
First, it is necessary to turn to etymology. Back in the late 80-ies, I stressed the need for ongoing and special deconstruction of any text or concept – let’s call it “Nordic“. Is deconstruction (bringing the statements to the language, that is, the context from which this statement was introduced), structural linguistics, structural philosophy (I read about it a lecture — “Deconstruction as the main weapon of Eurasianism”(1)). This is a common deconstruction: postmodernistskaya, structuralist, however, also very useful and important. People incapable of deconstruction, is of no interest from the point of view of philosophical discourse. He could extinguish the cigarette butts, spit at him, endlessly humiliating because man is man (in the philosophical sense) only when he begins to learn the basics of the implementation of deconstruction. And if he does not deconstructed, so he’s hopeless, uninteresting.
Any statement historically and was once spoken for the first time. This is the first time the extremely interesting and important to analyze his repetitions, and historical environment and semantic structures, its determined. The restoration of the starting conditions of the utterance, its context, its semantic load and semantic shifts in the process of citation and reproduction in other conditions and is the art of philosophical deconstruction. One who understands that no one statement cannot be considered without analysis of the context, he thinks, speaks and philosophizes correctly.One succumbs to the magic of the sound of words, carried away by the suggestive flow of associations and semantic shifts hootsmon, the blithering idiot and his words taken seriously should not be.
In addition to the philosophical, structural-level deconstruction, there is still a deeper, Kabbalistic aspects of deconstruction. In the book modern Kabbalist Mordecai Chriqui I read recently in the footnotes is a short note: “understanding, that is, deconstruction”. In other words, deconstruction is the understanding. And where, as in Kabbalah, we had to deal with this tool!? It’s not just about bringing ideas to the context, or discourse — the language, but also about the future of deconstruction — the mixing of words to letters and their digital equivalents.
But Nordic deconstruction, to which I refer differs from the structuralist deconstruction that here we bring the concepts and statements to the original Hyperborean archaic source, protrusions, letter and protobalanus significance(2).
Reductio ad arborem
What is the letter? Where did the word “letter”? For example, the German Buchstabe comes from the word “beech” wood, which once carved the runes. Therefore, the letter is a rune that is embedded in the wood or something made of wood. Hence the “cuts” referred to by Chernorizets Hrabar, mentions about the ancient Slavic decillionth and dogugaeshi writing. The primary concept of the letter, which would not be possible words, statements and ideas, it coincides with the tree. We are representatives of the civilizations of the tree so our reducing total rune level deconstruction of the letter can be called a reductio ad arborem — reduction to the tree. And when we are able to reduce some phenomenon, for example, the death about which we are going to say, to the tree early, then we move closer to that source value, which is born in the original semantic space.
Nordic deconstruction (to a tree) features a death at the roots of the world year. According to Hermann Wirth(3), the original symbol of the year is a tree that is a circle which is inscribed in the branch.
Low point of this Arctic ideogram means in a calendar sense, the winter solstice.
What we are looking for is found at the roots. So we come to the roots of reality. Look down there, where the root of death, night, darkness, a place where we – as humanity-from the point of view of logic of world history. This is the point of midnight.
The root approach is a radical nordism. The word “radical” means nothing, as “root” (Latin “radix” – root”). The one who turns to search for the original meanings to the roots of the World Tree (based on not later Semitic cabbalism, and of the Hyperborean bondage), he is doing such a wonderful thing as a radical nordism.
Russian wood people
Normal Russian man lives only in the tree. When he is born, he immediately finds himself in a wood cradle. He has spent his life in a wooden hut. Wearing wood shoes sandals. All of this together is the civilization tree.
Our modern leather shoes — from a civilization of the steppe by nomads. They’re nice guys, but they aren’t us. This steppe. So everyone is invited promptly to say goodbye to boots of leather and go for a normal wooden shoes, because otherwise we cease to be Russian.
Having lived a happy life in sandals, the house and the woods Russian man dies and enters the grave. Again, the wood event.
Now, however, not the coffins went. The coffins in which now bury the new Russian is fake, they cannot really die. A real coffin needs to be dugout, it needs to be one solid piece, from the trunk.
Believers such coffins in advance before with youth stocking up for yourself – after all, they had to handle, hollow out, this required a huge work. When hollowed out, and happily slept in them. First, to get used to the light already on it. And secondly, they say, dreamed of stunning power, the imagery and vividness of the colors and subjects of dreams.
The idea dugout coffin is the return to treereturn to the elements, where the Russian people out of wood.
We love the trees. We the people wood, “radical” people. Why we love “ancient” and prefer to live in “the villages“. All of these roots — “antiquity”, “village” come from “tree”. So we come to the tree of life, knowledge of good and evil, to the World Tree, which determines what is life and what is death.
Death as a good start
Pay attention to what “beech”, woody roots of the word is “death.” In it the main ones are two letters: “m” and “R”. Two fundamental sign, two characters. Two themes for reflection. All my life you can think of the letter “m” and the letter “R”. To think of it.From these letters produces a number of values, such as “sea”, that is, the moisture, the water that flows from the roots of the World Tree, the mater — mother, and also the ancient center of primordial civilization of Mo-Uru, which went down and Moore, and Murmansk, and Ilya Muromets, and the Maori tribes, and the mountain of Moriah in the Bible, and other descriptions of the sacral center in a variety of traditions.
From the Russian word “death” appears “s”? We have the word “dead”, “died”, which are enough meaningful, “m” and “R” are present here. Where does the “withdeath”, why not “death”? From the point of view of linguistics, the letter “C” in the same way as the European “h” meant when something “good”. For example, the word “sun” comes from the ancient Indo-European root of “Il” and “C” — “the sun”. Therefore, “death” “with+death” is not (to be) “together with the dead” and “good Mo-Uru”, “EV-thanasia”, literally in Greek-ταναςια ευ — “good death”. “Thanatos” is death, and “EV” — good.
Thus, death for the Russian people has something soothing, something emotional, something different, something good.
Smert and belly
When we oppose “death” and “life” to each other, when we begin to think in these categories, using a Russian word, you are doing two fundamental mistakes.
First, talking about death, we use the soft “m” uttering the vowel “e”. Secondly, we say, “life.”
Both words are absolutely barbaric and blasphemous. Because, the right to say “smert“. In the ancient language was divided into “e” and “Yat”. “Yat” was pronounced as “e” and the usual “e”, which was written as “e”, pronounced as “uh”. The old believers-bespopovtsy remained still as nonoe singing, and the correct distinction of these two sounds “e” and “e”. So, really, you should not say “death” is already a distortion, profanizm, “nikonians” and “the Petrine reforms” — and “smert”. This pronunciation arises from poor knowledge of the Russian language, but on the contrary, from the fundamental, good it knowledge.
But “life” — it is absolutely obvious stretch because no one ever said “life”. “Life” is gibberish. The creed is a late Bulgarian borrowing, artificially constructed to distinguish between the life of the soul (actually “life of the age”) and life in the usual sense (Church Slavonic “belly”). But the first translation of the Bible into old Slavic used the word “stomach” in all cases.
“Belly” and “smert”. That’s what we need to discuss. So “life” and “death” is too remote from the original values of the sound concepts. This is the Pushkin, and therefore, not at all. If we want to think in terms of radical nordism and wood demonstracii, you should put it at the forefront of the “belly” as what we today mean by life at its most fundamental, root significance.
Of course, it is impossible here to get away from thinking that the stomach is the “Messer Gaster” (Rabelais), which is the basis of the struggle of engastromenou and gastrolerov. This is a great theme Grasse d’orsay wrote that all people are divided into two secret orders — “engastromenou” and “gastrulation”. Some worship Mr. Stomach, others are scary, deadly and sworn enemies of the Lord of the Abdomen. In this case we are talking about the belly (“gaster” in Latin — “the stomach”) rather than “belly” in the Russian sense.
Thus, the “abdomen” and “smert” is not “life” and “death.”
Life burns – the death of ice
Another etymological meaning of the word “live”, “life” is “to burn”. “Life burns“. The priests who carried out sacrifices, forx and yAli, had set fire to what you had to “eat” some kind of idol or God. “To eat” — meant to burn at the Shrine of some sacred offerings. That’s what “eat” initially. Then the word has lost its first great fundamental sense.
“Smert” is associated with pestilenceoz, with peace, with the cold, so the life is heat, and “smert” is Genesis in the cold, in the cold (the Studenets corruption).
All this must be understood exclusively in the optics of the three paradigms. If we do not consider all aspects that we study, in three paradigms — pre-modern, modern and postmodern, our words are just meaningless bubbles. People who deny the methodology of the three paradigms — pre-modern, modern and postmodern — should be shot, as well as those who deny the importance and absoluteness of geopolitics. Anyway, it’s time to introduce a new dogma. Stalin quietly entered and said that now we will have the dictatorship of the proletariat, comrades. Those who disagreed, those left.Anyone who does not agree with the three paradigms, they, too, will remain. Should not remain.
The environment of the tradition, the environment, tearing and Wednesday dissociation
I have long been tempted to find these three paradigms are equivalent in the Russian language, because premodern, modern and postmodern — is the European terms, each of them requires from the Russian artificial efforts, persistent thinking, given the Latin roots, Dating with the European historiography and partly a history of metaphysics. I will now propose three formulas which are, in my opinion, the Russian expression of the essence of the three paradigms.
The paradigm of pre-modern traditional society should be called the environment of the tradition. It is dominated by natural organic connection. The legend as prize. Communication is the main quality that is transmitted, because the tradition is the Latin traditio is “what is transmitted”. Tradere — “to pass”.
There are environment tearing. This is a modern. Because the main task of the paradigm of modernity is a tear. The question here is about why the Kabbalists used the definition of “ruin gardens”, “tear trees from their roots”. Under modernity means “the tearing of the environment”, understood as a continuing action. Environment, the meaning of which is in the process of tearing. Modern breaking links (legends), but haven’t ripped them completely.
And further: what is the postmodern? It – environment dissociation. Where the break occurred is postmodern. Where the break occurs, but hasn’t happened yet(!) is modern. When the gap happens when there is still something to tear, we are dealing with the environment tearing. In the postmodern had to tear nothing. This is its specificity.
The categorical imperative Arthur Rimbaud
When Rimbaud said, “il faut etre absolument moderne”, he meant exactly that. The poet may issue generally binding decrees. It’s as if he said, “everybody should give me 25% of your income”. All and nothing would have remained as reluctant to carry him the money. Here, with the same irrevocability, inalienability and sovereignty Rambo in the “email psychic” — la letrre du voyant (and he was convinced that the letter no one will ever find and will not publish) wrote: “Il faut etre absolument moderne”. Brilliant phrase, an absolute imperative implying that “it is necessary to tear”.And he was throwing up. Look at his life.
The distinction between tearing and fragmentation
The dialectics of environment tearing and the environment, dissociation is a very complex relationship and to understand that fine line where we live in the postmodern, or that we’re about to move, please understand that this transition is most significant that ever happening to us. Without realizing it, we do not understand neither himself, nor life, nor peace, no death, nothing. Therefore, it is critical here to pick up the synonyms to describe the process that connects or separates, distinguishes between environment tearing and Wednesday of incoherence.
Let me explain this on two examples from different areas. So, the Apostle Paul says in one of his letters: “void Bo made law.” This means the following: despite the fact that the law and its era, it is recognized by Orthodoxy as the law, but its function and he fulfilled it era ended. He did all that was within it, but his powers stopped where was the border that defines its essence, making it a law, not something else.In the framework of this law excludes the possibility of deification – the relationship between the Creator and the creature was determined by the logic of orders/obedience in the model of Master/slave. And beyond that in the space of the law to go out was impossible. When ends the era of the law, begins the era of grace. The law in this phrase — “void Bo made law” is not a clearly negative relationship. The law here is accepted. But it is accepted as something prior to what is declared now. This is very fundamental. And as soon as relevant, the former is invalid.Thus, applying said to the paradigms of modernity and postmodernity, one can say on behalf of postmodernists: “Void Bo made modern”. This means that, in principle, modern not cancelled like the intention to break all. But he’s staying within himself, i.e. modernism, to make it incapable. After carried out the gap of reality enters into a radically different state. That this state isenvironment of incoherence.
And second. Hegel is the notion of “removing the contradictions” or “presence in a video”. “There is a shot form” means “there”. But “there” is not in itself, but as something positively overcome, like a kid in a video is present in the adult. Adult criticizes himself as a former child who do not repent of it, does not refute this but does not recognize now the actuality of their own childishness (of course, if adult normal).
Life that knows no death
So, we begin to dismantle the metaphysical concept of death in these three paradigms or three different environments: environment tradition in the environment of tearing and the exchange of incoherence. At the initial stage in environment of tradition, in its pure archetypal state in the epoch that Guenon called the “Primordial Tradition,” death as such does not exist and there is only life.
The one absolute lifethat knows no death, is not, however, what we mean by “life today (in a period very far from the Original Tradition), because “life” we used to denote something opposite of death. If you imagine life isnot the opposite of death as another, it will not be life (in our understanding). And therefore, death is not the opposite of life as different, there will be no “death”. Thus, in the initial state in the environment of tradition at its first stage, there is not only death, but does not exist and life as something separate from death.
Death and life in a certain way are here synonymous, because both of these phenomena are in a state of immanence in relation to each other. It’s not quite immortality, as the latter requires experience death in order for her to overcome (and it is occurring much later). Here both death and life simply do not exist. And there are no concepts of “here” and “there”, “then” and “now” and everything belongs “here”. Imagine this “here” that has no “there”. Imagine that “now” has no “then”. And imagine that “it” has no “then”. There is only “this” as an absolute “it”.
And here is the important point: when we see “it” without “the”, “now” without the “then” and “here” without “there” — this means that there are no boundaries this absolute existence of the original medium there is no surrender. Nevertheless, not too corny, went to consider a given state as absolute life. Looking at all described, we can’t even identify with absolute life, or with the same success, with absolute death. What is this element where there is no initial separation of life and death, what is existence or being, where life and death are present or ravnodushnoy we even can’t imagine, but immanent sacredness is the point on which we begin considerationthe Genesis of fate of death in the world.
Yes, we are in his study of the genealogy of death proceed from the point where it is not. But we also believe that, where there is its opposite — life. So, if not the antithesis, of life, of the dual code, we have not obtained a banal moralistic pictures that is continuously trying to slip into our consciousness.
Islands Of The Blessed
About this intense existence, knows no boundaries, knows no death, tell ancient myths. The Greeks spoke of the Hyperboreans —a people living in the far North, where the half — winter, half summer, and it was reported that they do not know death at all. Hyperboreans just commit suicide when they get tired of living.
The ancient Celts knew about the Islands of the Blessed, where the Immortals live ethnic groups. The Chinese talked about Islands of the Immortals and the magical city of Willows, inhabited by sages, whose life lasts forever. It is curious that willow was a sacred tree of Slavic tribes. We believe that Russian sacred birch — tree, in fact, the same case sacred tree for our ancestors was willow, and birch was the principal sacred tree of the ancient Turks.
One other sneaks inside
At a certain point in the framework of the tradition takes place the fundamental disaster. In absolute life, where no death or can be, absolute death, where no life — in this case it is absolutely interchangeable concepts — a sudden blur. And then the fire of pure Hyperborean existence begins to slightly darken. Although it is not yet night, yet not darkness, it’s not “different”, it’s not “there”, it’s still “here” and “here”. And while we’re on the Tradition while we are talking about the pre-modern paradigm, environment and traditions we speak, still, mostly everything stays “here” and “now” within the brand “this”. “There,” “then” and “fact” yet, but something tells us that this fire is the admixture of otherness. In other words, it is not so light a fire… But it is definitely fire, not darkness or night. This is the day that sky, but maybe not the same day day, not so heavenly the sky is not as fire fire. Still does not appear “somewhere out there”, but something is wrong “somewhere inside”. In other words, inside the polar-paradisiacal being slightly shifted emphasis.
This is the great mystery, the mystery in the history of life: where does this inexplicable waste at a microscopic distance from the ideal immanence of the sacred that existed in the source environment tradition?
Here, as in the ocean of light stands out the stain. This death begins to penetrate into what preceded life and death.
It happened gradually, very slowly, not a single event. Death has crept into life gradually. Were very long cycles, before the environment itself tradition actually began to notice that something is happening. In the descriptions of old Testament saints who lived a very long time, but then died, six hundredth, seven hundredth year of their life begins to slip first suspicion is that something; what will happen now is something very different from what happened before. This is a very mysterious thing. On soft paws sneaks death. It comes not from without, it comes from within and begins to change the picture of the environment of tradition.
The beginning of a dialogue with death among the legends
Then begins the very difficult process to understand. When death comes on cat’s paws — gently, invisibly, imperceptibly to the environment tradition — life starts to realize itself as life. There is the first glimmering, and then the real boundary. In fact, softly, imperceptibly from “here” appears “out there”, along with “here”. From “now” appears, “then”, along with “now” — with complete domination “now.” From “it” gradually begins to loom, to emerge, to thicken “it”. And then the environment, tradition, common sense Tradition, fundamentally changing its vector. This is a very seriousmetaphysical change.
Tradition, tradition initially in the center brings the experience of unity, the unity of one. But gradually, when death, procrypsis, begins to build their own structures — of knowledge, of being, of perceiving the world, the environment value of tradition and the vector of actions, the Tradition has somewhat changed. Now the tradition is not just stating a unity of one, but all divided, realizes the unity of nonuniqueness. And here it is changing the Tradition. Environment tradition was one thing, self-sufficient, and suddenly she is inside begins to open areas, areas, horizons, spaces, planes, requiring a quite specific relationship that requires integration, and that they have already disappeared, — demanding enterprises — and, hence, they have dual, which require inclusion in the context of the immanent here and now, and that they are brought in time and in space. Thus, at some point, the Tradition begins fundamental the dialogue with death and this dialogue is the essence of the historic segments of the Traditions that we know.
Initially, the Tradition knows nothing of death. And this ignorance about death is its essence. This is the center, on whose behalf the Tradition. He is the axis and the-environment tradition. It is-ignorance, ignorance about death. Ignorance about death when it is faced with death, or ignorance about needingto when it faces needingto initially being calm, peaceful, contemplative, begins to become more “nervous”, “aggressive”.
Tradition begins to realize that something is not, as she has now to connect shared. Before that, nothing had to join. And at some point it became necessary. Live it up to this point was not necessary, since to die was impossible. And only when death snuck in here and made “this” “that”, and made “here” — “there”, then began the struggle with “there”. Then the Tradition became aggressive, became involved in the integration and gathering together the fact that this single was not.
That’s another story. This raises the ethics of lifeand Tradition, tradition for the first time (before this she didn’t know what life is) becomes a medium of life and begins to perceive themselves as life, not death. And as the life, Tradition is a living Tradition, before that it was “prijevoj”. Tradition becomes alive only when faced with death.
Such an easy victory over death
The initial approach to the death of a Tradition does not cause a big, fundamental problems. Tradition, like life, sees that death is easy to overcome that she is not some fundamental thing — hence a certain fastidious arrogance towards death. “How easy it is to connect what has disappeared, — thinks Tradition. — How easy is it to win what claims to independence, not as such as easy to reintegrate what was differentiation”. At first, indeed, easy and I think that phrase Eugene Vsevolodovich Golovin, with which I began today’s lecture — “who died, that never lived”, — refers to this “banditskoi” stage of a living Tradition.
When one such Tradition looks at death, he understands that it is not concerned. This applies to someone else: lumpen-proletarians, some morons, monkeys, worms, pigs… He does not think concerned, he’s still, he understands only that it is not concerned, exactly.
Death does not concern him at all, because he is attached to the living Tradition, and therefore, he is life. And seeing what someone thinks otherwise,that someone raises his hands in the face of death, when it comes, he wonders. He said: “do You? If you succumb to the trick of death, so you don’t know what life is. Not only don’t know once you died, but you didn’t know about it ever. You died, then you simply have not lived. You a misunderstanding. We don’t know you. You’re just an obstacle, an aberration, the individual, marriage, defective item”. It is in his person, says the Tradition of all those who died. Because the Traditions do not die, they ascend in a chariot to heaven, live as they want and how they want…
This idea of flaunting, banditskogo contempt for death is very well seen in the military class. Why warriors are so easy and such a pleasure to kill or die? Because they are equally convinced that “he who died, that never lived”. Someone can cut off the head, and that it will affect, should be immediately cut off the head to make him understand that either he is wrong or it is in the misunderstanding of the mob. This-bessergenevskaya metaphysics and it belongs to the state, when the Tradition alive. If the Tradition alive, she’s just so all understand.
The beginning of a serious war: the advent of Iranian dualism
But gradually the situation is complicated. And death of misunderstandings, which should fix a good war, PIR, race, austerity, a miracle or something else, is gradually becoming a serious opponent.
And then the Tradition as a tradition of life starts a war with death. And war is becoming more and more serious, reflected in myths, in religious models, in theology, in new types of religion.
All this still happens in legends. The moment when the war with death becomes a serious matter, a tedious, difficult, with unpredictable results — but not so benditski, as in this formula, Evgeny Golovin “who died, that never lived”, then there is a brand new myths, cults and religion.
First is the duality of Iranian mythology, which introduces evil and death into its Pantheon high started. By this time, death took a piece of the world, evil so crushed many ontological realities under their own control that we have to live with it, to reckon and to fight seriously. Death is now attached to a new ontological status, a new metaphysical weight.
Tradition says now: “Yes, we are life, we are done, we are light, but these guys (black, from the realm of evil and death) is too complicated people and they have a certain way to be considered”. Death can have it’s own army. Before that was nothing, death was certain “arrogant slave.” Then everything happened in accordance with the Roman, patrician by saying: “make a Joke with a slave, and he will turn to you backwards”.
Initially, the death is the servant, with whom joking, and he imagines himself a “God knows what”. But gradually, death has become an increasingly serious factor. He was beginning to recognize and reckon with him. It is given a status of limited sovereignty. After death were institutionalized in the ontology, it starts a serious war. This war death is the next stage of the medium’s tradition.
Death quite seriously declares himself to monotheism. Death, of course, is the heart of theology in all three monotheistic traditions. It is not just the struggle of life with death. The impression that monotheism, in the creationist design, Islam, Christianity and Judaism death spreads its influence on all. And it is that between “here” and “there”, between “now” and “then” — and this holding features already and there is death, erected a giant theological and metaphysical barriers.
Affirms creation from nothing. Thanks creatio ex nihilo is “nothing” comes into the world as death, the world begins to be corruptible, man — “like grass, DNIe it like a color celiny Taco Bud”. And, accordingly, he is under mechanical cutting die.
Death comes to the fore, because all of life is delegated to only one — God. The God of monotheism alive, but the fact that the exclusivity and absoluteness of God deprives all others of whatever kind of life. Own life the world is no more, so this world of the dead.
The Insight Of Heraclitus
This is a very serious model. A brilliant Greek philosopher Heraclitus before the arrival of monotheism had anticipated that something like this can and should happen. One of his inimitable aphorisms reads: “for the death of people will face what you don’t expect and surprised”. Imagine how it sounded when Greek tradition, which was founded, like any medium of tradition, that nothing terrible, fundamental anyone can not happen? To death, the Greeks treated exactly the same: “Who died, that never lived”.It was a complete continuity of existence between one and the other sides. Yes, the border is there, but it was overcome easily. Therefore, the Pythagoreans believed in metempsychosis — the transmigration of souls, but most are not something that is not believed, but justsaw afterlife mothers, relatives with whom you spoke, and occasionally dead relatives come to them at some things, took things away with them, cursing. Similarly, to bury these relatives, even in Russia, not far from the house, under the threshold to have always been there could come, to talk. Actually, never communication with the dead is not interrupted. And suddenly is thrown: “No, this face is not, as you think, there’s something amazing, unusual, something what you are not seen and do not know.” This prophecy, Providence brandthe new status of death, which it will acquire later along with the institutionalization of the monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and later Islam.
Liberated death and doors
In the center of monotheism is still worth immortality, because honoring God through participation in divine life, the elected, the faithful can grasp it immortality itself to be the “gods of the second category”. But on the periphery is already walking unfettered death. She is on the loose, gradually ohvatyvaya more and more ontological pieces and forcing believers to the temples. Death is punishing, it gradually takes away all except the sanctuary of the deity. And when people come out of the sanctuary, they are not for the eternally Holy “here,” and profane “out there.” The wall of the temple now — the border. As proclaims in the service of the deacon: “the doors”. The doors of the Church be fundamental, ontological doors.
We remember that the ancients had no temples, because the sacred was everywhere. When people start to build temples, they separate the sacred from the profane, separated life from death.
Now walking on the periphery, not crouching, but just openly walking about everywhere with his entourage, with their armies of institutionalized death becomes a fundamental factor of existence.
Rhino eats the life of the world
Lautréamont in “Songs Maldoror” thin feels paradoxical things, and draws a figure “Creator” (at the end of Songs it appears in the form of a rhinoceros). “Creator” is an ambiguous character — a huge, fat vampire, universal worm that consumes all. And deceiving the person about “morality”, are senseless stories, he frees him from the remnants of life, what he still has.
This is a very cruel, cold, a parody, but a metaphysical statement of what happens to the balance of life and death in monotheism. Living God devours all life, to take her to himself, leaving the rest of the nothing. Everything else is dead, created ex nihilo, everything that is not ex nihilo — that God is. Thus, life is concentrated in the single. Not in the unity of the whole, namely in a single. And in fact, life in this created world have no place. The world is completely death. He now has the ashes.
The most radical conclusions from this make creationism Jewish rationalists like Maimonides, and Hanbali mazhab of Islam, which Wahhabism and Salafism. One of the most striking and profound of people who understand what is monotheism, monotheism as the overwhelming triumph of conciliation, — a modern philosopher Geidar Jemal, the teacher of absolute death, whose teachings many scary and off-putting, but it is wise, deeply, responsibly and consistently. To be courageous, it is necessary to look into the eyes of what we have around here.
Very accurately grasped the idea of the ontology of monotheism Gerard de Nerval’s poem “Christ in Gethsemane”. He writes stunningly simple but radical words, painting the last degree of despair:
“All died, I visited all the worlds” (there is nothing)”. (“Tout est mort. J’ai parcuru les mondes…”)
Death in Orthodoxy
Christianity makes its primary philosophical, metaphysical, soteriological, ecclesiological program struggle with death. In order to defeat death itself prefissi God is the life of life, light of Light descended into a human body, suffered on the Cross, endured death, and only after that he gives the gracious gift of life to those who are faithful to him.
How has increased over the period, the spread of monotheism the importance of metaphysics and structures of death!
We started with the fact that I had no idea what was going on. In the conditions of the original environment of the tradition, no one suspected the existence of something like that. Gradually, through banditskoe defying death, “who died, that never lived”, we come to the fact that overcoming death requires not just the help of God that gives mankind a hint, and must be the incarnation of God himself, the son of God, his kenosis, his depreciation, his suffering and his death on the cross.After all, if death is trampled only by the death of God, what it must be serious and fundamental reality to it could handle only this way!
Thrown all forces — all that was in the ontology environment, the traditions — something that previously no one had ever noticed.
The tension of the struggle with death is the essence of the Orthodox Christian tradition. The greatness of this religion, these dogmas, formulas, and rituals that make up the fabric of Christianity, with nothing can compare. But how was a serious problem if it had to be solved in this way!
Death in Western Christianity and deism
In other forms of Christianity, except for our Orthodoxy, everything is going as pee. There is not much left from Maimonides, and even Jamal, from the Hanbali mashaba, it’s simple: the God of religion, theistic God of the West becomes the God of philosophers. You have come near to “KREATOR” Lautreamont. It’s an abstraction, claiming that she’s alive, and proving that she entitles Descartes to click in the accounts of reason, how and what he pleases. Life proves the possibility of holding in the skull of Western European Imbeciles of simple mathematical operations.Good God, life, the light of this Western European Christianity, if they prove their existence to the fact that someone thinks something in his mind (the notorious “bonne raison”): for example, that the right Shoe goes on your right foot, not the left (knew it even the dummy who knew nothing). This is a “strong” God, the Architect of the Universe, the Watchmaker of Descartes and Newton, popravlyajsya orbits of the planets. Such a God cannot be the antithesis of death. And I understand why he didn’t last long.And if some of the “ergo sum” I want us to show as evidence that this “living creature,” that they flatter themselves.
Indeed, the deist faith-faith in the “God of philosophers,” God for some lawyers, mechanics who collected appliances, then built a steam car and opened humanity’s eyes to the life-lasted shamefully little — before the advent of Friedrich Nietzsche, who said, “Your God is dead. You killed him.” Although, “God” (even this anemic as in Western-European culture of New time) could lend in this state for quite some time, if he hadn’t attacked with astonishing perseverance is our old friend – death.
Mechanical, deist culture, first in collaboration with some of the so-called “God the watchmaker”, and then without it (small loss) was definitely the beginning of a total triumph of death. A world functioning according to the logic of metaphor hours — was a dead world.
Here we are gradually moving from environment to environment, tradition of tearing. In the New paradigm of modernity comes into its own.
Environment tearing the midst of death (almost death)
What is death in the paradigm of modernity, that is, in the environment of the tearing? The answer is simple: all.
What is the environment of the tearing? This is the death. A gap is a break with Tradition, break the transmission of the original start — where there is no life separate from death, and death is separate from life. Then, I remind you, again within the boundaries of Tradition, there is a concentrated life, leading the struggle with death; the concentrated unity, leading the fight against segregation; concentrated “here” trying to include in its boundaries “out there”; the concentrated “now”, exciting in itself, “then.” But as soon as we delegitimiziruet live war life against death, as soon as we say that “all is well”, we instantly find these gaps, which gained such powerful momentum that two thousand years ago God had to incarnate on their own to struggle with death, to overcome it.
And yet Wednesday tearing is death, but not quite, it’s almost death. This is the environment of dying and killing, the dying process. When Nietzsche said God is dead, he stated that it all ended. When thrown deist God of the philosophers of the West-European culture, there is virtually nothing left.
Occam’s razor is not like a toy
Then went for a walk (even prepared ahead of time in the Medieval disputes of the nominalists with the realists and idealists) Occam’s razor — established a new law: all cut all (homo homini lupus), everything was tearing. Occam’s razor calls for the abandonment of the double vision of nature. Sometimes ordinary people say (not knowing what they are doing): “don’t doit entity”. When you hear this phrase, immediately hit in the face, in the eye. “No need to doit entity?” “Now I’ll show you “don’t need”!”. If we want to live, you have to doit entity because life is the second nature with respect to a dead body, the soul, and the people who offered to take Occam’s razor and cut her and universalia in re (Originalkey) universalia ante re, tried to castrate the Genesis. This is the worst tool — Occam’s razor — one of those that you can imagine since it is her braid only depicted in epistemological projection. It is the basic tool of struggle with life, that is tearing. The whole spirit of art Nouveau — environment of the tearing — contained in that phrase: “don’t doit entity”. People using this phrase nedoumiyu, unfortunately, do not understand anything, if you give them for it in the face; softer than say, if for them it is “buffeted” (as St. Nicholas Aria). But if they seriously for Occam’s razor, I think that such people do not mind at all…
The world of modernity is a dead world. But it still is death. So it has died, but not until the end. Once there is something to die for. Something in him has not died, negatives and mediocrities, once this environment is tearing… Environment of modernity has its own dynamics something in her agony, close to death, but still enlivened by sporadic bursts last quanta of life. These remnants of life for a New time more and more compressed.
The tragedy of this agony vividly reliving the classics of Russian literature – Pushkin, Gogol, Dostoevsky.
Remember the Akaki Akakievich from “the Overcoat” In it, almost no life, his life is transferred to the material object, the shell, the shell (clip in Kabbalah) – the overcoat. And when is the last refuge of a dying soul is crumbling, his coat taken away the robbers – the dying falls into the abyss the last entropy, extreme, utter nothingness… Or Evgenie of “the Copper horseman”. Remember, as Eugene looked at the bronze horseman? The bronze horseman was already dead, and Eugene is almost dead in the flood he lost the last thing that connected him to life. And when the horseman opened his mouth and said, “you Won”, theyswitched places with Eugene , the dead revived, and his last argument that he carried himself that he was alive, and the monument — no, it’s just a statue collapsed. And the last being left it.
And later the great Gogol, already looking further into the postmodern, said that the last carrier of life is the Nose. He foresaw that the people will not stand the test of emptiness of a breaking of ties, he had stolen the overcoat, it will flood released from the concrete walls of the river, they put him in solitary confinement, he will take away all that he had, and he’ll just be the Nose. And Nose will tremble then the last that is left of life.
The City Of Ockham
After God died, a small, cowering in his inauthentic Dasein of the people, or only part of it – Nose, tremble, pressed by the metaphysical Saint Petersburg. I think that Saint Petersburg is a city that was built specifically to illustrate the death of God. The architects of this city was inspired by Occam’s razor. There today even build a building devoted to Occam, double-edged. This cursed city could be renamed the city of Occam. We with the late Kuryokhin was thinking, what would it even be renamed. In the official history of St. Petersburg was renamed. Tried to find the correct name.
Maybe it’s the city of Ockham? It is so clear and shrill felt the taste of death, even death on the living, the death of modernism, the death of the little man. Maybe it is a city Overcoat or city Nose.
The right to die
What is the last heroism in the environment of the tearing?
That modernism, even the smallest remains of the last right is the right to die. And although he can no longer live, but he still may yet die.
The postmodernist philosopher Bernard-Henri levy once gladly said, that he died not only God, but man. And he applauded politely. Indeed, it is right. In modernity, the era of the environment, tearing the man had only one right — the right to die. Right below him was flooded, right that he was robbed of his coat, to give him on the head with a brick to get him to the NKVD that he was crushed by a tram.
“Every person has the right to die.” So says the law of the New time. And here is the right to death, right to you, like a bug, slammed into the wall, depriving us of today designers environment of incoherence, the architects of the postmodern era. That’s what a wonderful world built around us and how cool in it…
Dead for life: BIOS Necros
So, with the tearing occurs environment environment incoherence. “Void Bo do modern”. But it is the postmodern really all done and finished “all”. Now there is no life in any of its manifestations. Removed from the environment Akaky — katechon world of modernity. Eugene from the bronze horseman, washed away by a flood, and his love is to deprive the narrative of drama. Died, the author, proclaims Roland Barthes .
There is a very interesting topic, which could be described as “postmodern and death.”
This phenomenon was prophetically predicted by Orthodox theologians, who formulated a concept which was called “BIOS Nekros” — “dead life“. This concept describes the phenomenon fully realized only today. The postmodern era is called the era of “the great parody” (“la grand parodie” said genon). Here there are some amazing metamorphosis revealed in the concept of “BIOS-Necros”.
“BIOS Nekros” means victory of death over life, which is so pervasive, irreversible and absolute, that to talk about death in every sense of the word in this era is no longer possible, because no more lives, even the smallest, nasty, Kolpino, the insect life, which could say: “Colleagues, this is death.” It is not present. There is no one to tell the night that it is night. There is no one to say that it was all over, there was a gap. Why did you stop pulling? Why spit on it to put the priests?Why did you stop censoring textbooks, writing there the nonsense about monkeys, Darwin, molecules, atoms? Why can all not care at all?
Because I have no one. All. Task accomplished, it’s completed. Do all the postmodern. And now the death as the other, but it was different — death as “there” as “then” is no more, because she’s not “there”, it “here”. She is not then she is “now”. It is not “the” transcendental, she is “it.”
We can say that the postmodern man living in the age of incoherence, “the immortal”. But in what sense? He can’t die. It is impossible to kill, to damage, because it is already damaged and killed in advance. He can’t die because he already died. And death was not external but internal phenomenon to him, death was his subject. She speaks and acts through him. That’s what “BIOS-Necros”.
Interestingly, in the original condition in the environment of tradition, the immanence of sverity easily included death, not knowing, not knowing about the possibility of her dark development. And now happened something opposite and symmetrical: death included life, integrated it into himself to such an extent that she doesn’t even have it or not. In the age of incoherence we cannot localize life as something that is not death.
People of the postmodern ceases to be mortal, he has taken away the right to die, but he did not become truly immortal, it becomes lifeless.
Something like life in it, however, remains. After all, he is somehow moving, writes in Live Journal Postings, drinking, watching movies, brushing her teeth. Not to say that life is in him. However, in man the postmodern life as much as it was in the death of primordial beings, which we described in the beginning. That is actually life in this environment dissolved, but it will not localize. Call the authors Live Journal not quite dead, but alive is not exactly call them.
The Radical Subject
All the described predefined those paradigmatic shifts that have been said before. But in addition to these changes, there is a special instance of the Radical Subject – “root”, “wooden” actor. This is a very Russian concept — “Radical Subject”. He’s in sandals, with the coffin, the cradle, in the house…
Is there something maleevskoe. In the book “Polylobate” I have outlined a fairly simple scheme relative to the adventures of the Radical Subject in a different paradigm. In the era of pre-modern (tradition) of the Radical subject is at the center of the circle, in the centre of society, in the heart of man. But it does not coincide with that range. It is in the center, you can navigate around this circle, he-the subject, he fully agreed with everything that surrounds it and with its Central place, with its Central point-but he point is not the same. It differs from the substance of the center.
In the modern era, among the tearing, the Radical Subject is moved to the periphery of the circle of life, society, culture, to the periphery of a person. He is somewhere loitering in okoloserdecna marginal status among garbage, revolutionaries, artists, third-class people, that do not affect the fundamental process of production, not build a railroad, utility system. He is in slight confusion and complete ironic disagreement among the terrorists, alcoholics, but always on the periphery, although, again, not merging this periphery. It differs from the paradigm of modernity is that in this environment a New time, it retains its internal quality exactly the same as in the medium of tradition. He is like a lost angel… Everything has changed, environment has changed, and he didn’t. As katechon, “holding now” to be taken “from the environment”. I don’t
they say that Radical Subject — katechon, but it is something similar to it.
Importantly, it must be said: the environment is changing, a Radical Subject — no. He changes his position, ceases to be in the center and is on the periphery. But essentially he remains the same, and what was in the environment of tradition. It is the king of matter, hiding the Royal dignity under the miserable rags of a slave.
But you can ever find…
But where the Radical fits the Subject today, in an environment of incoherence? This is a serious question.
One can say that you are looking for a Radical Subject in the paradigm of tradition — look for it in the center. You can look for it in the paradigm of modernity — look for it in the periphery. But if we are in the paradigm of postmodernism, the search for generally have nothing because you still won’t find him. And yet, you are looking for…
However, the Radical Subject is preserved in itself, moving shadow on the paradigms. It is in these environments does not lose himself does not change. He remains absolutely identical with itself as he was at all these stages.
I wonder how a Radical Subject to life and death in the three paradigms.
Among the legends he is the life without death, where, in principle, the latter is not even in the form of a hint. And maybe immortality of the Radical Subject is only very subtly different from the ontological, primordial immortality. The difference is that it never touches that little mold that sooner or later drag him Wednesday. He will not accept a dualistic relationship with death, and if forced to speak in simpler language, he will speak, as E. V. Golovin, with phrases such as: “who died, that never lived”. And maybe even more cruel.
That carries a radical subject in the modern era? Two things. First of all, he brings death with him. He acts like a killer, because people with his point of view, absolutely underestimate the value of life, and they must understand how valuable it is. Therefore, proving to them the value of life, he kills them.
Nietzsche at the beginning of “Zarathustra,” there is such a passage: “the Pale criminal has bowed. He killed, and then stole. Gloat and rejoice, red-faced judge.” Why rejoice? Because it was stolen. Killed, and then stole could not stand to just kill. Therefore, if killed, but not stolen, then killed, without any meaning, without any pragmatism. First, red-faced judge would have rejoiced, because he would have killed him, and secondly, it there was no one to judge, because he would be absolutely innocent. The innocent can not be judged. And thirdly, it would be a Radical Subject.And when Nietzsche went crazy and was imagining myself as Dionysus, he was also the biggest criminals of his time. “I am Prado, I – Chamber,” he wrote friends in a fit of madness last. This idea of the incarnation of the killer, returns to man the taste of life is a fundamental function of the Radical Subject. He’s not even a warrior, a warrior is more plebeian thing. Then — cold, impersonal, unpaid by anyone, unmotivated killer. Angel-fighter. Terrible Angel.
And secondly, the Radical Subject turned to modernism not only death, but life. However, this life is so overheated, that it is more terrible than death, in fact, that’s life, tearing sheer tearing. This is not the life of the normal state Tradition, which connects split, somehow existing by inertia in the environment tearing. This is a special life, tearing the gap. To it better to stay away, because this thing is terrible Occam’s razor. You know how is called the movement, who loved to associate all: lektorskie rods, symbolizing the 12 paths of the zodiac…
The radical Subject in postmodern
He sees a Radical Subject, appearing in the postmodern? He sees cloned, cartoon Petrosian in all, whatever he said. He dazzled from the inability to even distinguish those pieces which he witnessed in the modern era. He sees that everyone is running helter-skelter.
Not only the Radical left Subject of the human archetype and it is not even on the periphery, and outside of it, but postlude, the people of the postmodern (Nose and his companions) also left human quality, too, went abroad in darkness. Not only violent Radical Subject became inhuman, but those are the last people who wandered in with their overcoats, too, rapidly lost its dignity.
Nietzsche once said the greatest sentence, defining Superman: “Superman is a non-human”. This is the worst definition of Superman. But of the non-human you will find interacting with the inhumans, which is everywhere you can not escape because they are everywhere. If all crumbled, vanished, glued to the screen, the Radical Subject remained as collected as he was. And those people (postlude) that scattered and fell from their dignity, in principle, no longer exist. The grain is sown, and the husks thrown into the lake of fire.Lake of fire is the only thing it is crying.
I want to finish for winter, for Christmas from Rambo:
Monstruosités violent Toutes les gestes, les atroces d Hortense. Sa solitude est la mécanique érotique, sa lassitude, la dynamique amoureuse. Sous la surveillance d’une enfance, elle a été, à des époques nombreuses, l ardente hygiène des races. Sa porte est ouverte à la misère. Là, la moralité des êtres se décorpore actuels en sa passion ou en son action. – O terrible frisson des amours novices sur le sol par l sanglant et hydrogène clarteux ! trouvez Hortense.
Trouvez Hortense! One word — “burning hygiene of the races.”
(1) See. A. Dugin “the Fourth political theory” Moscow, 2008
(2) Cm. A. Dugin Hyperborean theory and sacred tongue of humanity
(the legacy of Herman Wirth) M 2008