Krasilov, 1997. Metaecology-09. Commandments (conclusion). Miracles. Chapter 4. STRUGGLE. The Superman

Calvary. Metaphors. Testaments.

V.A. Krasilov. Metaecology. Moscow: Paleontological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1997. 208 p. Part 9.

Testaments (conclusion). Miracles. Chapter 4. STRUGGLE. Superman

Superman (conclusion).

In this variant, ethical norms are initially inherent to humans, embedded in their very nature. Indeed, if humans are controlled by some higher powers, it would be more practical for them to build basic principles into the human nervous system rather than resorting to constant intimidation. Then, for a person to become perfect, they only need to cleanse themselves of all superficialities and fully restore a priori ethical norms. Differences between ethical concepts are determined, first and foremost, by the idea of the primary source of moral norms, which is either within the system itself, as in contractual ethics, or outside it, as in ethics of service. In the first case, moral norms are pragmatic in nature, in the second – transcendent. Throughout human history, ethical dualism has persisted – the coexistence of pragmatic and transcendent ethics within a single system, although their ratio has repeatedly shifted, favoring one or the other. Plato, who laid the groundwork for Christianity, still placed reason above faith, while Tertullian's credo: "I believe because it is absurd" asserted the opposite relationship. Tertullian's irrationalism is justified by the fact that disabling analytical consciousness opens a passage to deeper layers of instinctive ethics, fixed in genetic memory. In situations that do not go beyond the ethical experience of our distant ancestors, it is legitimate to rely on "the heart" rather than reason, as intuition is stronger than judgment here. However, as ethical experience expands, the ratio changes. Even during the Trojan War, instinctive ethics began to crack – this, as I have already mentioned, is the tragedy of Homer's heroic poem. The brilliant development of Athenian sophistry ended with Protagoras's exile, Thrasymachus's suicide, and Socrates's execution. Plato's dogmatism suppressed Socratic irony and rejected Homer, the founder of rational ethics, as an immoral poet. The Cynics began with the praise of Odysseus (Antisthenes) and came to condemn him for his immoral pursuit of pleasure (Crates). Jesus, an Epicurean by nature, handed over his teachings to the rigorist Paul. Contractual ethics maintains order only until someone, willing to ascend or send others to Golgotha, declares that a new order is needed. It is imperfect precisely because it excludes the possibility of ethical creativity. The idea of a social contract gave rise to the French Revolution, which proclaimed the cult of Reason, one of whose victims was the rationalist Lavoisier. Marx's rationalism drowned in the blood of the violence he unleashed. In light of these events, social consensus while maintaining ethical dualism appears short-lived. Attempts at synthesis, at creating a unified ethical system, have been made repeatedly. Thus, the Cynics sought to combine social morality with instinctive ethics, the Platonists translated the ethics of fate into a pragmatic plane, and Christianity reformed ethical pragmatics based on ideal concepts of service and improvement. The Christian synthesis is expressed in the formula pronounced in the Garden of Gethsemane: "Not as I will, but as you will." The figure of the God-man symbolizes the connection through which the human and the divine are united into a holistic system, giving man freedom of choice as a necessary condition for morality: of those who ascended Golgotha, only the one who could have chosen not to do so performs a moral act. The connecting link for Socratic synthesis was the idea of the knowability of fate, which opens up the possibility of active search for man. Socrates linked good with wisdom, and evil with defects in cognition. Following him, Spinoza considered "inadequate ideas," in which the partial dominates the general, the element over the system, as the cause of evil. The human soul, under the influence of inadequate ideas, becomes a slave to passions. Spinoza taught to distinguish between the patterns that connect them to the life of the Universe behind the random events of life. The path to achieving true freedom lies through understanding the necessary, i.e., fate. However, fate-necessity, the mythological element of ancient ethics, receives a rationalistic interpretation in Spinoza's teaching as the predetermined development of elements directed by the system. Miracles If human destinies are woven into the spindle of Necessity-Ananke, and its axis passes through the poles of the Universe, as Plato believed, then the structure of the world is dangerously not indifferent to the choice of life path, and natural sciences turn into a branch of applied ethics. In another variant, if the world is created in the image of a demiurge, then by studying the world, we gain insight into its features. This is stimulating, especially since revelations sooner or later materialize, as happened with atoms and genes, concepts of metaphysical origin, for which physical and chemical equivalents were found. "Look deeper into nature," advises Mephistopheles, "there are miracles, you just need to believe." In antiquity, a philosopher had to know at least three subjects – astronomy, music, and geometry (they were closely related, as musical harmony of the celestial spheres reigned in the cosmos, and geometry was its reflection). Without them, as the Platonists said, there was nothing to "hold onto." However, it was impossible to hold onto the celestial spheres, no matter how Kepler tried. Egocentric metaphysics, reflected in geocentric physics, conflicted with calculations, without which it was impossible to establish metaphysical dates in the calendar. In the past, conflicts arose on the basis of such contradictions, culminating in excesses such as the burning of Bruno or the forced recantation of Galileo. Science as a profession was born from the laborious attempts to distance itself from theology, and scientists tried to shed the spiritual heritage of yesterday's clerics. However, Origen already urged to abandon the literal – euhemeristic – interpretation of biblical texts. In modern theology, he has many followers. Ancient ideas about the structure of the world, of course, cannot claim accuracy. Let science demythologize cosmology, as it is useful for practice and satisfies the mind. The higher spiritual truths on which morality is based are in no way affected by this process, and it is they that constitute the essence of metaphysical teaching. This is where the ancient disputes could end. It only remains to clarify whether the split between pure and practical reason, material and spiritual life, is permissible from the standpoint of morality and practical benefit. In trying to answer this question, we will inevitably find that the reasoning presented is incorrect from beginning to end. It is incorrect that in creating cosmological systems, ancient man tried to explain the surrounding world. Rather, he tried to express his inner world, to cover it in images, to create a double. Therefore, the external world took on human features, the path of the Sun turned into the journey of the soul. To prove by scientific methods that the world is not actually like this is as illogical as trying to convince Macbeth that his three witches are nothing more than bubbles of the earth. Furthermore, if cosmology is a projection of the soul, then the connection between it and ethics is more substantial than just a tribute to tradition. Ethics, as we have already mentioned, arises as a result of the moral filling of the cosmological system. God separated light from darkness and saw that it was good. The Son of God, Zoroaster, transformed the relationship of light and darkness into the conflict of good and evil. Empedocles drew an analogy between attraction and repulsion in nature and friendship and enmity among people. Gautama Siddhartha saw in the totemistic idea of reincarnation karma – the moral connection of the future with the past and present. Moses transformed the story of the creation of the world into an ethical covenant between God and man. These intermediate figures were succeeded by philosophers and prophets, Socrates, Confucius, Jesus, Nagarjuna, who were not interested in cosmology or nature, but focused on ethical problems. Does the Sun revolve around the Earth, or the Earth around the Sun – their teachings, it would seem, have no relation to this. However, the essence of Christian ethics lies in the idea of resurrection – the union of doubles, the overcoming of dualism, which requires spiritual effort such as love for one's enemy (because doubles are in a state of constant conflict) and cannot be realized without overcoming oneself – suffering, death, and rebirth. The path of the Sun symbolizes this process. It is refracted in mythological plots, including the life of Christ, and countless literary parables. Sherlock Holmes said he didn't care whether the Earth revolved around the Sun or vice versa. Most people also don't care about this as an astronomical problem, but it is not indifferent as a meta-ecological one: it's one thing to be at the center of the Universe, with all the celestial bodies revolving around us (for us), and quite another to find ourselves on its periphery, in a rotation that has nothing to do with us. A scientific discovery does not concern us if it does not encroach on the boundaries of meta-ecology. The emotional intensity of scientific disputes stems not from the scientific problem itself, but, indirectly, from its meta-ecological basis. Moreover, the seeds of scientific ideas are most often found among all sorts of meta-ecological debris. A scientist acts as if by intuition, and intuition is the settled residue in the subconscious of all prejudices and magical incantations that were instilled in him in childhood. For example, the idea of radio communication, even before the nature of electromagnetic waves was clarified, was inspired by those ether currents in which elves and other ethereal creatures frolic. Does Copernicus's and Galileo's discovery touch upon the meta-ecological significance of the Sun? Directly – no, because from the perspective of metaphysical symbolism, it is absolutely indifferent whether the Sun moves or it only seems so to us. Indirectly – yes, because every scientific discovery contains an inextinguishable metaphysical component, on the basis of which new castles in the air grow with amazing speed. Man was at the center of the Universe and walked before the face of God. Man found himself on a deserted planet because God had driven him away from His face for his sins. But man is not alone in the cosmos. Other star worlds are inhabited by intelligent beings, more perfect, more advanced on the path of moral regeneration, rightfully located closer to the center of the universe. This is heresy for which Bruno was burned. From a scientific point of view, disputes about extraterrestrial life are meaningless, as there is no data for confirmation or refutation. But extraterrestrial beings are part of our meta-ecology; we would not spare our lives for them. The Universe itself hardly concerns anyone. As a reflection of the soul, it gives any discovery the character of a personal event. Time, Plato believed, is a fiction invented specifically for us, mortal beings, who are denied eternity. However, mortals tend to take time very seriously. Since time was measured by the rotation of the celestial bodies, it naturally had a circular image. Heraclitus added eternal renewal to the cycle (for him, the sun rises anew every day), from which the image of a river emerged, into which one cannot step twice. Heraclitus's metaphysics was buried by the Socratics, only to be reborn, die again, and perhaps be reborn again in the future. The image of the river, adapted by Newton, who, according to his own words, was guided only by facts and never fabricated hypotheses, symbolizes not only time, "which flows with constant speed independently of anything external," but also ancient fate, which even the gods cannot influence. Inextricably linked with the image of the river-fate are the ideas of the continuity of cause-and-effect chains and total determinism. On this foundation, it seemed, all science rested, but the time came, and the foundation crumbled. Einstein convinced us that time does not flow like a river, but rather gushes like a fountain, in parallel streams to different heights. At the same time, he restored to their rights the owner-god of time, who can accelerate or stop it, as in the episode with Joshua; a god whose ways are not determined; a fate that allows for the alteration of the past (Oscar Wilde wrote that in ancient Greece, no one, not even the gods, could influence the past; in Christianity, this is available to every repentant sinner). The twentieth century perceived this already quite forgotten metaphysics as new. Without metaphysics, perhaps, no great discovery would have occurred. The confidence that allowed Columbus to embark on a risky journey was based not on fragments of maps or dubious calculations, but on the testimonies of Homer and Dante. Across the ocean, he sought the entrance to paradise (India was merely a cover) and intended to enter it via the Orinoco River, which he might have mistaken for the Styx. Another traveler also sailed west, along the solar path, reached the shores of South America, but found there not an entrance to paradise, but evidence of a brutal struggle for existence, which made the same disappointing impression on him as it had on Prince Siddhartha two and a half thousand years earlier, who, under the name of Buddha, became the founder of the first theory of improvement. Returning as a neurotic, our traveler reread the works of his grandfather, long forgotten, and realized that in this brutal struggle lay a higher ethical principle: the victory of the fittest in each individual case leads to universal improvement according to divine design. Chapter 4. STRUGGLE The simple mechanism of competition, which many intuitively guessed, from Empedocles to Erasmus Darwin, Patrick Matthew, and Alfred Russel Wallace, became the central idea for Charles Darwin, allowing him to organize masses of geological and biological knowledge. Darwin avoided invading metaphysics, admitting that natural selection could only be a means of improving the original creation in the spirit of Christian perfectionism, which separates the prime cause from the driving forces, or means. The latter, unlike the prime cause, belong to this world and are within the competence of science. Following the positivist principles of Galileo and Bacon (as evidenced by the epigraph to "On the Origin of Species"), Darwin sought the driving forces of development in nature itself, not outside it – a principle that emancipated science from theology. He strove to appear as a conscientious collector of facts, following the inductivist tradition and alien to philosophical speculations that had so damaged the reputation of his grandfather Erasmus's works in the public eye (a universal genius, Erasmus made numerous discoveries in various fields of natural sciences and technology, while also being a prominent poet – his theory of evolution is presented in verse; contemporaries had a mixed attitude towards Erasmus. The authoritative theologian W. Paley ironically accepted his theory and even coined the term "Darwinize" – to engage in empty speculation). Similarly, Édouard Manet, seemingly, only copied Raphael and Poussin from the Louvre collection, but the result was a scandal at the art salon and the birth of a new art – just a few years after the publication of "On the Origin of Species" (as I mentioned in the book "Unresolved Problems of the Theory of Evolution," the almost simultaneous appearance of "On the Origin of Species" and "Olympia," which became a manifesto of new art, was not accidental. Both works reflected the process of forming a new concept of man, whose inner world was being freed from the stereotypes of classical culture). However, the ideological conformism of its author did not prevent him from noticing that the conclusions from the theory of natural selection are closer to Zoroastrianism than to Christianity. This world is dominated not by harmony, but by the struggle for existence; it was not Plato who explained it, but Heraclitus, considering enmity the cause of motion. Superman Arthur Schopenhauer, uniquely combining Heraclitus with the Eleatics, presented development from lower life forms to plants, animals, and humans as a ladder of objectification of the irrational will to live (which leads to its overcoming in Nirvana). Each new step is affirmed in a brutal struggle with the previous one – nature, like society, is permeated with hatred and enmity. Humans are not perfect by nature, but selfish and cruel, as befits a predator. Little in their fate depends on them. One might think that Schopenhauer drew conclusions from "On the Origin of Species." In fact, he died shortly after the book's publication, as if passing the baton to Darwin, whom, however, he did not highly value as a philosopher. Only extremely naive and, frankly, dull people linked the heterodoxy of Darwin's theory to the origin of man from apes. Is it so important what material the Creator used, and why is an ape worse than clay? Thanks to Linnaeus, the great classifier, even before Darwin, found a similarity between humans and apes so close that he placed them in the same order. And this did not cause fundamental objections. The negative reaction to the ape version is explained only by the fact that in European cultures, the ape has never been a totem animal (Buffon, believing that the ape descended from humans, can be said to have improvised in the spirit of Ovid's metamorphoses). In essence, the genetic connection with animals revived the totemic perception of nature, which for many years had been stubbornly eradicated by anthropocentric metaphysics (see the section "The Labors of Hercules" above). At the same time, the struggle for existence in nature did not allow the natural principle in humans to be recognized as a source of good.