Philosophy and art, two
seemingly very different disciplines of human spirit, match in terms of
purpose, method and contents. The difference is only indirect; expressive means
of philosophy is primarily speech, as well as articulation of particular experience,
then language; and the means of painting are - light and only next to it color.
Similarly, when it comes to speech and language, one should know that speech is
also basically intensity, and language may be arbitrary, because, just like
color, it expresses something quite different.
Treatment of intensity
is particularly important, which is the basis of any distinction. In painting
it is expressed as the difference between light-dark, and in speech as the
difference of speaking terms themselves, namely their "contents".
In painting there are
two basic ways of presenting differences. Those are lines and surfaces. Line
may vary its direction of propagation, its thickness and its shape. Line may be
straight, broken, rounded, ragged, thin, fat, and can combine all these
qualities in various combinations. Surface may be big or small, of certain
shape, as for example geometric figure, amorphous, more or less illuminated,
with varying or monotonous illumination, etc... Lines and surfaces can be
infinitely combined, but each must be considered as a special mean of
expression, although line can be understood as an abstracted surface.
So, what enables
painting is the intensity, i.e. the difference which is innate to intensity,
and the means of expressing this difference are lines and surfaces. All other
functions that can be added to the line or surface, with the exception of this
basic one, in representing certain intensity, are of ideological nature and as
such must be considered separately.
As in speech a special
meaning can be added to some word, like in "God is good", so the
premise of some kind of painting can be set as an axiom that light is
"good", i.e. that "the light is from God", which forms
connection between speech of words and speech of light, but we should not
forget that this definition is not innate to either speaking or painting terms.
A good example of such different treatment of painting can also be seen in
difference between the Renaissance and Byzantine art, and this difference I
will explain in particular. It should be known that both forms of painting were
founded in certain ideological positions and views.
If it is already clear
that intensity (as free activity of force) enables expression, as
differentiation, it only leaves to clarify what the light itself is. We can
freely say that light is the intensity, our sense of vision in such a way
interprets the intensity, but there is not anything like "pure light"
or, say, "pure white light". Light is always something special,
especially by intensity, sharpness, coloration. Since light describes each
spatial point, it also has to be different in each spatial point, and that only
by intensity and not by color, or otherwise that area would be revoked, its
different points would be converged into one.
This feature of light
exactly presents the base of painting ontology, because the term "pure
light" can easily be used as analogous to the concept of "pure
being", i.e. God, as something stripped of any distinction, therefore
extra-temporal and extra-spatial.
Byzantine painting is
precisely about this, the light is treated as "pouring out from God"
and what this light illuminates is created by God, and what it does not
illuminate, that is in shadows, does not belong to God's creation. In Byzantine
art, light is the building material of any existence, as a "divine"
one. Shadow, which in this art has a form defining function, is almost totally
linear in character and is maximally simplified. Here shadow is completely
unnatural and generally does not represent any non-illumination which we
encounter in nature. The dark line is simply a break, with the help of which it
is possible to distinguish God's images, not in spatial or temporal dimension,
i.e, not by the intensity, but only by God's will. Hereby it is expressively
emphasized that God's creations do not exist as causing and limiting each
other, but they exist only by their creator. This way of viewing things is
purely subjective and excludes any objectivity, since the world is not seen as
a sum of jolly abundance and differences, but as something unique and
essential, and any difference in itself is strongly indicated as unsubstantial.
In Renaissance painting,
the issue is completely reversed. Light is treated as objective, that is, as we
see it, in accordance with the laws of optics, i.e. science. Such treatment of
light is too of ideological nature. Namely, the light is viewed solely as
result of some previous process, for instance combustion, and so it is defined
as the difference in the relations of existing things. It is assumed that the
light simultaneously expresses the nature of things by transmitting information
about it, and still remains embedded in it, as something innate. Light is a
moving object, it is coming from certain source, then meets another object, and
that object partly absorbs it and partly reflects it. The basis of Renaissance
ontology is also "pure white light", but in this case, no thing is
entirely composed of light of God, as it is in the Byzantine ontology, but the
"quantity" of the divine varies in each of things. Renaissance
painting, therefore, describes a semi-world, world in semi-existence, a world
in which God is only partially present. Such a world is unredeemed world and is
a habitat for all sorts of fallen creatures, more or less good and more or less
bad. Such a description of the world occurs simultaneously in philosophy:
Leibniz's "Monadology" can be quoted as an obvious example of this
correspondence. According to Leibniz each monad sees a whole more or less
clearly, by which ability monads are classified into a hierarchy, the highest
in the hierarchy is the Supreme monad - God. In essence, such philosophy does
not see God as something outside of this world, but it brings Him down, nails
Him to its "top" or its "end", practically condemning Him
to infinite confinement within His own creation, which as being objective,
"acquires" the right of essential existence "together" with
God. Obviously, God is needed only to justify any possible existence.
Every serious philosophy
and every serious painting will not be based on such interpretation. When it
comes to Renaissance painting, and its influence in the following centuries,
many painters of the era do not fit into this ideology, but are being just
tendentiously categorized as its main proponents, mainly because they did adopt
an objective perspective as a means of expression.
In addition to
understanding that the basis of any painting is intensity, it is necessary to
consider the notion of perspective, as an interpretation of that which is
observed. Perspective is a vision of the world and it carries the intent and an
attempt to organize the observable world. But, what will be the organizing
principle of that world? Do we encounter here, again, another kind of ideology and
is there really a perspective "as such"? Man has two eyes, and their
position allows him to see the third dimension of space - depth. This view
enables an objective insight into the distribution of objects in the world.
Such an objective perspective was adopted as the policy in Renaissance
painting. In Byzantine painting, on the contrary, the use of such perspective
is minimal. Even the plasticity of characters in the Byzantine painting is
represented by other means, not by objective perspective. Also, allocation of
persons is such that, again, it denies or ignores the natural laws, or
space-time continuum, and its inherent cause-consequence conditioning, so that
there is neither something which is "ahead" or "behind"
something else, nor is any person limited or conditioned by another person.
Persons on frescoes appear each for themselves, and not in the crowd. Even when
they are next to each other, they must be considered separately. The subject of
Byzantine art is not abundance, but unity. Hence, a radically different
perspective. Perceptual basis of Byzantine art is God, i.e. a subject which
"sees" things only in relation to itself, and therefore such its
relationship with the "seen" is exactly penetration into the very
essence, while "objectivity" is neglected. Byzantine painting is
fully in function of this purpose and clearly highlights irrelevancy of
objective world. In objective painting, however, everything is as is given in
the world and God himself is dissolved in it. Subject observing such a picture
inevitably departs from itself and is lost to infinity marked as the purpose.
So, in this case the subject is in disappearance, and it sees its own
disappearance as a hierarchy of an organized world, and its place and role are
in maintaining such an impersonal participation.
What is impressive in
Renaissance art is the power of illusion. But we should know that illusion in
painting is only the means, not the purpose. Unfortunately, as in almost all
other disciplines that man developed, these two things are substituted, and
instead of human activity to serve the purpose of spirituality, it is used as a
means of manipulation.
In Byzantine painting,
however, what impresses most is the expressiveness, the way the artist
expresses, we could say, his spiritual experience. The very structure of
contents, of character, refers to the creative force that creates. Force is the
painting tool here, and it goes beyond ideological, religious plot, which
appears as an illusion, as the image itself. Belief that images are
myrrh-pouring probably has its source in this.
This element is also
highly expressed in the paintings of masters from the "other side",
but combined with the ideology of perspective, artists find different means to
express the same thing: since objectivity of looking must dominate, painter
applies constructive moment directly to the senses, stresses it over its
borders and thus abolishes precisely what is the most imposing as ideology.
Pavel Florensky criticized "Western" art because it is too
"juicy", as in Rembrandt's paintings or Bach's music. However, just
this excess of sensuality leads to the meditative effect, satiated senses
switch off and a metaphysical space is opened in which man encounters God.
Art can neither be criticized
nor justified by ideology.
Ideology is a set of
rules, an aggregate, and one can easily, over-paint it with one stroke,
demolish it. With Rembrandt, whose paintings have a lot of realism, pregnant
idealism, objectivity, all of that bows to sudden burst of light from an
unexpected source - what should simply reflect light, actually radiates it. In
his paintings Renaissance perspective is whirling, into a spiral, into golden
rain that falls on Danae, and from her Divinity speaks. From Rembrandt to Van
Gogh there is less than a half-step. Only, Van Gogh uses a wider palette, a
multitude of colors, which completely overcome the senses - remains the
expression itself, clean power which the spectator is facing.
It is clear from this
what the purpose of painting is, but a philosopher would have to find a word to
name it. But a word, as well as a grain of matter, itself alone means nothing.
It is important who speaks, is there someone out there, it is important what is
the word about. And just as painting does not explain the essence using line or
surface, so philosophy does not explain using words -- philosopher directs
words so that they, as they disappear, release meta-space or force, in which
all meanings exist, and all the answers. If for a painter it is the light of
golden color, or a line which disturbs the supposed order, for a philosopher it
is an eternal fire, but also complete quietness, as in Bach or Buddha, which
denotes the state where there is no perception - existence itself.
Heraclitus' dictum on
fire which ignites with measure and extinguishes with measure, or about corpses
which are best to be dumped out of the window, are also over-straining the
matter, just as the effect of fugue in music (or, say, like fierce
"chopping" in Beethoven's Fifth Symphony), or myriads of colors in
the paintings of Oscar Kokoschka, or the countless layers in Turner's
watercolors, or terminal precision of Durer's paintings, which are not just
"as" alive, but they rather directly discover life - only not as a
life of a painting. This somersault performed by artists, philosophers, is the
very quality which makes possible to fulfill the purpose of human activity,
transgression into the metaphysical sphere, into the very marrow of existence.
Hence the attempt to
find a "pure white light" ends so that one finds a condition in which
light is "darkness", the lack of perceptional experience of light.
And so in music, the "pure sound" is discovered as silence. In
philosophy, as well as in poetry, "pure word" reveals itself as
(The article was
published in Književne novine, no. 1121, Belgrade, 2005)
What are ideas?Where do they come from?What makes them? Human being is dipped
into the ocean of ideas and it would be good to learn into what it is being
involved and how to get the hell out of it.
First of all, it should
be understood, as any honest philosopher would, that all ideas go to Rome, they
spring in and out from common womb ― The Great Mother Idea, and they return to
her, after they have seen, indulged and/or became disgusted, with the world
they have created. It is a basic mistake
to believe that among ideas there is order, hierarchy, chain of command.Between themselves ideas
are in chaotic relationship, they are, at least apparently, in constant war, as
Heraclitus would say.I do not agree with the claim
that there exist some Supreme Idea, or God, or even worse ― good idea. My
experience tells me that ideas are, just like fire ― good servants but very bad
The “system” of ideas
has to be understood dynamically, very much like an ocean, it is up to us where
we will go and where we will arrive, which idea will be our cozy home or our
among ideas must learn to move fast, orient himself, learn which ideas are
nutrients, and which should be spat out like venom.
Ideas have common
properties, as well as uniqueness.First, one should learn what is
common for them all, and then this knowledge can be applied in each new
move in flocks, packs, herds, they go solitary or, like assassins, they wait in
ambush, jump on and murder the careless.There are ideas-sucubae, which
can easily seduce, use and discard us .There are ideas-whores, which
will charge us dearly for a night spent with them.Comforters, educators, naggers,
gardeners, drivers, cooks, tailors, fashion plates, singers, small time
Great nations had their
own philosophers and philosophies, and these, in turn, realized that the whole
world came from a principle.That principle, creator of the
world, is ― discernment.What discerns, is called sense.The act of sensing is
discerning. Then, in
order to establish articulated difference, one needs a number.Number is the means to mark the
the infinite aggregate of discerning.
some philosophers believed that the number itself was the principle, they tried
to use numbers to explain all world events.From those philosophers became ―
bankers. As philosophers they became bankrupt.The idea of number established
authority over them and took them to an infinite fiasco.And with them almost whole
the most notorious bankers are the Pythagorean and the Kabbalist.Bankers are the most persevering
in belief that each thing owes something to another, that debt is in the nature
of things, and this debt can be paid off, ad infinitum.Thus the idea of number became
the idea of debt slavery.In all, each idea which manages
to impose itself on man, does it by turning him into a slave.The idea of debt is the means of
the idea of number by which the latter manages to infinitely re-establish
itself at the position of Supreme Idea.
Idea is like a hundred
cut off one of its heads, a couple of them will spring in its place.They all work for each others
profit, even when it seems they are mortal enemies.There are ideological, religious
wars, but from them only people suffer, and ideas, even after they are defeated
and suffocated, can always resurrect― while people can't.
created an all seeing and omniscient God from the principle, are called
founders of religions, which they conceived as a system of ideas put together
in such manner so that man captured in it ― runs in circles believing to be doing the
right and good things, which are pleasing to God.And those systems-ideas serve
only one purpose ― their own survival at the expense of the faithful. Gods are
all cannibals. That's right ― one of
the common properties of ideas is ― cannibalism. In old and new mythologies,
the motive of cannibalism is often present.Myths became as caches of
knowledge and understanding, and they are maybe the safest place to preserve
insights which would, because of political incorrectness, fall out from well
thought ideological systems of reigning over human flesh.Myths are, actually, works of
art, which unlike philosophy and religion, express wisdom in an indirect,
subliminal way and thus survive unnoticed within human mind, popping out only
when man is, along with his experience, ripe enough to bring them to
The basic effect of
sensuality is organic life.The basic effect of organizing
is the state.The
basic effect of the state is the deficiency of cognitive ability ― ignorance. The
one who believes that these three aspects are the most important, will never
get rid of ignorance.He will never swim freely.Will always live in
dungeon, whither, dull, suffer.
Here on the scene comes
another common property of ideas ― promise, hope, boasting, advertising. Those
are the basic means of the rule of religious and political ideology.Better life is always promised,
since life in present is so difficult, is in crisis, etc, wealth promised at
the end of exhausting work or adventure, an award which never ever happens.This fraudulence,
pretense, slyness, whoring, vileness, viciousness, appears either sugar-coated
and perfumed or, as perverted threat, horrifying and blackmailing, bloodthirsty
any case, such work of ideas dominates human history.
technology and science contributed the most, along with the help of idea of
progress, to the strengthening of ideas' reign over humankind.First as the sweet promise of
the increased living standard and life expectancy, and then as a promise of
increased safety, to end it all, as is now almost complete, by using all
technological and scientific achievements to strengthen the fetters of
authority and to deprive people of the little freedom they still possess, after
the millennial perfection of political methodology.Idea does everything to secure
itself from its most dangerous enemy ― knowledge!
That's right, the
greatest enemy of idea is knowledge.
Idea, as it is pure
consciousness, contents, projection of reality, is by no means the effect of
cognitive insight, but is simply a vision with no other ground except in itself
― therefore another common property of idea ― self-justification,
self-importance, self-pity. But, by knowing the properties of ideas, man
acquires knowledge, the force with which he can resist and free himself from
Suckers believe that by
“widening consciousness” they will acquire greater freedom.That is not true.We are witnessing new
technologies, electronic multimedia, which do widen our consciousness, much
more than LSD, mescaline or some such agents ever could, but there is less and
less freedom, because this consciousness is occupied with the self-marketing
contents ― the most recent and very efficient form of slavery.
Instead of spreading
consciousness, I propose― increase of knowledge. Of such knowledge, like an
eye, which penetrates through the visible and there, in the background, sees
the invisible mechanism of the malefactor's rule.
Work is, believe it or
not, another common property of ideas.Work did not liberate man, on
the contrary, idea's work has been successfully, by using its self-promotion
and pretense, “sold” to man as “his own” most important and decisive property
of “evolutionary” ascendance towards the “top of the food chain” position.Thus the main idea's food
has been transformed into the main, but ― imaginary, predator.What an irony!Man has become a sheep which
believes to be a lion!
Well, even when people
understand that the means of work are what determines the way of life, the customs
and an all-out organization of human society and psyche, the final insight is
missing ― that it is just a way by which ideas, always appearing in newer and
more advanced forms and systems, tighten up their leashes and direct man
towards satisfaction of their own interest, their own survival.
Work, the means of work
as well as the products of work ― belong to ideas, not man. This is important to
know, otherwise it will stay in power of idea that the work created man (which
is true) and that one must work in order to live (which is also true).But, the truth is also that life
is a bad thing, that life is suffering, and therefore one doesn't have to live
(which is tricky to understand).
Since life is
organization of matter, and matter is just a consequence of differentiation,
the question is why would a free spirit, suddenly from its freedom, submit
itself to the infinite sequence of conditioning?
The answer to that
question will not be given to us by ideas, since self-preservation is in their
nature and they will not offer themselves to be sacrificed for the sake of someone
We are, for the ideas ―
aliens, fuel, food, and they are to us
father and mother ― does this really make sense? “Respect your parents”... thus
orders idea.And we
are obliged to execute orders, aren't we? Ideas lie.They take food we produced with
our hands and sweat, and then return us crumbs and demand us to say thanks
before meal.And to
feel guilty and as if barely deserving such mercy. We even have to feel proud for
deserving mercy to live another day and be useful. Indeed, one must be
stupid, and above all a coward, to agree to something like that.
That's right, cowardice
too is a common property of ideas.If we continue with this, there
will be a lot more common properties, and in the end each property of any idea
will be “common”.And
maybe it is so.Shall
we continue exploring?
In the same way a man
or animal choose what they will eat, so ideas choose people, leaving for
themselves the sweetest morsels, that means the stupid and dull, weak and
cowardly, and discard tart, hard, squirmy and disobedient ones.
That too is a common
property of ideas ― fussiness and pickiness, specialization. One idea can never
rule all, it always look for the “chosen ones”, for the herd of specific kind,
which will obediently follow it, serve it as a source of survival.There, you see, along with the
idea always goes ― the menu!
The Eternal War
I have already
mentioned the principle.Philosophers using deduction came
to it, that in the beginning there was One, and then this One fell apart ―
Bang! However, it is unclear why.I think this is simply an
not true that from the One became multitude (sea and sky, and like that).Such seeing is a
consequence of a habit to represent events as in time(line).One and multitude exist
simultaneously, in the present point, which actually means out-of-time.I claim this because I can
simultaneously observe things from both view points.This is possible because the
subject (personality) is mobile, while the world of multitude and singularity
exist independently from each other.And more, it is a matter of decision
to which of the two worlds will the subject incline, and it can surely decide ―
Difference between the
two worlds is not some imaginary line, although it can be represented in such a
difference is knowledge.The one who possesses knowledge
can roam from one to the other, instantly and effortlessly.The one who has no knowledge,
imprisoned inside the bubble of perception and ideas, and cannot leave it but,
like fly inside a jar, endlessly hits the invisible obstacle.Because what is invisible for
senses ― does not exist!
One and multitude are
in no space-time relationship.Their only connection and
difference is knowledge.There is no advancement from
point A into point B.There is no dissipation of the
world А so that it can constitute the world B.The relationship of the One,
which is abstract, and multitude, which is concrete, is knowledge, and
knowledge is discerning, dissolution, analysis, deconstruction, it doesn't
matter which expression you prefer, those are all synonyms.
So, how is it possible
that two worlds exist without being connected except through the subject which
is aware of them?
What kind of
personality is such subject?
Studying one and the
other world, the world of ignorance and the world of knowledge, since it all
comes to that, I came to the conclusion that it was the (analytical) method
which enabled the existence of the two extremes.Also, I realized that there is
no “struggle” between the two poles, no fight between good and evil, smart and
stupid ― nothing of the sort.
Fight or war, as
Heraclitus would say, exists only in the world of multitude which was born out
of eternal destruction, in accordance with the principle of discernment.The war indeed exists, but
there is no winner.Ancient sage was right.
Subject which carefully
observes the war, apart from suffering, since it is attached to the sensual
form ― the body, inevitably, because of
its focused attention (that is the condition), arrives to the cognition which
automatically frees it from the dependence on the cause-and-effect sequence of
events (karma) thereby terminating the suffering.Therefore, focused attention is
the decisive moment after which the subject acquires the ability to move
outside the bubble, since the knowledge it acquires does not belong to the
world dominated by impressions (affections).Knowledge is what prevents
conditioning, that which frees.Knowledge is anti-gravitation.
Where are ideas in all
this?What shall we
do with them, once we are free from their rule?Nothing.
We owe them nothing.There is no slavery.
Transfer of knowledge
On the road of
cognition (which doesn't exist, isn't it?)the initial problem is the
attempt to transfer the awakening of the subject to the surrounding world, to
doesn't really “work” and may present a constant source of frustration, often
simply cannot be transferred from subject to subject, there is no virus which
will infect other people with knowledge, there is no true danger of contagion
by knowledge. Persecution of truth-sayers by
truth-fighters is a common manipulation, there is no fear in the ruler that the
stupid masses will ever awaken. They only want to get rid of the disobedient,
and it is convenient to do that with lots of noise, persecuting those which are
the least capable of self defense, which also is a cheap way of fear mongering.So, many witches and
sorcerers were burnt on a stake, stoned or shot, while the real contagion was
by plague, dysentery, cholera, typhoid, tuberculosis, cancer and leuchemia, and
we know who and what created conditions for such nasty events. Dirt, misery, poverty,
undernourishment, ignorance, atom bomb, pesticides and asbestos.From the men of knowledge, one
could expect to do something useful about all that, but alas, reigning, not
betterment, always is the highest priority for the ideas.
Ideas even allow the
existence of the Other world , but it is them who decide who and how one is to
get there. And since it does not benefit them, because people paying attention
to themselves and the world around them inevitably escape the control, fake
systems of salvation are invented and imposed (religions, ideologies) with all
the necessary relics: rituals, calendars, menus, holidays, sermons, advises,
prayers, liturgies and saints, etc. Temples and sanctuaries are
built for the purpose of adoring and respecting the Supreme Idea, which had
taken the responsibility upon itself, isn't it so, to guide people to the
Other, Better world― only if they have deserved it with obedience and respect!
My experience is
opposed to that.Merit
for moving to the Other world is earned in a very different, simpler and much more
The only victim of
following that “way” are, no more and no less ― ideas!
Therefore, the only
true war (drama) is waged between the personality and ideas, since ideas are
intruders which have, thanks to their tricks and cunningness, succeeded to
establish rule over the majority of humankind.The war between ideas themselves
is not “for real”, because it is their inherent property ― they simulate it.Ideas mercilessly rush and
attack and our only defense from them is ― knowledge. Unfortunately, ignorant
people cannot resist them, they rather side with one or the other
(one-and-the-same) and become tools and weapons, victims and cannon fodder in
this dirty, eternal war.
Idea [IE root weid] Idea (Gr. eidos) is the same as sight, the seen,
projection, thought. In some old languages, to see means the same as to know.
Like “vedeti” as in Vedas.
Ideas appear in the
realms of thinking i.e. memory, projecting. Ideas become as consequences of
sensing, that is, perception, as forming / interpreting / organizing of data
(reason), which is the consequence of the effect (work) of discerning
are, thus, forms which can be dissolved (analyzed).
Idea (or ideas) is the
work of the principle (or of the idea
of principle), but also that which does the work, actually the only thing which
does the real work. There is no other real work except the work of the idea.The work of the idea is
the sum of its properties based on the conditioning of their relationship.Work of the idea produces
forms as itself.
There are many attempts
to identify ideas. One of the most common attempts comes to deduction from the
principle of discerning ― as in Pythagoras, lets say, or with Kabbalist. This
then ends as cataloging of different forms, ideas, and creating of categories.This is all, at least
partially, practically useful, but it by no means explains the existence of
idea and its nature. Idea is the universal
had the idea of the unmoved mover, which moves all things but is itself unmoved
(that would be a principle).Various interpretations of this
idea often incline towards justification of God i.e. the authority, and I will
not enter such speculations (Leibniz, Theodicy).
What idea puts in motion is the cause-effect sequence, action-reaction, karma.In other words, universal
mover is a principle by which one thing causes the other and so produces bad
infinity ― a bunch of ideas, manifest forms, which all permeate and devour each
other. In Spinoza
this is well explained since the means of existing in space is defined as
discerning, and that is the same as moving.(“Matter is in constant motion”, Lucretius). This can clearly be seen
in Zeno's aporia, where the measure is arbitrarily chosen as half the distance
between points А and B, but it is counted from the subject of movement (which
is equalized with point А), so the measure is constantly being halved in
relation to the initial one.Thus one falls into an infinite
sequence ― principle ― aporia. It is important to understand that establishing
measure is an act, and that this act is not conditioned ― that is an axiom. We know that mathematics is based
on axioms, arbitrary values, and this is often forgotten.The very act of deciding the
measure in the realm of abstract produces cause-effect sequence and turns the
abstract into the real (concrete). This is the same as an act of naming.
Properties of idea(s):
Work Work of the idea
relates to incessant recreation of projection within the sequence of transitory
being sacrificed for the idea, cause, homeland, family, party, etc.The source of work is the
principle of discerning.See.Meaning “The show must go on!”
Self-justification, self-defense, meaning, self-pity Idea defends itself
with all available means. Defense is activated by means of conditioned reaction
most commonly by causing certain emotion ― of being threatened, insulted. Of
course, idea will use people to defend itself, all people that are within its
there are uncountable examples of this practice.Defense of the idea is automated
action which is same as its essence, i.e. its work.Defense of the idea is always “reasonable”
and a reasonable man cannot disagree with it.
Example: (first time in
France 1242, then establishing Inquisition in Spain 1478) auto-da-fé is a ritual of
public penance in defense of Christianity in the name of which huge number of
people have been burnt at the stake. All states and other authoritarian
institutions use, in greater or smaller measure of cruelty, similar method.
As long as there is an
urge (most obvious in writers) to explain that which is being written, means
that idea still “works” i.e. defends itself by explaining itself.Writer should learn that this is
valid part of process of mastering the idea and should be able to recognize it,
and then wait until the full “explanation” comes to light, and then simply
delete it from the text.Only when idea is thoroughly
understood, it is “ripe” and one can play with it and include it into his
Survival, self-preservation Excuse that one must live, justifies existence of the
idea and all the means to achieve the goal.
Life Idea is life.Idea struggles to survive, to
reproduce (to project), to grow, to be immortal..
Presenting (projecting), advertising, marketing The effect of idea /
feeling / emotion on other subjects, trickery, violence, indoctrination,
contagion, propaganda.The whole humanity, today like
yesterday, is the battlefield of internal struggle between ideas and feelings. 
Self-importance, race, nobility, generosity In conjunction with the
survival the idea of self-importance is part of the justification of the use of
slaves are racial slaves. We are important as much as the idea we serve is
important to us.
Language Basic purpose of
language is camouflage, hiding the truth, expressing lies and seduction.Also, language is an
obstacle to real acting, because there is a demand for thing to be first resolved in language, and to do that it takes a
true philosopher not just anyone.Legal system serves that
the help of legal system, by using laws, attempts to “explain everything” and
to impose this explanation (legal order) by force, before or after the event.
Cowardice Fear of freedom
to say “No” to the idea, logic, order, etc.
Cannibalism Is explained by urge to
survive or belonging to superior race.
Faithfulness, loyalty, obligatoriness, obligation Feeling of faithfulness
(loyalty) does not allow freedom.Faithfulness is gawking into the
rules i.e. show.Faithfulness
is a variable because it can easily be expressed by the system of values.
Responsibility, obedience Idea demands
responsibility i.e. obedience, from its slaves.
Predatoriness Intrusiveness is the
same as gluttony.Ideas
adopt (eat) each other in order to survive.
Seduction and curiosity Combination of these
two definitely kills the cat.
Voracity, greed Ideas are work of the
principle and have no brakes.Therefore, they suffer from lack
Camouflage, hiding When the eye was
begotten, so was the predator.The consequence of that is the
whole arsenal of means of deception.Life is all about that.
Craftiness To ideas, craftiness
serves so they can pose as wise.
Politics All craftiness and
violence of ideas in one word.
Labeling, denunciation In a war between ideas
and personality, ideas always go against personality and personality goes against
Fascism Defense mechanism of an
Discouragement, absurdity, hopelessness Unlike cowardice,
discouragement (low morale) has special role in preventing any action which
would liberate man from suffering in life.When all the evil in the world
is seen, one inevitably comes to realization that nothing can be done about it.This is usually the end of
attempts to improve life, because any improvement of life leads to even greater
man must realize is that there is something like the realm outside life, in
which one can be free.
Punishing Idea punishes the
that, it either reassures or intimidates them.
Believing It is easier to believe
than to know.It
saves energy so badly needed for work.In contemporary civilization
working man has no time to think things through.Even his believing is simply
about fulfillment of obligations― it is believed that it “has to be”.
Telepathy, reading of thoughts Although ideas cannot
read thoughts, they strongly want it and instead they imagine they can do it.This is called ―
Hatred Hatred is an emotion
triggered by any threat to the idea.Typical is hatred of the good
slaves towards the bad, lazy, disobedient slaves, as well as towards anyone who
expresses intention to free slaves from slavery.Three minutes of hatred every
day raises morale and working enthusiasm of slaves.
Future Future is the favorite
projection of ideas; imagining nicer future is the expression of hope,
imagining ugly future is terrifying.Both have life as an assumption,
i.e. are advertising life.
History Ideas create history as
a collateral: all debt is historical fact.Debt slavery.
Censorship and self-censorship Oppressive mechanism
and automatic reaction (emotion of fear) that prevents the disclosure of truth.Since the rule of ideas is
secret, and public is a projection of order, all that disturbs the show is
forbidden. We have already said: analysis of reality is death to idea.
Secrecy, privacy Thoughts of the master
are public truth, and privacy of subjects limits authority.Therefore authority does
everything to enter with its senses into every corner of its domain.
Attention, struggle for attention Idea struggles for the
attention of “others” so that it can devour / adopt them.Attracting attention and
fascinating the prey is a strategic moment of this activity.In order to attract attention
all means are used, especially science and technology, pharmacology,
psychology, ideology, entertainment as well as rough intimidation.In nature, among living beings,
techniques of attracting attention are very much developed: members of one sex
are trying to attract attention of the other because it is the function of
mating, predators and prey have the whole repertoire of attracting or
Insulting Authority is insulted
when not respected.Lack of respect means debt
to appropriate, and it is insulted when someone or something refuses belonging
or obedience (loyalty).
Slavery Slavery is the way for the
meaningless to survive.Slavery is the first condition
of history ― the regulated system of the rule of ideas.
Laziness (inertia) Laziness is cozy
because matter doesn't like to move.Laziness is synonymous to
reason knowledge so terrifies is because of the possibility that it will move things
and force the body out of “balance” of intoxication with ignorance. Ignorance, laziness Ignorance survives
because knowledge has no ability to affect (to influence).Knowledge is dark matter, is not
conditioned, causes no reaction.Because of that, no matter how
much we shower the ignorant with facts, they will not react.Knowledge is dangerous only if
it appears from within, and it normally resides “inside” (sub conscious).The way to prevent this is
to constantly shower irrelevant information which busies attention and prevents
sinking into meditative state, which in turn brings man into the contact with
Blowback, counterrevolution, revenge Whenever an idea or
emotion are suppressed, vacuum is created and then one should expect
counterattack: attack of self-pity, discouragement, repentance, urge for
security; slavish adherence to safety position is advertized.This is the best moment for the
Devil to collect signatures on the Contract.
it is no longer the human that conceives the world; it is the un-human that
conceives us.” Jean Baudrillard
“I used to tweet but
it’s an act of futility. You’re
not really making any impact and if you find yourself in a mood when you wanna
be a bit controversial and you post something, you suddenly realise, ‘Oh my
God!’ because you’ve opened yourself up to criticism.” Sylvester Stallone
“This is what
“political” power comes down to today. It is no longer driven by any positive
will; it is merely a negative power of deterrence, of public health, of
security policing, immunity policing, prophylaxis.”Jean Baudrillard
“A man goes to knowledge as he goes to war, wide awake, with fear, with
respect, and with absolute assurance. Going to knowledge or going to war in any
other manner is a mistake, and whoever makes it will live to regret his steps.”Carlos Castaneda
“Nothing exists until it is
measured.” Niels Bohr
"Ideas are more powerful
than guns. We do not allow our enemies to have guns, why would we allow them to
have ideas?" "Everyone imposes
his own system as far as his army can reach". Joseph Stalin
“Wolf has right on sheep / like
tyrant on weak man” Njegoš