On Destiny and Freedom of Choice.

I believe that our lives are preordained and our destinies are fixed. But here is necessary to mark that our fates are predetermined only in a sense of their meaning (content). As for the shapes or forms, we can choose them pretty freely. For example, let us imagine that a great painter was born. But in his life he never painted. In fact he died as an unknown and ordinary person and nobody found out that he was a great (potential) painter.

Since his birth he had a number of possibilities of becoming one, but he chose none. A choice is a relative notion and ultimately depends not so much on the person but the circumstances, time and etc. Never the less the great artist was born and no matter what his life was like he died being a great potential artist. His mistake was that he failed to recognise his artistic potential and therefore didn’t choose pursue it (or pursuing wrong forms). His destiny was fixed in terms of meaning, but he had the freedom to follow a different path


Reason After Fantasy.

Reason is based on previous experience and knowledge, Fantasy, being an element of thinking too, appears to be in opposition with the experience because it is based on novelty. Relationship between Fantasy and Reason should be regarded as a co-relation between the determinate and the subsequent. It should be said that Fantasy does not always determine sober calculation but it never happens vice versa.

Pure Art Negates Beauty.

Plato wants to cut off Art from Beauty because he regards Beauty as too serious a matter to be commanded by Art. Kant, on the other hand, wants to cut off Beauty from Moral because he restricts Beauty for the same reason for which Plato restricts Art – to get it cleanly out of the way of something more important. Plato is a great moralist and he reasonably suspect that Art has no moral message and therefore should not be regarded as a serious matter. Kant, in his turn, sees Art as an instrument which is capable of carrying morals and admits pure Beauty in nature only at levels of satisfaction in simples forms, such as levels and flowers.

In my turn, I want to cut off both Beauty and Morality from Art because pure Art is not subjected to judgements unlike Beauty and Morality.

When we make judgement we first resort to our memories in order to recollect something similar in the past. If the object excels all previous memories in quality, we label it beautiful. So the principle of our judgement is based on recognition, comparison and appreciation. On the other hand, we do not appreciate Beauty unless we can see its purpose or function. For example, a red stain on a nose does not rouse thoughts about beauty (unless there is a special purpose) but painted red lips certainly can adorn a woman’s face. So far,- as long as Beauty serves the Idea, we love it.

Here is another example, a flower in a filed is beautiful and is perfectly embellishes the scenery. The same flower crushed and besmeared by excrements of passing cow does not excite such highly aesthetical emotion. It has lost its purpose and therefore its image of beautiful.

Now we approach the second point of our judgement – EVERYTHING IS BEAUTIFUL IF IT GOES IN HAND WITH OUR MORAL PRINCIPLES. Morality appears to be a very relative notion, and so does Beauty. For instance, in Latin American Indian tribes a woman with her nose pierced with bamboo sticks and dreadfully deformed ears (and other things) is regarded as highly beautiful, whereas an European does not admit this barbaric conception. In some African tribes to offer one’s own wife’s sexual services to a respectable guest is to hit the standards of hospitality. So far, Moral and Beauty are such close sisters that it would be wrong to mix them up with a purpose of pure Art.

We experience Art without understanding it. Art work its secret claim to supreme power blurs the distinction between the presence and the absence of reality, and it tries to cover up a new imagery of the distance between the Known and the Unknown. Beauty has a tendency of becoming a standard and to reorganise Chaos in accordance with one’s moral, whereas Are desires to develops magical structures to reveal the presence of God or his real, whereas Art dwells  in the unconscious. A human’s soul longs for the unconscious, it is no longer trusts visual reality.

Pure Art is free of Morality and our imageries of Beauty because it is based on Novelty and therefore it is not subjected to recollection from the past experience. Art as the great general universal informat is an obvious rival, not necessarily a hostile one, to philosophy and indeed to science. It is born of our refusal to explain the Concrete and highlights and glorifies Human’s rebellion against inevitability  of our downfall.

Philosophy after Art.

Arts are the most efficient means of communication between objective and subjective. Art as Absolute, determines direction of Human minds, whereas Philosophy attempts to define the location. An artist is a carrier of certain philosophical notion and his work, as object of arts, is a mediator in this communication. He is in conflict between the apparent and the real which stirs the mind towards Philosophy. Art constitute appearance, Philosophy questions them. Art and Philosophy are the polar units in world acknowledgement and appear to be in constant opposition to each other. Task of Philosophy lies in substantiating the stimulus of Art. Art undoes the work of Philosophy by deliberate fusing knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description. So far if we consider this interplay on example of horse and cart, Art will be the horse and Philosophy will be the cart with all human knowledge and experience mounted on it.

Abstract Paranoya.

Under the word “real” I imply everything that can be subjected to our mind’s perception and reproduction. By other words, everything is real that can be imaged. By reproducing objects or notions we determine all possibilities of their potential threats which these objects of imagination contain in themselves. Therefore, by converting anything into real we create a threat for ourselves. Here I do not want to go into scales of these threats, even though a question may arise – what kind of danger a regular daisy can represent for human being? That is a different subject of how a man can or should tackle with the daisy’s threat in order to prevent it. I just ask to note in conformation of my words that if one fails to recognise the threat and neglects its danger he/she could be poisoned by it or choked, or whatever else. But let us precede our abstract reasoning and slip into the sphere of unreal. Unreal is something what we have no idea about or something what we are not aware of and therefore we can’t imagine it and measure its potential threats. Proceeding from the above definition we can comprise that the Unreal lies above our imagination and there is no contact with it yet. So far, if there is no communication, there is no threat.

Art, Science, Death, Faith and Truth

a) Art disturbs and stimulates Science. Art is based on conjecture, whereas Science on fact.   Art refers to Content, Science explores Forms.

b)  Death stimulates Life and associates with Unity. Life is based on Complexity and ends up in Unity.

c)  Faith creates forms of Philosophy and sets up its targets. There is a constant transition form Idealism towards Realism.

d)  The ultimate Truth is ineffable and lies in Appositions

A Brief Description Of The Past And Future.

Imagine yourself standing at the middle of the room. There are big mirrors instead of the right and left walls. Let us suppose that the left wall is the Past and the right wall is the Future. Now look at the Future and you will see yourself in the Past then in the Future and in the Past again and so on, infinite progression. Now look at the left wall and you will see almost the same picture only with a different starting point.