The New Theology. Lecture №2 The Universe of Human — the Universe of Possibility

Lecture №2 The Universe of Human — the Universe of Possibility. Geydar Dzhemal.

The previous lecture was devoted to an introduction to the topic that we are developing under the conditional name “New Theology”. It can also be called “Theology of Finalism”, “Radical Theology”, but in one form or another it is a theology that poses ultimate questions, and not only does it pose them, it develops, or even does not develop, but tries to discover from the very essence of the human constitution, the method by which these ultimate questions are resolved. In the previous lecture I said that theology is “taken” from the crisis. The crisis is global, total, which is transformed into a specific context of the manifested reality as a crisis of being, a crisis of consciousness, a crisis of man. It is theology that emerges from this fundamental crisis. Why? There is metaphysics. Traditionalist metaphysics is a crisis-free consciousness, which is based on the will to identity and the vector to identity, which considers all finite things as virtual and really absorbed in its identical infinite primordial basis. Metaphysics is an identity that builds and absorbs concrete things below into infinity above. Philosophy, which emerges as an opposition from metaphysics, is also directed towards identity, only it strives to represent the infinite in the form of the concrete, to grasp the infinite as a kind of living concreteness, to bring the infinite down to a concrete level. But it is also the will to identity. Ultimately, philosophy does not cope with the task, it loses the infinite itself in the process of this reduction: the equation, on the one hand, is concrete, on the other, infinite, remains without a second part, and the philosophical building collapses, because the identity remains open, unfilled. The second moment of the crisis of philosophy is that it cannot distinguish — and this is very important, because this is our main topic today — is, which is applicable to the subject as an epistemological center that perceives the surrounding world: it cannot distinguish the “is”, which I apply to myself (that I am), and “is”, which is applied to an object — for example, to a table. We use the table as the favorite example of all philosophers. It is clear that there “is”, which denotes the presence of this table, and there “is”, which denotes me as perceiving this table, is different. But for two and a half thousand years of the history of philosophy, despite the obvious genius of its key representatives, it has not been possible to distinguish this “is”, it has not been possible to separate the object and the subject. As a result of this collapse, this crisis against the background of the clash of Revelation, which came into the world through the Prophets, with Hellenistic and metaphysics there is a theological method that goes through breakdowns, failures, renews, etc. The main characteristic of theology is that that it is a doctrine of inaccuracy and that it distinguishes between “is” applied to the object and “is” applied to the subject. Now, as a reminder of our earlier introductory lecture, I would like to sketch on the board an epistemological outline of the new theology that we will develop — already develop — in the course of our lectures. Here, we denote it as follows: a kind of cross, similar to a cross under a Christmas tree — we must understand that this is a kind of planar cross, which is the base, the root, and which is called the “crisis of reality”, from which the tree of new theology grows. Its trunk, which goes up, we will conditionally call the “futurological rod”. This is the core that runs through all disciplines, through all aspects, and which is the dynamics of the transition from the crisis of reality to its alternative, which arises as a result of catharsis, as a result of paroxysm, explosion and the appearance of a total alternative to this reality, which has a completely new character. This is the point at the top — we do not define it yet, but we (Unfortunately, we cannot reproduce the diagram that Jemal draws here, but the attentive reader visualizes it independently from the text) We define this trunk, and we say that this is, conditionally, futurology , “futurology of theos”. This is a special futurology. In general, we use the word “futurology” conditionally, because this is the dynamics of the transition: if we apply the Qur’anic image, this is the dynamics of the transition from the near life to the life beyond. From the world, which is called Dunya — “the world here”, and including both heavenly dimensions and the invisible: Dunya, consisting of worlds. But this is all here, here and now, and the transition, which is called Ahirat, is the final, which at the same time is absolute zero. In this sense futurology. This discipline, the new theology, has levels of inquiry — an epistemological internal structure. It starts from there, here: at this point number one, thought, or thinking, is studied, which is the subject of the lecture, because thinking is a specifically theomorphic feature of the human being. The only theomorphic feature by which a person can be considered — today, at least virtually, and in the future, perhaps, really — as the vicar of God at the center of reality. This vicarious characteristic, the theomorphic feature, is thinking, which in our discourse radically opposes such worthy and gigantic dimensions of even a superhuman order as intellect, intuition, contemplation, meditation, insight (meaning the insight of a subjectively individual order, not Revelation). Thinking is opposed to all this — the most common and little respected thing, because it is commonly believed that everyone thinks. But I will explain that thinking and thought are things that are incompatible and do not coincide with the ordinary “head” practice of ordinary people. The thought that is theomorphic and makes a person a viceroy is closely related to his “order”, this is the discipline that comes at number two (and the crisis, as you understand, is an introduction to the topic), is a person, that is, anthropology. This is the first, main row of the presentation. Next comes the second row. Here we have an epistemological branch at number three, which studies the relationship of theology to being, or rather, the anti-ontologism of theology, that is, a theology that proceeds from the crisis of being, considers the essence of this crisis and acts as a fundamental critic of the predicate as a characteristic of the alleged statement. A person asserts about reality that “it is”, and thinks that with the word “is” he has exhausted, as it were, all the power, all the availability, but this “is” fraught with danger. It is infected like an apple by a worm, and theology opens this wormhole, it criticizes the word “is”, it is ontological, and here we write the topic “Being”, meaning that this is an anti-ontological direction of the study of Being. “Being” we write in quotation marks — as a direction of attention.

Criticism of Being inevitably leads us to criticism of what Being is represented in the most concrete and most concerning version of us — society, which for us is the second contour of Fate or the second contour of Being as an environment that puts pressure on us. Next, we write the fourth direction — this is sociology. Note: here we have anthropology, and there we have sociology, but anthropology does not turn into sociology as in philosophy or in traditional academic studies, where anthropology and sociology are directly related, no. In the new theology, anthropology deals with society through Being, because society for the new theology is a transmitter of the crisis aspects of existence, the crisis aspects of Being, to the extent that Being is infected by the crisis. And the society is also a transmitter, a carrier of this crisis. Next is the third level. On the first level we understand what the idea is, on the second we understand how the person is the basis, the basis and the instrument of realisation of this idea, like the candlestick is a stand for the candle or, better to say, the candle itself is the basis for the light. The light on the candle is a thought, and the candle itself, on which this thought burns, consuming a human, is anthropology, a human device: a human is a stand for thought. Next, we move on to a critique of ontos, to a critique of the fact that the statement is transmitted in the form that we inherited from the ontologically oriented Hellenes and not only from them.

Next, we consider sociology as that form of Being that specifically puts pressure on a human, is hostile to a human, “presses” a human, is a human factor par excellence, is infected with the fullness of the crisis. And the counter action of a human leads to the overcoming of society, which begins with the organization and production of promising knowledge, in which this crisis — at first virtually — is removed. This is an intellectual jihad, this is an intellectual struggle for the organization of a completely new knowledge. Here we write “knowledge engineering”, “intellectual jihad”. And this virtual overcoming of the crisis leads us to a new organization of society, to a new organization of external human space, which is a prerequisite for the realization of the providential promise. It is a community of believers, it is a system of communities, it is an organization of the candles that human is, in such a way that the sum of the flames burning in them constitutes that candelabrum or that fiery shroud, that fiery veil in which a breakthrough through the object blooms to an absolutely new order of manifestation, which is the opposite of our current environment, which is a manifestation of fulfilled justice, a manifestation of fulfilled harmony, that moment of the turning of Being against itself, which precedes the final, the final, after which the alternative of all reality will follow. Now I’m talking maybe a little “dark” from the point of view of a person who is not versed in the Abrahamic, Quranic, Evangelical promises, but I hope that in the course of a more detailed consideration of these topics, we will clarify the “dark” points. We will call this moment conditionally “Community”. You understand: here — Society, and here — Community in the sense that this is a community in which the specific feature of society as an alienated system of oppression has been overcome and the very principle of alienation in the sacred sense has been overcome. And where are we now? We come to the topic of “Power”, or the ability to create new things.

This naturally leads us to the fact that the goal of theology is the emergence of human in the true sense, who is directly led by God and who completes history, who opens the gate to the final — to what is called in Arabic Ahirat: that is, this is a problem of power in its final, sacred expression. Theology leads to an understanding of power in an absolute sense. This is the structure of the new theology, this is, in brief, this ladder or this “Fur-tree that grew up on New Year’s Eve”, and if you pay attention, it is somewhat reminiscent of the Jewish menorah.

Perhaps the connection is not as random as it might seem, because, despite the fact that the menorah candle comes (and I mentioned a candle with lights: a human as a stand for a thought-light) not from Sinai, but from Babylon, nevertheless in In the context of the Abrahamic tradition, the menorah can be regarded as a kind of prototype of an exhaustive theological division. Because it is assumed that here — from the point of view of the direct interest of the bearer of the sacred will, the believing person, who carries the sacred will as an intention in relation to the reality that opposes him, — everything seems to be exhausted: the theomorphic characteristic leading to the position of a human in the world, criticism of Being , criticism of society, designing new knowledge and through it — the creation of a completely new human space. Note that all this is built on the axis of futurology, which opens up the prospect of an absolute theological, theomorphic transformation of reality. Let’s move on to our lecture, the theme of which is “Thought”. An introductory part to the section that deals with thought. So we say that thinking is a theomorphic trait. Theomorphic — “god-like”, although true Abrahamism denies any similarity of the creature to the Creator, establishes an absolute non-identity between them. Nevertheless, there is a certain relationship in this non-identity.

Relationships, if only because the Creator creates a person, breathes into him from His Spirit, and then makes him a vicar as an instrument of what is called history or metahistory. In other words, for the Creator — and we have the right to say so, because we are these very end products placed on earth, which simply testify that there is a certain dynamics of our existence, our role on earth — for the Creator, time is not a uniform linear process. Precisely because a person is placed as a viceroy, time — a cycle released from Adam to Muhammad — is a narrative, a plot narrative: it has a beginning, a middle and an end. This is a kind of plot, this is a narrative that has its own purpose: that is, it has a preamble, it contains a secret meaning. This secret meaning, which is very important to note, is achieved or not achieved, because it is at the mercy of a human for whom the realization of this narrative is a test. You all know and have heard about such a thing as an exam. Personal life or life here in the physical body, on this earth is a test, an exam. What is the exam, what is the test, in relation to what is a person being tested? If we are talking about the fact that he passes, as the British say, “through notions”, makes some programmed movements, the outcome of which is predetermined, then what kind of test can we talk about? If he is instructed, as an apprentice, to complete a certain task, to carve or make a certain thing, a certain detail, and then the master looks and says: “Sorry, but you didn’t succeed, you’ll have to throw it away.” And in the context of the whole of humankind, failing the exam is obviously the throwing out of the whole of humankind, as God says in the Holy Scriptures: “If you go astray from My path, then I can replace you with another people.” Or in another place: “I can bring another creation instead. It’s easy for us.”

Which is interpreted by some scholars as a reference to the fact that the Abrahamic Revelation recognizes the cyclicity and reproducibility of humankinds that exist one after another, passing through a catastrophic negation and reproduction of a new cycle starting from the Golden Age. And this is not finalism, which we speak of as the end of history, the Resurrection and the Last Judgment, but this is a kind of repetition of the same thing, since the goal is not realized in the narrative that takes place. Mankind over and over again does not pass this test, and God writes it off and creates a new one until that fiery critical element ripens in this or that humankind — we will hope that it will be ours, to which we now belong, the critical mass of uranium voltage that will break through the gap between the electrodes; until that lightning flashes, which will complete forever the endless string of cycles and lead us to some absolute finale. What kind of mass is this, this “uranium core”, which carries this terrible energy in its original specific primordial essence? This is exactly thinking. But not thinking, understood as a discursive process, but thinking, understood as an actualization at the human level of God’s thought.

The thought of God, which is a providential thought that contains the storyline of the narrative that makes up our story and the goal that must be achieved in the course of this narrative. What should humankind do that the almighty Creator could not do without humankind? This means that a certain task is being realized, and there is a certain meaning, because we know from the Holy Scriptures that God does not do anything in vain. It is not in vain that he puts a weak and deviant human at the center of reality, gives him a certain task with which he permanently fails and destroys in a certain perspective: a breakdown will inevitably happen in an endless string, and sooner or later the final of this cyclic path will come. There is such a goal. There is. This goal is revealed, or rather, contained in the thought of God, and this thought of God is to some extent reflected in the projection of oneself onto the human plane, where it acts as a kind of fundamental scheme of thinking. Thinking, which is a frame print or reflection of providential thought.

I have already said that the specificity of thinking is that it differs radically from all spiritual manifestations of a human who exists as a natural being outside his theomorphic dimension. What does it mean? We know that man at his creation was like a clay doll before God breathed into him from His Spirit. It was made from two kinds of clay. One clay is wet clay, silt taken from the bottom of the river, the other clay is dry, salsalun, sounding, white clay. The Quran speaks about this, which emphasizes that clay has two characteristics: this “doll” is made of two clays. We are talking about two substances, one of which is rough, the other is subtle. Because by clay it is necessary to understand the substance in its total and deepest sense, because, for example, in Persian, clay is called “gel”, and the same Indo-European word gel in Greek sounds like “gyule” — matter. That is, “clay” in Persian is “matter” in Greek. But matter is not as material, but matter as that substance, which is the potency of anything. So, two substances were taken to make this doll — Adam, and if these are two — one of them is rough, the other is thin — we can safely assume that one substance is earthy, earthly (in Arabic “turab”), and the other — heavenly, “sama, samavi”. One substance is turabi and the other is samavi. One substance from the earth, the other from those layers that belong to the sky — we mean that substance, which is characterized by freedom from form, freedom from individualization, subtlety of a higher order, volatility, lightness, etc. Thus, human is both an earthly and a celestial being before the Divine Spirit is breathed into him. This is very important for us: it is a shock signal, like a stop, a “red light”.

This means that a human, not being theomorphic, while still being natural, turns out to be not only material, but also spiritual. A natural being has spiritual, celestial, spiritual planes, but they are substantial. This, too, is something that the Divine Spirit opposes. What are these substantial things that belong to heaven? What are these characteristics that distinguish the spiritual activity of a human outside of his theomorphic trait? This is, firstly, consciousness — at the coarsest grassroots level. Consciousness is an accompaniment of a registered object or situation, or environment, but this is only registration. Consciousness is always intentionally directed towards the phenomenon. With this part of psychic and mental activity Husserl worked well in his phenomenology, but we intend to overcome it and go on, make Husserl the «old coat», got even not to dry cleaning, but rather, gifted to the homeless people for lack of usefulness, because our task is to reach the level where we are free, not engaged in this spiritual activity of the heavenly clay. For example, a human was hit on the back of the head, he lay down, then blinked, began to rise, — they say: “He regained consciousness.” What is “regained consciousness”? So he registered that he was here, in the room, around — walls, people. Consciousness is primary: the fixation of a pure phenomenon. Then there are more complex forms of such activity — this is contemplation. For example, one may drown not in the study and reflective glance, but in the contemplation of the flower. It is simply an identification with a contemplated object, where the mirror does not understand the difference between itself, as a reflective surface, and the reflected object. But there is a higher order — intellectual intuition. This is when you suddenly discover in your reflective surface not a flower presented to you, but some kind of its analogue. For example, the “rose of the world” — the spiritual structure of the universe flashes in your mind by analogy with a pink flower, [and in this moment] it seems that the idea dawns on you: “But the world, it turns out, is arranged like a rose!” — and you intuit.

All poets, all metaphysicians build their discourse on intellectual intuition, which takes its starting point in a certain force presented to them in the present world. Suddenly replaces the visible with the invisible, and in a very direct quasi-sensory way. This is intellectual intuition. Thinking has nothing to do with all these types of clay, albeit subtle, activities. Activities not of the divine, but of the organic spirit. Great minds argued and spoke about thinking for a long time, and the problem of thinking became acute even in Hellenic times. Anaxagoras was the first to attempt to characterize thinking. He called it «nus» — thinking, thought, mind as meaning-making total something. Not just a block of presented Being, but meaning, nus, which he understood as a substance, as a fabric that is structured, and in general as a world order. Since then, many have understood thinking as a kind of substance, up to Descartes, who pointed out that thinking is anything but not a substance, because the substance is characterized by extension, and thinking is what opposes extension. This is a kind of break, a kind of violation of the homogeneity of the stretched something around us. This is a puncture. This is a point. “I think, therefore I exist,” but I think and exist at a certain point around which extension runs. Descartes pointed to the characteristic of thinking — opposition to reality. Thinking is opposite, opposed to reality. Descartes most closely in his methodological approach corresponded to the spirit of Revelation, the spirit of prophecy. This was probably the first Christian, in the sense of Abrahamic, that is, related to the prophetic chain, philosopher after generations of Platonists and Aristotelians, who proceeded from the homogeneity and continuity of everything and the fusion of the subject with the object. He was the first person to introduce radical dualism, and all radical dualism needs to be overcome. Overcoming dualism is tawhid, aspiration, an exit to that uniqueness, which is always hostile to universality. Universality, monism, in the spirit of which Plato, the Neoplatonists, and Aristotle taught, is often confused with monotheism. But monotheism is absolutely opposed to universality, which, like dough, fills all the cracks and is equal to itself in all directions. Monotheism is like a laser beam that burns this dough. Descartes probably had the first idea of such an opposite. The great Hegel appeared, who was shocked by Descartes and immediately tried to cover it all up, dilute it and said that in fact there is a metaphysical unity between thinking and Being — in general, they totally coincide with each other, because being is the logical option of “presentation” of thinking. That is, logic is also Being, and a procedural internal code from a state to a logical state. Being is thinking, according to Hegel. This blow closed for 150–200 years any prospects for a fresh breakthrough. As a result, it is Hegelianism that is responsible for postmodernism, deconstruction, because the idea of the universal identity of everything to everything eventually begins to crumble, float like old plaster. The building of monism inevitably falls apart, because being is critical, a worm is introduced into it, and monism does not take this into account. So, the essence of thinking is that it has a goal and tasks that are not contained in the reality surrounding a human. These goals, these tasks are some kind of alternative to the given and put.

We see an object as a phenomenon. Here in the Husserlian phenomenological consciousness an object is presented to us, we see it as a spot. But it becomes a thing for us only at the moment of interpretation. At the moment of interpretation, this is a spot that is nothing, because like a blot, like a “Rorschach spot”, like some random combination of such forms, some kind of irritant of perception, this spot actually does not differ from nothing. For us, it becomes a “table” or a “book” or a “wall” or a “picture” only because we interpret this spot. We know that this is a table: interpretation is the creation of the table. A thing exists only because of its interpretation. At the moment of its interpretation, it becomes a thing, and before interpretation, although it exists as an irritant of perception, it is identical to simple chaos, the chaos of external twilight. Thus, thinking is a creationist practice and has a creationist nature, that is, thinking is practically clear, by virtue of the fact that it gives interpretations, follows the creationist model of the appearance of the Universe. The appearance of the Universe is based on the fact that the chaos of external twilight is structured, and all these “spots” that irritate the perception receive “names” — the very names that Adam peace be upon him received from God. God gave names to Adam, and these names, not at the moment of being handed to Adam, but at the moment of interpretation by the Creator, become real things: the table becomes a “table”, and does not remain a “stain”, etc. Here an interesting question arises. There is a certain “spot” that floats, a certain irritant of perception, no matter whose it is — a fox, an angel, a person: the perception is different. There is a certain irritant, and God gives it a name: it is “table”. But after all, this is a table for us, but for an angel it is not a table, for a fox it is not a table, for no one, and yet there are billions of creatures — people, jinns, animals, angels — billions of creatures in a vast world that have a lot of continuums, a lot of ecological and metaecological niches, and the table is just for us. Well, about one spot, the Almighty immediately created a lot of interpretations in such a way that the “table” is a table for us, and for an angel — something, for a jinn — a third, and for a fox — a fourth, for a wood-goblin or bogey — a fifth? But the Holy Scripture clearly tells us: the Almighty taught Adam the names, but he did not teach the angels, he did not give them an interpretation. And of course, it is ridiculous to assume that he gave an interpretation to foxes, hedgehogs, etc. That is, for them it is still a stimulus of perception — in other words, it is a spot in the external twilight. It turns out that only for us it is a table, and only for us the created Universe exists, and outside of us, besides us, without us, it is a chaos of swirling spots that have neither meaning nor justification. That’s what’s interesting.

But after all, this means what is said in the Holy Scriptures: a human is placed in the center of the universe and made the vicar of God. In other words, the organized Universe exists as such, as organized, as the Universe in a unique way only for man and in his eyes. And for all other beings there is the Husserlian consciousness, the perception of the phenomenon in the most primary, pre-interpretive sense. For a fox, a bush is just a spot that is fixed in it, through its connection with an ecological niche, like a place where a hare can sit. And the hare is another spot that moves quickly and that must be caught in order to get proteins for its existence. There is no meaning in these spots — no names, no meaning: the fox is simply in the “send-response” mode, like a ball against a wall, in his eco-niche. It is rigidly fixed in this mode of dualism: a passive object that needs to be perceived, and an active object.

And a human stands outside the eco-niche, he does not have an ecological space. He stands in the center. And the centrality of his position is the prehistory and the preliminary condition of thinking. Thinking is a product of centrality. But what is the central position of man? We said that it is centrally placed in some kind of pre-interpreted reality: as if there is an external twilight, there is a floating chaos, there are spots of manifestation, each of which is concrete, meaningless and unique and at the same time irreproducible. Once, one great intellectual, Baron Julius Evola, said: let’s say you were shown a hieroglyph, you learned its meaning. Further, let’s say it is written in sand, you have erased it. Knowing this hieroglyph, knowing its meaning, you will go and write it anywhere, because for you it is already an interpreted thing: it has arisen. And if you accidentally saw a hieroglyph that you don’t know (a combination of random dashes), naturally, it is not perceived, because it is absolutely absurd, absolutely abstract, it is an element of chaos. It’s been erased and you won’t write it. You won’t be able to reproduce it.

The universe in which a human is placed is initially an external twilight in which uninterpreted pre-hieroglyphs float, to which no one has yet given either meaning or definition. What is this universe? We have to figure out this structure. The Universe in which human is placed is the Universe of Possibility Some universal Possibility. Let’s start with the simplest: any object in its singularity is this blot, and now it doesn’t matter to us whether it has been interpreted, whether it is already a hieroglyph that we understand, or whether it is an accidental irritant of perception, a random combination of all sorts of twigs and stripes that we didn’t remember. The primary singularity of the phenomenon is important to us. Can it exist as such a single phenomenon? Yes maybe. Everything can exist, and this single phenomenon — a hanger, a television camera, a table, a human, a rat, a piece of bread that has fallen on the floor — can exist in its immediate phenomenological nature. This is a specific level of possibility — let’s call it the first level: the possibility of a single or unique phenomenon. [Dzhemal already described reality in terms of “possibility” in the fourth lecture of the series “Tradition and Reality”. Here, the hierarchy of possibilities, which then runs through this whole cycle of lectures, is described more fully — it is the cornerstone in the understanding of Dzhemal’s theology. In his forthcoming memoir Gardens and Wastes, more than ten years later, Jemal formulates these “five paradigms,” as he calls them, in a slightly different way, in particular, the fifth paradigm. Whether we are dealing with the dynamics of Dzhemal’s thought or with a simple reformulation, it is up to the thoughtful reader to decide..]

Let us ask ourselves a question: this single phenomenon — a piece of bread that fell on the floor, or this hanger, or this yellow leaf blown by the wind along the alley — must it definitely be here as an irreplaceable thing, that is, everything revolves around it, it is obligatory, it is unconditional, this leaf, and could there be nothing instead of it? If we put such a question, we will immediately answer it, because we see its logical absurdity. Yes, in place of this sheet there could be another sheet — the same, but different, unalike. Let any thing be replaced by any other, and at any point of our meeting with the world there can be anything, any other thing. There is no certainty that this, and not something else, exists at this point. A more universal possibility is the next level, the possibility of any other thing. You have to understand: in place of this phenomenon or instead of it. It is more universal, because in order for this thing to exist as it is, for it to be as it is, some kind of energy needs to be focused. We let go of the reins a little, we are moving to the next level, where any alternative becomes possible, where there is no such obligation. We will ask: is it possible not that any other thing exists instead of this thing, but that this thing does not exist. Is that why it wouldn’t exist? Yes, of course it is possible: it was not, it will not be. Any thing was not, and any thing will not be. So it’s possible, yes. The third level of possibility is the possibility of this singular thing not to be. This is an even more versatile feature. If we go further, if we see that we are actually surrounded by a huge round dance of things, each of which individually may not be, then we ask ourselves the question: can all things not be, can any thing not be? Is it possible not to be for any thing? It is more versatile. Naturally, from the logic of the possibility of not being for every particular thing, an even more universal possibility of not being for all things follows: the possibility of not being for any thing or all things. Then we ask ourselves: is there a more universal level? An even cooler opportunity that already covers everything in its universalism? There is: the impossibility for any thing to be.

Impossibility is the fifth universal level of possibility. The impossibility to be for anything. It turns out that this is the Universe, this is where we are placed. We are placed in a Universe consisting of five levels of possibility. When we are babies, we are in the cradle, we have a rattle before our eyes — this is the possibility of a single phenomenon: we are surrounded by the specifics of colored and ringing spots — irritants of perception. And it turns out that in fact this is a very small cut, a randomly fixed cut, about which the creators of fiction reliably and with such nostalgia write exactly as about an accident: a Nabokov’s side path that goes through the garden, which has long been gone. They are perceptual flashes of phenomenology that disappear, dissolve, blown away by the larger possibility that we meet precisely as we come of age and experience this life. We know that any other thing can be in place of this, and then, when we get older, we know that there is a possibility that everything can’t be, this thing cannot be — anything can’t be. And finally, we understand that the most universal, irresistible is the impossibility of anything to be. The paradox is that with this universal all-covering impossibility for anything to be, something still exists. How?! After all, this is a universal impossibility! It must not allow this concretization, must not allow it to descend to the individual. It turns out that any possibility is not pure and absolute infinity, because once it is possible, it is no longer total and infinite. It can be denied. The highest universal already looks like a negation, but even this is subject to negation, because it is possible to deny the impossibility. The true infinity is negation. Pure negation, which lives not as something or a possibility, a substance, but simply as a total negation. It can be presented to everything. We will write “minus” here. This minus is not visible against the background of impossibility, like a sword sheathed. It is in the sheath, but it matches, it cannot be distinguished through the sheath. And in this denial all possibilities are realized. Because when this negation is totally addressed to all five layers of possibility, it turns out that the impossibility to be for anything, by negation, makes it possible to be for anything, that is, any other thing. Further, the possibility to be for a single thing is realized, because negation is presented to any other — which means that some specific singularity arises. When singularity is denied, it returns to the possibility of this singular thing not to be. Thus, the total denial of all possibilities, including the universal one, fulfills them all and fulfills them simultaneously. But this does not change the hierarchy, because these higher levels are negative and they are universal. You can notice: the more negative, the more generality and universality. The universal is negative. And the most universal is the denial of everything, it is total. And it is only through the negation of everything that something exists.

Now I want to show you how the thought of God manifests itself at the level of human when a human is thrown into these five layers, like a stone into a pond. The fact is that the goal of thinking — the goal that is set for a human — is to pass a kind of exam. It is the “consistency” of thinking as a reflection of God’s thought that is the task of human and the task of the community that he builds, which is opposed to society. The goal of thinking is non-identity. Endorsement of non-identity. A reflection of this non-identity, which at the same time is a pure non-givenness, a transcendent absence. Imagine a naive type of mirror that reflects everything: a closet, a broken window, clouds floating across the sky. The main ambition of such a mirror would be to reflect what is irresistible in principle. For example, air. But air can also be reflected as a volume, as a perspective, to mean it. And what can reflect the most fundamentally ungiven? And the most fundamentally ungiven is the black amalgam behind the mirror, which makes the reflection itself possible. Nicholas of Cusa said that God cannot be seen because He is part of the eye that sees. The ambition of the mirror or the eye to see that by which there is vision, that black backside which enables perception, is its condition, but does not participate in perception. As we said at the first lecture, this point inside the heart, which is not identical to anything, or this black amalgam behind the mirror — it is the trace of God. The imprint of His foot in the sand. The only way to interpret Him as a factor is through His absence, expressed in this negative imprint, which itself is not visible. To capture Him, to reflect (but at the same time He Himself is a part of this intellectual process) — that is the task of thought. The fact is that reflection is a reflection of the irresistible. It can be adequate only when we are talking about a mirror that embodies the fullness of reflective reflection. If you say that the mirror is small, you are talking about irresistibility: you won’t be reflected in such a mirror. It stands, and everything is not reflected in it. This means that a very large mirror is needed, a huge mirror, a mirror similar to a sphere, which would absolutely cover all possibilities, so that if it does not reflect, it would definitely be beyond the limits of these possibilities. There is such a moment as synthesis: thesis, antithesis, synthesis — it seems to cover all options, and if we bring this triangle [Jemal picked up the school triangle that lay in front of him. instead of.] to the mirror [edge. — Ed. Note], then we see its reverse side, and we have a square: one of its triangular parts is real, on this side of the mirror, and the other is virtual, in the mirror. But together with the virtual, a more total figure is obtained: if something is present there, then it is present; if it is not present, then it is definitely not present. Let’s draw a triangle like this. This is the triangle in which we are immersed when we are born. This vertex opposite to us is the object, the object itself, the irritant of perception, the rattle, that which is opposite to you. Let’s write: “phenomenon”, we emphasize: “single”. But this is the very opportunity to be anything else instead of it. That is, let’s say, this is the first lower level, and this is the second level — whatever instead. And here is a higher level — the possibility of this phenomenon not to be as such at all. It turns out that this concrete, very concrete, triangle covers the entire material, present nature of our environment: phenomena, an alternative to each phenomenon and their disappearing final nature. We must bring this triangle up to the mirror so that a “counter-triangle” appears, which will cover other possibilities. And it really covers if we take the phenomenon not as an observer, but as an observed phenomenon, the center; if we imagine that the center is an observable phenomenon, that is, we proceed from the fact that a respected cabinet — it stands in the center of the world, here is its alternative, here is its disappearance, and this is the line of its horizon that is outlined around it. Now we are looking at that triangle that completes all this to a square — we are looking at that reflection in the mirror to which we have attached [edge. — Ed. Note] our real triangle.

And here it turns out to be the impossibility of anything to be, and here it is the possibility of anything not to be. It seems, at first glance, that this is a tautology — the impossibility of anything to be and the possibility for anything not to be — but this is not a tautology, because here there is a pure unclouded infinity of the impossibility of anything to be. This is the absence of difference, the absence of certainty, distinction, it is pure neutral, without boundaries. But here the possibility for nothing to be is different, it is emptiness. Not even emptiness, but non-manifestation — the possibility for anything not to be. If this is shunyata — the Sanskrit term — emptiness, which is not limited by anything, then this is non-manifestation, silence, the possibility of not to be for a word, etc. This is the potential of non-manifestation. There is a distinction between them — but what is there? A1 is the opposite of this object [We hope that here, too, an attentive reader independently visualizes the diagram from the text], which is presented. We see that five levels of reality are already given here, and A1 is the one who is thrown into these five worlds, this is the inner witness, this is the point of absence. The Witness is the point of non-identity. The internal no, said to everything else, because without opposition, without no, which is inherent in this point, this puncture in the sheet of paper, there is no relationship effect, there is no building process. Now we see that we have a witness of opposition, a witness who is in opposition to everything — to reality and to all planes of possibility. You see that the universal negative possibility — the impossibility for anything to be and the possibility for anything not to be — form an inner triangle with the inner witness. Here is the triangle of the outer world, and here is the so-called triangle of the inner world. This horizon is the horizon of inner contemplation.

You remember that we talked about the effect of perception of the infinity of the first, still childish, look: a person, when he first appears in the world, directly discovers that his perceptual potential is unlimited, he cannot fill it with anything, he contemplates direct non-limitation, direct infinity, shunyata, he contemplates without distinction like the sky without clouds, without stars, pure infinity as the impossibility for anything to be. Because any comma against this background is already a limitation and endless corruption. So he contemplates this, and then his gaze shifts to the possibility for anything not to be How does he pass? Yes, because he recognizes, this inner contemplative witness, that he is in a physical body. It is enough for an infant to hurt his leg, when he suddenly realizes that the body is fragile, and it immediately returns him to a lower, albeit universal, level — the possibility for anything not to be. Here is the line of the inner horizon. It is very important to understand that this absent no, which is in opposition to reality, is confirmed by the very fact of this opposition as something real, that is, in the view of the impossibility of anything to be, first of all, the presumption that there should not be a beholder, but there is a beholder. And since he exists, he is in opposition to the impossibility for anything to be. How does its specific “is” differ from that very subjective “is” that philosophers could not cope with, who could not distinguish between human’s “is” and brick’s “is”? It arises precisely in the internal opposition of one’s own view of infinity. This “is” is born from the fact that the beholder, who looks at infinity, which for him should not be, asserts his presence outside this infinity with this look and this opposition. In this triangle, a certain internal space is being built, which is ready to perceive the outside world, until the internal horizon is built; the triangle cannot enter into a “cycle” when this inner horizon is built, that is, an affirmation in spite of the impossibility to be. Here, this witness, who is affirmed by the very fact of witnessing in spite of the impossibility to be, which is inherent in the perception itself. Perception perceives infinity, and there is already a certain contradiction in this. This is the stress that is transmitted in pressure to the outer horizon. And in this way, that triangle is created, to which the triangle of the external world opens, where the connection with the phenomenon, with the object takes place. But it does not happen simultaneously, because look how the logic of perception follows, the logic of the presence of the inner witness in such a complex, diverse hierarchy of possibilities: first, the witness perceives the impossibility for anything to be; he travels out of himself, from point A1 to point B1; then it “flakes off”, because it is impossible to contemplate the impossibility of something to be while you yourself are into the fact of your contemplation. It passes into a certain concretization, from pure shunyata, from pure emptiness, it passes into the contemplation of non-manifestation, into the possibility of non-manifestation. Such an inner horizon is created, the journey goes from B1 to C1. Further, the possibility for nothing to be meets with the possibility for anything to be, any thing. From C1 there is a journey to B. Further, from the possibility for anything to be, there is a fixation on something single, there is a concentration of attention, the vector of thought develops from diversity to the single, there is a journey to point A, to the phenomenon. At this point there is a direct connection between the witness and the phenomenon. This connection is interpretative, because if this single phenomenon has arisen, then it has already arisen as a certain thing, and if it has arisen as a certain thing, then it has arisen accompanied by what it is. It is very important who is passive and who is active in this pair. If A dictates his interpretation to the witness, then this is an illusion. If A1 dictates its interpretation to this object, this phenomenon, then this is knowledge. It is very important. But how does it differ in which case the phenomenon dictates its interpretation, and in which case it is the witness? Depends on whether this path goes further. If from point A the movement of thought does not go anywhere further, it breaks off, then the human is completely dependent on the external world, on obsessive interpretation, and is in an illusion. And if the thought goes to C — to the possibility of this phenomenon not to be, moreover, the human understands the finalism of what he fixed his gaze on; and further from here — into the impossibility of anything not to be — this is a renewed return, that is, he was already here, but this renewed return, enriched with knowledge of the external, external interpretation, external object that goes here, into the possibility of the witness not to be, into the consciousness of mortality . The experience of finalism carried out from here proceeds as a consciousness of one’s own mortality and, moreover, as an understanding that one’s nature is one’s finalism. It is death that is that no that is in opposition to the whole world, but since you have not died yet, this death works for the time being as a perception, as an affirmation, and then it, of course, is realized as a removal of you. The balloon is inflated with emptiness, but as long as it is a balloon, it is a balloon, and when it bursts, it does not exist. Thus the path of thought proceeds, forming that mirror of the second order, which is the mirror where all interpretations arise. And now look: as soon as this witness is emancipated from being tied to this whole construction through coming enriched with the knowledge of the phenomenon and its non-existence, finality, the possibility for anything not to be, where he gets the second time — thanks to this possibility for anything not to be, which specifically refers to him, the witness is emancipated from the immediate situation. He is emancipated from the present phenomenon. How do all things arise in his mind: an angel, a demon, invisible things, which are denoted by abstract concepts? When a person, through the idea of his finalism, through the feeling of his finalism, emancipates himself from a concrete attachment to his being thrown into this world. When his thought returns to him, enriched with the consciousness that everything is finite and this finiteness is in its center, is the source of what he perceives, then all interpretations appear in this mirror. All possible interpretations appear in this mirror.

And what is the invisible world — an angel or a brownie, or a heavenly “rose of the world”, or the ninth circle of hell, or the same future that does not exist — these are the same interpretations as this table, chair, no difference. One we see, the other we don’t see. Seeing with the eyes is not enough: what do we see if we are blind, if our eyes are gouged out and we see nothing at all — why now, because of this, should we not be thrown into this world? We are thrown into the world, and there is no fundamental difference between what is seen and interpreted by some oak behind the fence and the creatures that we know from mythology. None. These are interpretations reflected in the mirror of pure thought. Imagine: this, in the center, is a person who is placed in the center of reality, this is a system of thought that has turned the hierarchy of possibilities into points, stations of processual movement. Now imagine that this line rotates — this rhombus or this square rotates around this point: moving a little bit, it makes an infinite number of movements to the periphery. Thus, an inner horizon and an outer horizon arise. And this is the center of the world, in the center of which stands the witness. When this circle is really effectively described — harmoniously, realistically, effectively described, that is, this line that we drew … What is the problem? Of course, a human has more than one phenomenon: from this point, there are many phenomena, and they are all arranged in this way. And, of course, a human, in addition to his dynamic formation, begins to move and travel in this way, but only this triangle of his inner world always remains directed upward at the same time. This part of it remains static, but this part travels. A gap occurs. First of all — remember I mentioned? — it may be that the thought has reached point A, but it does not go to C, to the possibility for this thing not to be. What’s happening? For most people, this is where the perception of the phenomenon gets stuck, and then the phenomenon itself imposes its own interpretation.

Then the person does not immediately have the idea that his absence is hidden inside this table. The table is virtual, but the fact that there will be no table is absolutely real. It was not and will not be — it is absolutely real. But what he is — is the question. He does not have this feeling — and what happens? A human becomes a cosmist who believes in the indestructibility of matter, in its substantiality, the continuity of the surrounding reality, the transformation of one into another, the circulation of good in nature, that is, he is just such a substantialist who believes in the continuous, in substance. Such are 99% of people — ordinary peasants who just plough at the level of mushrooms, look at the sky and wait for rain, nothing ends for them: there is no time. These are people who have reached point A, they did not go further, they did not go to a clear experience that any phenomenon is finite. They found themselves at the “Zenith point” — the dominance of the phenomenon, which imposes its interpretation, over witnessing. This is being in an illusion. This is an unfinished thought, within which a human is a cosmist, professing the path of substance and the dictatorship of substance over himself. And if it went here, if this square moves in a holistic way, then a circular structure of thought arises, the square of a circle, that is, either a mirror, or a total horrific mirror of thought. What do you think should be reflected in such a system of a square that has gone through a whole circle? In the center of it is A1 — the missing witness, the subject — he is reflected, he is the only one who is an amalgam of the mirror, he cannot be reflected in this perfect thought, he is reflected without being reflected. In other words, it is a mirror that captures and affirms its absence as a form of positive affirmation. But he is the light of God, and this means that at this moment the thought really becomes theomorphic and really reflects God’s providential thought about the purpose of man, because at this moment there is a preliminary triumph through the thinking of the Spirit of God, breathed into a clay doll, over the substantial space in which he, this Spirit, enslaved. This is the task — to take control and establish the dominion of the Spirit of God over the boundless, endless in all directions substance. This is done through theomorphic thinking. The structure of theomorphic thinking is right here.

I have drawn, of course, the most general outlines, because in fact there is such a potential for interpretation that allows you to really project the future not just as the time that does not yet exist, but that will come, but the future as a kind of fundamental absence, opposed to the present, which is the oppressive burden of presence. To design the future, which is what is not and never will be, as our property. In other words, to design eschatology — and this is the task that we have been entrusted with as the vicars of the Almighty. On this I will finish. I understand that this was quite difficult to understand, but nevertheless I have presented in a concise form material that is actually very broad and complex, and goes far beyond the limits of Husserlian phenomenology into a truly new theology.