O trancendencji

[czernm20 1]

Siema.

Trochę czytałem Schopenhauera, Whiteheada oraz o asocjacjoniźmie (atomiźmie psychologicznym, tj. Hume, Lock, William James etc.) i słuchałem wykładów z "Jiddu Krishnamurti Fundation Trust", bo ten ostatni nic nie czytał; nie pisał książek (są raczej tylko transkrypcje jego wykładów). 

Mam kilka materiałów. W gruncie rzeczy wychodzi na to samo, że istnieje jakaś wola alias jednia Plotyńska, istnieje jakaś siła stwarzająca świat czy Bóg/demiurg, który sam siebie stwarza causa sui, co powoduje że otrzymujemy zgodność z mitem: greckie słowo na opowieść, mythos w skrócie mit. 

Tutaj w ramach logosu, pojawia się możliwość transcendencji i w zależności od koncepcji metafizycznej jest to różne w opisie, ale sprowadza się do tego, że w pewien sposób każdy z tych poglądów jest synkretyczny. 

 Oddzielone od siebie społeczności tworzą koncept jednego Boga w tym samym czasie, dla egzemplifikacji to niech będzie: orfizm, chrześcijaństwo, stoicyzm. 

Być może jest to związane z położeniem gwiazdy polarnej, jak można wnioskować z Carla Gustava Junga opisującego tzw. rok Platoński. Jednak jest to dosyć płytkie spostrzeżenie i w gruncie rzeczy, trudno takie uznać za prawdziwe jak i samego Junga: przecież jak wielu, sypiał on z pacjentkami. 

• There is only one fear
• You cannot understand yourself according to Freud or Jung, or according to me. Other people's theories have no importance whatever. It is of yourself that you must ask the question, is fear to be divided into the conscious and subconscious? Or is there only fear which you translate into different forms? There is only one desire; there is only desire. You desire. The objects of desire change, but desire is always the same. So perhaps in the same way there is only fear. You are afraid of all sorts of things but there is only one fear.

- Jiddu Krishnamurti. 

u Schopenhauera znanego z dzieła, którego nie napisał i pochwały samobójstwa, której nie czynił oraz bycia nieuporządkowanym życiowo, co rozmija się z faktami biograficznymi mamy doczynienia; o ile nie czytamy rękopisu niesławnej erystyki, z trzema możliwościami osiagnięcia tej transcendencji. Jednak żaden z autorów nie tłumaczy właściwie do końca czym ona jest. Dla Schopenhauera świat fizyczny nie jest materialny, zawiera się on między immanentną wolą metafizyczną a transcendencją domniemaną jako dobro. 

Dla Krishnamurtiego sprawa wygląda zgoła podobnie: 

• Freedom from The Know, fragment
• Most of our lives are outwardly disciplined by the demands of society, by the family, by our own suffering, by our own experience, by conforming to certain ideological or factual patterns - and that form of discipline is the most deadening thing. Discipline must be without control, without suppression, without any form of fear. How is this discipline to come about? It is not discipline first and then freedom; freedom is at the very beginning, not at the end. To understand this freedom, which is the freedom from the conformity of discipline, is discipline itself. The very act of learning is discipline (after all the root meaning of the word discipline is to learn), the very act of learning becomes clarity. To understand the whole nature and structure of control, suppression and indulgence demands attention. You don't have to impose discipline in order to study it, but the very act of studying brings about its own discipline in which there is no suppression.
•  
• In order to deny authority (we are talking of psychological authority, not the law) - to deny the authority of all religious organizations, traditions and experience, one has to see why one normally obeys - actually study it. And to study it there must be freedom from condemnation, justification, opinion or acceptance. Now we cannot accept authority and yet study it - that is impossible. To study the whole psychological structure of authority within ourselves there must be freedom. And when we are studying we are denying the whole structure, and when we do deny, that very denial is the light of the mind that is free from authority. Negation of everything that has been considered worthwhile, such as outward discipline, leadership, idealism, is to study it; then that very act of studying is not only discipline but the negative of it, and the very denial is a positive act. So we are negating all those things that are considered important to bring about the quietness of the mind.
•  
• Thus we see it is not control that leads to quietness. Nor is the mind quiet when it has an object which is so absorbing that it gets lost in that object. This is like giving a child an interesting toy; he becomes very quiet, but remove the toy and he returns to his mischief-making. We all have our toys which absorb us and we think we are very quiet but if a man is dedicated to a certain form of activity, scientific, literary or whatever it is, the toy merely absorbs him and he is not really quiet at all.
•  
• The only silence we know is the silence when noise stops, the silence when thought stops - but that is not silence. Silence is something entirely different, like beauty, like love. And this silence is not the product of a quiet mind, it is not the product of the brain cells which have understood the whole structure and say, `For God's sake be quiet; then the brain cells themselves produce the silence and that is not silence. Nor is silence the outcome of attention in which the observer is the observed; then there is no friction, but that is not silence.
•  
• You are waiting for me to describe what this silence is so that you can compare it, interpret it, carry it away and bury it. It cannot be described. What can be described is the known, and the freedom from the known can come into being only when there is a dying every day to the known, to the hurts, the flatteries, to all the images you have made, to all your experiences - dying every day so that the brain cells themselves become fresh, young, innocent. But that innocency, that freshness, that quality of tenderness and gentleness, does not produce love; it is not the quality of beauty or silence.
•  
• That silence which is not the silence of the ending of noise is only a small beginning. It is like going through a small hole to an enormous, wide, expansive ocean, to an immeasurable, timeless state. But this you cannot understand verbally unless you have understood the whole structure of consciousness and the meaning of pleasure, sorrow and despair, and the brain cells themselves have become quiet. Then perhaps you may come upon that mystery which nobody can reveal to you and nothing can destroy. A living mind is a still mind, a living mind is a mind that has no centre and therefore no space and time. Such a mind is limitless and that is the only truth, that is the only reality.

Dlaczego stwierdzam, że podobnie? Używając metalogiki, czyli zdań złożonych opisowych już tłumaczę: tak, u Schopenhauera jest bezczas nawiązujący do greckiego rozumienia czasu jako "aion, kairos, chronos" i idee są poza czasem jak u K., jednak podobnie jak i on, obu zakładają że czas płynie ad infinitum wstecz. 

Mamy więc logiczne dysjunkcję, ale brak odniesienia do rzeczywistości. Więc można przyjąć metafizycznie, że czas istniał od zawsze bądź, że czas zaistniał gdy już mógł: jak wtedy gdy razem z Chronosem, urodził się Fanes, pęd życia. Pytanie retoryczne: Istnieli jednak wcześniej Bogowie? 

U Schopenhauera jest więc zachęta do zgłębiania sztuki, bycia geniuszem oraz moralnego heroizmu: zostania altruistą; świętym. 

Ten ostatni koncept przypomina Kantowski dowód na istnienie Boga z moralności, ten pierwszy koncept dotyczy szeroko pojętej twórczości a geniusza i tak nikt nie zrozumie. Kto wie jaki geniusz może osiągnąć transcendencje i co właściwie to oznacza? 

 A jak Wy rozumiecie ten geniusz? Dla Schopenhauera bycie geniuszem charakteryzowało się przez nonkonforizm wobec autorytetów, słabą pamięć oraz umiejętność tworzenia wzorców w zamplifikowanym tempie. Podjął on taką charakterystykę na przykładzie swojej pierwszech pracy o kolorach, gdzie wraz z Goethem wdał się w spór z Netwonem o naturę pryzmatu. Goethe zajmował się farbą, jednak w opinii publicznej spór wygrał Netwon. 

 Schopenhauer jednak jako jego skrzydłowy z swoją pracą zachował się w biblioteczce Goethego, o czym informuje nas sam zainteresowany. 

 Wiadomo, że Schopenhauer nie mógł uważać siebie za geniusza, jednak takie mniemanie spewnością o kimś podzielał, być może to właśnie Goethe, Kant i Platon ten geniusz ucieleśniali wraz z Jezusem i Buddą, osiągając transcendencję. Jednak nie tylko oni, bo jako kompatybilista łączący koncept wolnej woli z determinizmem nie uszedł on uwadze Einsteina, który go lubił parafrazować, też czytał Bhagavad Gitę a na dodatek w wieku 16 lat przeczytał Krytykę czystego rozumu. JEST TO DZIEŁO, UCHODZĄCE ZA PROBIERZ UMIEJĘTNOŚCI ROZUMIENIA TEKSTU NA POZIOMIE OLIMPIJSKIM. 

 Tak więc Schrödinger z Einsteinem czytali, Schopenhauera. Jednak u Schopenhauera, który przecież rozważał naturę światła o ile dobrze pamiętam, jest mowa o "cieplikach" a więc fotonach odpowiadających falą podczerwonym ale też o falach światła. Czy to nie takie rozważania mogły naprowadzić Einsteina na dualizm natury światła? 

Więcej, Schrödinger ponoć na podstawie natury woli, stworzył i rozjaśnił pojęcie genomu. Jednak nie za bardzo było wiadomo, gdzie ten genom się znajduje. Odkrywcy modelu cząstki DNA, czytali Schödingera i można powiedzieć, że swój trud i odkrycie zawdzęczają poprzednim badaczom. 

A przecież to wszystko wydawać by się mogło: wiedza religijna. 

Sam Krishnamurti jednak nie wierzył ani w buddyzm, ani teozofię, ani guru, ani stereotypy. Poucza on, że medytacja to nie jest forma religijnej modlitwy, a specjalnego rodzaju ćwiczenia. Ludzie myślą, że medytacja to rytuał religijny który sprawi, że siedząc zdobędziemy się na jakieś mistyczne doświadczenie, bądź uspokoimy się i w ten sposób będziemy praktykować zen. To blaga. Tu opis medytacji:

• So we are asking: what is meditation? And why one should meditate? Is it natural? Natural - you understand? Like breathing, like seeing, like hearing. Is it natural? And why have we made it so unnatural? Taking postures, following systems - Buddhist meditation, Tibetan meditation, Christian meditation - you understand? The Tantra meditations - you don't know them, perhaps, some of you may know, and the meditations set by your favourite guru - right? We are asking aren't all those really abnormal? Right? Are you following? Why should I take a certain position to meditate? Why should I practise, practise, practise, to arrive where? You understand my question? To follow a system: twenty minutes in the morning, twenty minutes in the afternoon, twenty minutes in the evening, to have a quiet mind? Having achieved a little quiet mind I can go off and do other mischief all day long. These are actual facts I am telling you.
•      Is there a way of meditating which is none of these things? You understand my question? Up till now we say meditation is to quieten the mind, first, to have a mind that is capable of observation. To have a mind that is completely centred - right? Completely concentrated - right? So that there is no thought except one thought. Right? One picture, one image, one centre upon which you are looking - right? I don't know if you have gone through all this? The speaker has played with them. For half an hour for each of these meditations, ten minutes, five minutes and they meant nothing.
•      So you have to go into this question: who is the controller and the controlled? You understand? Are you getting tired? Our whole life, if you observe is this: controlling and not controlling. Right? I must control my emotions, I must control my thinking. I can only control my thinking by constant practice. And to practise I must have a system. The system implies a mechanical process, making the mind mechanical, more and more and it is already mechanical now but we want to make it much more so that it gradually becomes more and more dull. We go through all this - right? Why? If you are meditating according to TM - right - or according to somebody else, why? Because you want to have an experience either through drugs, and you know drugs do you harm, therefore you put that aside, but by practising something you will experience something else - right?
•      I do not know if you have all gone into the question of experience; why human beings are demanding experience. Either the mind is asleep, therefore experience means a challenge - right? Or the mind is awake and therefore doesn't need an experience. I don't know if you are following this? So you have to find out if your mind is asleep, or bored with the experience that you have, sex, drugs, and all the rest of the experiences, you want something far beyond all that. Because you are always craving for experience, more delightful, more extravagant, the more communicable and all the rest of it. Why does the mind demand experience? Ask yourself please. There is only one thing: a mind that is very clear is free from all entanglements of attachments and so on, such a mind is a light to itself - right? Therefore it doesn't want an experience, there is nothing to experience. You cannot experience enlightenment. The very idea of experience, it is such a stupid thing to say, "I have achieved enlightenment" - it is really dishonest. You cannot experience truth because there must be an experiencer to experience - right? If there is no experiencer there is no experience at all. I wonder if you see that? But we are attached to our experiencer and therefore we are always asking more and more and more.
•      So meditation generally as is accepted now, is the practice of a system, breathing properly, sitting in the right position, the lotus position or whatever position you take, wanting or craving for greater experience, or the ultimate experience - right? This is what we are doing. And therefore all that is a constant struggle - right? A never ending struggle. This never ending struggle which is hoping to end all struggles. You understand? Look what we have done. I am struggling, struggling, struggling to end struggling, which is sometime in the future. Right? See what tricks I have played on myself. I am caught in time - right? I don't say, "Why should I struggle at all?" If I can end this struggle that is enlightenment. You understand? To have no shadow of conflict. But we do not want to make all those efforts. We are caught in time - right? And to be free of time is to be free to have pure observation, and then the mind becomes extraordinarily quiet. You don't have to make the mind quiet - you understand? If you end all conflict the mind naturally becomes quiet. And when the mind is absolutely silent, without any movement of thought, then perhaps you will see something, perhaps there is something sacred beyond all words. And this man has sought everlastingly, something that is beyond measure, beyond thought, which is incorruptible, unnameable, eternal That can only take place when the mind is absolutely free and completely silent.
•