THE SIGNS OF FUTURE (AESTHETICS OF BEING) ESSENTIAL FOREWORD TO AESTHETICS OF BEING The Signs of Future is a continuation of my book Our

Time, Sphinx and Zenos Arrow (Aesthetics of Consciousness), published in 1993. In this foreword I would like to touch upon a few basic assumptions of the aesthetics of consciousness, without which hardly could a reader perceive aesthetics of being. In my books the meaning of the word aesthetics is different from its generally accepted definition. One of the interpretations of the Greek aisjesic is a trace left by an animal, which gives an experienced hunter an idea of this animal and ultimately leads Aesthetics is my method, with the aid of which I make philosophy. To conceive consciousness (and being too) in the light of aesthetics means to follow the traces of consciousness (everything in our selves and around us has got a token of consciousness) and to have a representation of consciousness on the basis of its trace. At the end, if we are lucky, we can find consciousness itself. During our tracing consciousness it becomes evident that consciousness exists through different times. I dont use the word time in its mathematical, i.e. linear or clock-face sense1, but rather as a principle, or a denotation of law, according to which a human being builds a world and his own life at different points of history.2 As aesthetics of consciousness has established, there are three determining principles of such time or aiwn: myth, chronicles and history. If we try to find the three worldview moulds of these times, we will discover the three systems of views, which correspond to each of them: traditional, religional and nationalistic. Each time comes to existence, ends and is replaced by the next one. As for the nature of consciousness, as a phenomenon, in the light of aesthetics it was characterized as a tragic one, i.e. something that is striving for its end, for catastrophe. In

1 2

Martin Heidegger used to call it vulgar time. Such definition of time is close to the meaning of the Greek aiwn, at least, as Heraclitus would use it.

the context of aesthetics of consciousness it has been attemped to discover internal links between the structure of tragedy and the fate of consciousness. The trace of consciousness leads us to language: it becomes evident that language is almost the main phenomenon, which, presumably, even determines the alteration of the forms (times) of consciousness. Aesthetics of consciousness defines language, as an already-happened, completed tragedy, which is now at rest and according to which our consciousness lives. Language aesthetics of consciousness says is a paradigm of consciousness, a plot of tragedy, in which consciousness is a protagonist. Times apper [to us] as the forms of consciousness that is to say phenomena, in which consciousness realizes itself. The contents of consciousness consist of those everyday (and not only everyday) actions and habits, which have characterized a human being from the day of his coming into existence and which have never been modified significantly (I call this phenomenon a ritual). The Ritual is universal and it has a capacity to assume the contents of any form, that is to say to make any shape its home. The forms of consciousness have different structures. Aesthetics defines four limitconcepts, which in different combinations make different structures of time. These include event, time, space and the subject. Event is the same at all three times it is something that is completed, finished (perhaps this is another phenomenon of the tragic nature of consciousness [language]). Myth is a combination of marginal notions, in which time is indefinite, space is definite and the subjects are several. Chronicles is an occurrence, when space is indefinite, time is definite and there is just one specific subject. History is a story, in which the subject is the univrsal that includes in itself both time and space and defines them out of itself. As we noted above, in our world these three forms realize themselves in a successive manner. Ultimately, with the occurrence of historical time the times come to an end, that is to say, all combinations of marginal notions exhaust themselves. This means that the way of the consciousness is getting closer to its end, to the catastrophe.

Exactly at the time when consciousness, at first glance, has to finish up and man has no choice but to look calmly (or otherwise) at his own end, aesthetics discovers two strange phenomena, two traces, which look different from the known imprints. These phenomena are fairy tale and play. In fairy tale, especially in its modern form fantasy aesthetics of consciousness perceives a different text, story, which is a wouldbe cornerstone of all forms of consciousness. In fairy tale one, several and general subjects may participate simultaneously and time and space may be definite or indefinite. Altogether it makes aesthetics of consciousness believe that fairy tale is the last formless form of consciousness, through which catastrophic time is denoted. The other phenomenon play is described by aesthetics as meta-ritual, i.e. preparation for ritual, existence, being. In the modern world one may observe the tendency of totalizing both fair tale and play. Aesthetics concludes that at catastrophic time meta-world (i.e. world-picture, that is to say the name of all worldviews) coincides with meta-ritual. For this reason the essential conflict of consciousness, the conflict between ritual and meta-world is resolved. By such coincidence consciousness becomes equal to itself or in other words, ceases: according to aesthetics of consciousness the cause of unceasing nature of consciousness and succession of times was the desire for coincidence of form with contents, the aspiration after their mutual-correspondence.3 This never happend in ritual because of its very nature. After coincidence, i.e. transformation of both modes of consciousness into something, which is meta, advancing no longer takes place. *** Such is the general scheme, in which aesthetics of consciousness resides. This scheme, like any schematic narrative, in general, loses much. On the other hand, it knows, though superficially, those basic points, which were passed by aesthetics during its following in the tracks of consciousness.
3

This enabled it to make some idea of

This is exactly the content of tragedy: the structure of tragedy is determined by aesthetic aspect of consciousness, as a longing for coincidance of the plot with the protagonist; this is what happens in the final section of tragedy.

consciousness, but failed to take a final grasp of it. Now we need to follow a different trace. We need to follow that, which in philosophical tradition has often been equated with consciousness, or has been defined as something very similar to it. Now aesthetics shifts the focus to Being. INTRODUCTION Indeed, in the beginning was merely Atman and nothing more. He thought: Now I will create worlds. He created worlds He thought: These are the worlds. Now I will create guardians of the world. (The Upanishades, Part I, 1-3). Initially was chaos. Chaos gave birth to a vast-breast Gea Tartaros was born from the depths of Gea, Eros From chaos originated Erebos and dark night. (Hessiodes, Theogony, 116-124). This is a story how everything was in a strange, obscure state; everything was silent, cold, immovable, calm; the skies were blank; there was neither a man, nor animals, nor birds, nor fishes, nor crabs, trees, caves, valleys, grasses, nor forests Nothing was combined yet There was nothing, which could have existed From nothing originated the Goddess Tepev, the Gods Kkukuman and Khurakan (Popol-Vukhi, Central America, Culture of Maya. Myths of the World Nations, Vol. 1, p. 520). All the above tales tell the story of the origination of the universe. All of them can be identified as the phenomenon, which is called cosmogonic myth. The continuations of the above passages, i.e. next sections of cosmogonic myths lead us back to ordinary world of myths. They describe a stable and fixed world, established as a result of contacts between the gods and/or men. When we described myth from the viewpoint of aesthetics of consciousness, we noted that it describes an event, which is beyond linear, clock-face time: this is a story in which several specific subjects participate; space is definite, while time is disregarded and indefinite.

Cosmogonic myth is called myth, but as we can see, it can not be confined to substantive definition of myth. Myth itself, as a certain story, can only be used in reference to that section, which describes creation of universal laws (myths). If we try to scrutinize the above fragments, we will see that each of them could be divided into the following two sections: first one represents a description of the state of things before creation of the universe ( in the beginning was merely Atman, everything was in a strange, obscure state, initially was chaos.). The other section tells the story of creation of the universe, being, or generally, the beginning of becoming. In the course of our pursuit of consciousness we saw that any story or incident may be described through three elements. These are time, space and the subject. Their different combinations provide us with all existing forms of story. If we try to approach the above two stories that are told in cosmogonic myths (except myth itself) from this viewpoint, we will discover that they are substantially different from each other. In the first story neither time, nor space, nor the subject is definite (that is to say all the three are equally definite), or rather the name of this universal definitiness, which encompasses everything that exists, is given (Atman, Chaos, Nothing). In other words, there is a comprehensive, general subject, which contains in itself everything, including time and space. The second story describes the commencement of becoming. The comprehensive subject either begins to make the world, or creates so-called assistants that afterwards create the world. In this story there is one subject, who acts: as the process of creation is a sequential one, time is definite, while space is not and is disregarded (to the extent that it is not necessary for the purpose of this story). From the viewpoint of aesthetics of consciousness the first section structurally coincides with the historical story, while the other one with chronicles.

As we can conclude, cosmogonic myth consists of three different stories, which can be described as history, chronicles and myth. combinations, which can be formed as a story. Cosmogonic myth gives us an opportunity to discover in it all three basic imprints of consciousness, but it is not merely a conglomerate of those three elements. Furthermore, it is a whole, in which three traces of consciousness are organically united and form just one trace of consciousness. If we need to describe this trace, we would have to say that cosmogonic myth is a story, in which time and space is either definite or indefinite; the subject is either general or specific; and the specific subject is either one or more than one. In the light of such a definition hardly could be possible to confine cosmogonic myth to any time at all. It encompasses all forms of time. For that reason it is impossible to define it by those means which are now at hand. The only right way is to examine, whether we have encountered anything similar to this story. Discovery of something similar to that should indicate, what does the existence of cosmogoniv myth mean for consciousness. For myth is the first complete and comprehensive worldview. During our chase after consciousness we accidentally discovered an imprint, which we put aside for a while. It was fairy tale, which in our time assumed a new literary appearance fantasy. In the Aethtetics of Being, the structure of this phenomenon, as a certain story, was described in the same manner as has cosmogonic myth been described right now. In fairy tale time and space are also either definite or indefinite; the subject is also either one specific, or several, or general (the struggle between good and evil, although to a certain extent ontologized, is a main theme of this literary form). Aesthetics of consciousness recognized it as the last arrangement, in which consciousness completes its journey and in which it is equated with itself. From this position we can note that this structure or form is not only a last harbor of our consciousness, but also its first and genuine home. In other words, it contains all three

Cosmogonic myth combines and gives common ground to those myths, which had existed prior to it. Cosmogonic myth is always created after the real myth. This truth, apart from the well-known phrase what is first for us4 is last for nature (Aristotle), is proved by empirical data as well: even in our time there are some tribes that do not have cosmogonic myths. For them the phenomenon of creation is confined merely to the knowledge of genesis of some things and creatures (e.g. the some indian tribes from South America). One may suppose, therefore, that the very structure of myth must contain an impulse that conditions the creation of cosmogonic myth. Aesthetics of consciousness teaches that myth realizes itself in traditionality in the same manner as chronicles do in religion and history - in nationalism. In other words, tradition is the form of empirical existence of myth: a man of mythological age conceives the universe as a traditional phenomenon, i.e. something which once happened and since then exists as a repetition.5 In other words, if transcendentally an event described in myth is a finished one, empirically it takes place over and over. In general, the reason for such transformation should be searched for in empiricity, but for this time we have to be content with the statement that the cause consists in temporal and spatial determination of the specific event. Therefore, in order to be complete, a mythological vision of the world needs a certain point in time, from which it will start acting. For this reason a story of chronicles is constructed, which establishes the ground for myths that have already become traditional, empirical, or realized. In that way myth becomes real and ultimately established although its origin removed before the existence of the world, it is still once - at a certain point of time. For a traditional worldview the universe is the entirety of traditions. Such an entirety is proved by establishing a common foundation. But even time and the sole subject need
4 5

For senses (G. T.). As an example we may mention time in the classical Greek understanding: the Greeks conceived it as an eternal circulation, a repetition of something that once had already taken place (see Platos Kritias).

their own place, i.e. the environment they stem from. To make sure that the principle of traditionalism is completely observed, a historical story is invented, which is nothing but an attempt of linguistic expression of the idea that before tradition, i.e. before the birth of tradition there was nothing. What is at work here is the very nature of language, according to which it is impossible to express nonbeing because of the verb to be. The only linguistic incident, when this is possible is the imagination of a maximally undifferentiated and peaceful environment, where because of the same nature of language the event and the subject are the same. Presumably such must be the process of the construction of cosmogonic myth. Later we will talk about why its creation is conditioned by an empirical phenomenon. But now I would like just to note that in order to have specific form of consciousness become full and comprehensive, it is necessary that structures alien to that form appear. This is exactly what happens with myth: when it becomes necessary that myth encompass time an element foreign to it, the process of creation of new structures begins. It could be supposed that this is the beginning of the end of time. The traditional worldview tells us: there was nothing before traditions, everything stems from the events which are described in myths. By doing this the traditional worldview makes focus on its comprehensiveness and certainty. But apparently it is exactly due to such comprehensiveness, completeness and ideologization of time that the transfer to a next principle of time becomes possible. This logic requires us to make a mythical assumption: cosmogonic myth is an archetype, which encompasses all possible versions of the picture of world. At the same time, its structural similarity with fairy tale makes us suppose that myth itself is the [last] possibility of the picture of the (whole) world. The last assumption is not only mythical, but also traditional one. Our way, which is just about to begin, is to find out the roots of this interesting compulsion.

PART I A NEW PERSONAGE

I
Approximately a decade ago in modern theoretical physics a certain structure was developed. Study of its elements and relationships between these elements became the main reference point of physicists. This was nothing but a scientific representation of cosmogony. They would say that initially there was nothing; that afterwards from nothing originated a super power, which was divided into four interactive powers. Everything results from the interaction of these powers. (Paul Davis, The Superpower, NY, 1986). As we can see, the scientific cosmogony established by theoretical physics absolutely coincides with the structure of cosmogonic myth. Furthermore, empirical conditions of the origination of both cosmogony of theoretical physics and those of myths are the same: the laws of universe studied by physics unite and find their ground in cosmogonic theory, like myths do the same in cosmogonic myth. As aesthetics of consciousness indicates, physics (and science in general) in our time is a result of the superiority of the historical principle. Indeed, the problem of cosmogony in this age is posed explicitely (cosmogonies of Kant and Laplace). This means that the historical principle must also have the grounds for the fabrication of cosmogonic story, like myths do. A historical story is an event, which takes place in time and space. In other words, there is a comprehensive subject that contains these two parameters. This is the first story we discovered in cosmogonic myth. Here an empirical, in this case a nationalist factor starts working, which tells us that: 1) the subject is the oldest one; and 2) this subject gave birth to everything or, in other words, the comprehensive subject requires comprehensive history. Thats why this subject originates the basic elements of the universe (the second story), which in turn originate the whole universe (the third story). As we can see, here

like in the case of myth the cosmogonic story is created by an empirical mode of the principle of time. (In this respect it is natural to raise a question about the time of chronicles, i.e. of religion, as the religious world-picture also implies all three stories: e.g. the 1st story: in the beginning was the Word; the 2nd story: creation of the world and other related topics, Gods incarnation or sending of apostole; and the 3rd story: the way of life, as is stipulated by transformation). As we have described above, science originates in historical time, as the study of the genesis of an object. At the same time, it is a mission of science to give us a full picture of the world. In the meantime, according to Lock, the scientific world-picture is the knowledge of the worlds genesis. The purpose of science, therefore, is nothing but resolution of the cosmogonic problem. This principle is most clearly visible in physics: it began by establishing the laws of nature; later, when these laws became more or less known, the reflection about the origins of these laws, i.e. genesis of the world began. In our time raising the problem of cosmogony, when the modeling of the origins of universe takes place,6 means that this science is standing vis-a-vis a limit question. In other words, physics as science has coincided with itself. Indeed, cosmogonic question is the last question, because there is no question beyond it. The question peculiar to science (and, in general, any question) is the question about something that already exists. On the other hand, in this way the question itself circumscribes the area of possible answers. In other words, science raises question only concerning being, existence that has already been. So long as physics raises question about the origins of existence, it is no longer able to go beyond it, that is to say, to find out what has been before. [By putting the cosmogonic question science approaches] the realm of nothingness, which, as Heidegger says, is disregarded and covered up by science (see his What is Metaphysics?). That the fate of this branch of science could really be such is predicted by aesthetics of consciousness. As we remember, it describes the directionality of consciousness as its desire to coincide with itself (as soon as it reaches the aim, i.e. coincides with itself, it

Physics, as a whole, was called on to study the great explosion.

10

stops moving). As we see, this is very well expressed in one of ots modes in the science of physics. That our investigation has been on the right track is proved by the fact that this field of science is becoming meta-experimental, for instead of studying empirical data by means of experiments, it investigates the origins of laws by using invented experiments, whose results can not prove unambiguausly the existence of similar processes in nature. If we are allowed to consider this science as a combination of myth and ritual ritual in this case is the experiment, while myth is the law we can see that both of them have acquired the prefix meta: meta-myth through realistic posing of the cosmogonic problem, while meta-ritual through the fundamental modification of traditional experiment with the old dichotomy of the observer and the observed. Just like in cases of deriving cosmogonic myth from myth and cosmogonic problem from history, here we also encounter the phenomenon of meta-ization. One could to suppose that like the cases of specific revelations of generalities (myth, chronicles, history) one should look for the reason in the empirical world. We have already demonstrated the fate of science on the example of physics. But is this example the universal one? Contemporary philosophy when dealing with science, by way of illustration, as a rule, gives examples of physics and mathematics. Of course, so long as the consciousness is concerned, there should be grounds for this. But it is our task to examine science in all possible modes. Physics perfectly matches the tasks and methods of the science of origins. But what about the other sciences? In this regard only mathematics could be mated with physics. This science in our environment studies the common ground of its own laws (to be proved right by empirical data) and tries to construct unified building (Klein: The Loss of Definitiveness, Moscow, 1984). purpose of science. We, therefore, should be allowed to say that mathematics has also turned into a meta-science and that it is also the loyal of the original

11

In the meantime, other sciences give an absolutely different picture: chemistry, biology, humanities and social sciences in the course of their development have lost the aim, referred to as the study of the worlds genesis (some of them have even never set such an aim, as they originated later, by analogy with the already aimless sciences). At the same time, the method, consisting in the knowledge of the objects genesis, remains the same. All these sciences are oriented towards something empirical, given. They study this giveness and learn/teach how to apply it best. In reality studying the genesis of the world has never been the purpose of these sciences. If we try to look at science from the historical standpoint, we can see that it has been developing in two basic directions, those of Lock (knowledge the genesis of the object) and Francis Bacon (knowledge is power). These two directions are present in every science. But depending on the prevalence of one of them, the specific nature of the science in question is determined. Of course, achievements of physics and mathematics are applied in practice, but such an application is not the primary purpose of these sciences. As for the sciences such as cybernetics, biology, philology or sociology, they are striving for the full domination and modification of their respective subject matters. Of course, some attempts of raising the question of genesis in the context of these sciences may be observed from time to time, but still the application of their results remains to be their primary objective. Now we arrived at the point where the phenomena of our time that we have considered an integral and indivisible one so far, is divided into two branches: up to now, while considering the nature of science, we have kept in mind Locks philosophy. It turns out now that Bacons worlds ideas are of no less importance. The mathematical/physical or theoretical path of the science has been in perfect harmony with the time when it appeared. However, the other direction, which conventionally might be referred to as practical, does not seem to belong merely to the domain of historical time (up to now only formally).

12

The history of science appears as something that stems from the ancient past. The mythological/canonic roots of this prejudice were demonstrated by aesthetics of consciousness. The role of historical time in the formation of such a representation is also evident. But there is one more reason (factor) because of which science assumes such an appearence. This reason consists in the facts, which owing to their factual nature are empirical and which clearly tell the story of the state of science. In other words, they provide information about the power of science or knowledge at period of time (say irrigation systems or war machines). As we can see, the empirical this or that invades into evolution of science and expands its boundaries. Something similar happens to its paradigm history, with the very similar results. We dont know what this factor could be named in the context of time or what this factor is at all. However, in the course of our discussions about science we almost got in touch with the name or mode of this factor. This is technology. Indeed the empirical material, which, on the one hand, forces the history of science to shift the begining of science to the origins of civilization, and, on the other hand, tries to introduce into science the phenomen which do not aim at science, is nothing but technology and technological activity, a phenomenon contemporary environment results from. Technology is the starting point of our next steps.

II
Before embarking on the task of defining technology, let us say few words about the general method of definition used in our environment. As a general rule, any particular thing is defined through the universal. In other words, each item is included into the universal. If we take a look at the history of the notion of the universal, we can observe an interesting pattern. The notion of universal was first introduced by the platonists. They would say that universal is an ideal object, whose specific examples are existent. In this context, universal is a phenomenon based on the descriptions of specific things, with which we perceive in our everyday life. Such a definition of universal remained with Platos disciples and has not been developed. Aristotle, in his Metaphysics, strictly criticized such an approach and proposed another definition of universal. He said that 13

universal is a predicate, i.e. something, which is not the particular thing, but which is charasteristic to that thing. In short, universal is the property of things. This definition of universal proved to be fruitful one. Since then whole logic has been derived from this premise. At first glance both definitions seem unpretentious and neutral. But in reality such a change played one of the most important roles in the development of the European civilization. When we say that there is an idea of horse and every specific horse is the instance of this idea, we assume that horse has its own, independent substance and that this substance may differently completely or incompletely be expressed in different things. Such an approach tells us that all things, particulars have their independent essence and meaning. Aristotles predicative definition of universal implies that universal is nothing but the predicate. In other words, universal is something by which the particular may be Any property itself is nothing but the characterized. If we are allowed to paraphrase the well-known expression, we can say that things are complexes of properties. expression/appearence of this property, that is to say, each property exists as a relation. Such an approach implies that no existing thing has its own meaning, but instead all things exist to the extent that they perform certain functions. For example, a chair performs the function of chairness, a horse that of horseness and so forth. It is noteworthy that these functions are to be performed in relation to man. In other words, the definition of universal as a predicate groups the world around a human being and attributes to it a certain function. This does not mean, however, that the first definition of universal was forgotten altogether. Many examples opposite to this assumption could be found throughout the history of culture. Goethes desire to draw the picture of the original plant is one of such examples. Presumably the very first zoological classifications were based on the Platonic understanding of universal. But logic, which asserts that it studies correct reasoning, accepts only the second, i.e. Aristotelian definition. (Although in the context of this theory it is quite possible to accept the existence of the universals, this is not likely to alter significantly the state of affairs. It is exactly the predicative understanding

14

of universal that prompted Schopenhauer to say that Platos ideas are, in fact, the idea of one man. See his The World as Will and Represantation). If we resort to the distinction made by Schopenhauer, we should put the similar question: if there are two kinds of things in our world natural and artificial what about their universals? Schopenhauer found a simple answer to that question: he said artificial things do not have ideas. If we look at that situation from our standpoint, we can see the following picture: a man creates things on purpose. In other words, he wants them to perform certain functions. Hardly could any single item of humans work be found, which does not have to carry, at least, a functional burden. Conversely, natural things are multi-functional ones, as long as they have life as their characteristic. As the world history indicates, human being began to destroy the living world and to replace it by functional artifacts created by him. Any artificial thing is nothing but a function attributed to it. But in case of the living nature the state of things is different. We can even to say that as recently as yesterday one was able to see there the particular having its own essence. Having reached in destroying the nature a certain point man realized that the ruin of nature would inevitably result in his destruction. And he began to restore it, but now the nature presented itself as something, which bears a certain function. If one day a humane idea of mankind is fulfilled and animals are back to the restored forests, it will no longer be the old, living nature, but merely the phenomenon assigned to perform a certain function. Biology, a field of science designed to study life, is also trying to direct life to perform a certain function. Both genetics and physiology aim to transform life into a functional phenomenon. Even ethology, which at first glance seems to have nothing to do with application and represents merely an uninterested observance of animals existence, has a tendency to define an animal according to its behavior, i.e. function. If one day the objective of this science is achieved equilibrium in the nature is restored and the animals are back again, they will no longer be natural living beings, but merely bearers of the function of preserving of equilibrium in the nature.

15

From a different standpoint such universal functionalization has an implication that the universal is getting more and more concrete and that Platonic ideas are gradually fading. Functions are turning into physical objects and each function, i.e. predicate is presenting itself as a tangible object. Everything surrounding us is becoming functionally existent. This means that an object, a being, an existent is becoming functional that is to say a bearer of a certain function. Now its essence is to do something. In other words, a being is losing the universal itself, i.e. its definition. In our historical or scientific age such losing perhaps has already been evaluated as something progressive in the way to creation of the scientific world-picture. But this is the matter of worldview rather than philosophy. Through such functionalization man is assuming his new direct job to make and establish paradigms. Man is no longer making things, but he is making functions, qualities, and relations instead. Thats why our primary object is to identify this existence, which has become a determinant of everything. In order to understand what functional existence is, we must see what is there in our environment, which if not completely, at least, primarily is defined as performing function. Being in this sense denotes the state where a phenomenon is only directed towards performing a certain function and its essence is defined as its function. Such a phenomenon follows human being since the very beginning of his existence. This is technology, i.e. those things or tools, which are made by man to facilitate his work and life, in general. All so-called functional items have functional nature: a hoe and a spear are defined as tools to be used for certain purposes; everything else their shape, material they are made of and so on is insignificant. A tractor and a rifle could be defined in the same manner. This means that the function a technological object performs is an essential determinant of that object. (We may be told that a spear exhibited in the museum has its own, quite different aesthetic value. But the very reason for which this spear is exhibited in the museum is that it is a historical tool, rather than a piece of iron.).

16

But technology is not merely a physical object and the ways of its expression are not confined to tangibility alone. Technology is a method with the aid of which man makes something with much more ease (i.e. at less cost) than he would without such a method. In most cases technology as a method (technique) and technology as an object are side by side all technological objects require a certain method in order to be applied. In our time technology is getting more comprehensive. In addition to the fact that our environment is flooded with different machinery and technological tools, even ordinary, everyday actions of man are getting technologized, in other words, each our step is matched with a certain method. In our time everything has got its own technology: sex, relaxation, breathing, friendship. All these tell us that man is turning into a technological subject. Technology is aimed at encompassing and absorbing everything. The old, banal phrase that machine is about to replace man is not far from truth. Indeed, computer, a culmination of technology, is a multifunctional machine. At the same time, technology is the simplification of action. Computer meets both requirements: here different functions are based on a sole and simple principle, which is the foundation of computers brain. It may seem that we have already found an answer to the question what the functional existence is, but in fact this is a merely superficial, so-called culturological description of the problem. We must follow the trace of technology further, if we would like to see what is the cause of such a situation. Technology amounts to functional existence. The function, which is performed by

technology, is the mans previous action. To create a technological phenomenon, man should alienate or separate himself from his own actions, to keep himself aloof and make of his earlier actions an object, a method. This means that technology is meta-, or something that meta-izes or is meta-ing. In other words, technology is something that repeats the mans actions, i.e. it is meta-ritual. When we described the mans activity in the light of aesthetics of consciousness, we used in reference to it the word ritual, because of its quality to be repeated and retain its

17

sameness. Ritual, as a repetition, or making rule of ordinary actions is also meta-. If the rules (rituals) of the mans actions were not meta-, the man would have to take new actions over and over. The animals existence could have been described in the same manner. It appears, therefore, that the very contents of existence the notion of ritual refers to is meta-. On the other hand, if we would like to get the idea of the world, the universe, even the least neutral consideration (at least, because we are making our judgement) would depict our place as a system, or a complex of systems, or consciousness. These systems, as we have found out when we were looking for our place, are incorporated in each other. It would be justifiable, therefore, to use meta- in reference to the principle of the world [universe] as it exists for us. Each system is metain relation to something else. Even if there were such a system that does not include some other system, still it would be meta- in relation to concrete existence. The above assumptions drive us to the point that there is nothing in our world, which is not meta-. It may seem that meta-ization needs some mental efforts, but as is shown above, such operations are required to achieve a diametrically opposite aim to look into a pure action. As we can see, nothing significant has changed in the characterization of the natural environment. As aesthetics of consciousness told us, such existence (animal-nature) is described as harmonic or the meta-action, i.e. the meta-world. As to a mans existence, in this case it appears as a relation between the meta-action and the meta-world, in which the meta-action (ritual) is striving for getting a meta-meta-action, or a meta-ritual, to be equal to the meta-meta-world. Shifting the focus of aesthetics to this direction made us realize that meta- or technology is a comprehensive and omnipresent phenomenon. Now we have to deal with this universal principle.

18

III
As we can see, meta is a factor which discloses itself in every mode of existence. It can not be attributed either to the nature or to human being exclusively. Hence, we fully have the right to call the Being meta, which means, that the name of being is technology. The reason for that assumption is that in our world technology is the only phenomenon, which completely and without remainder could be described as meta-ization. On the other hand, the word technology is used referring to the capacity of a man to achieve the condition of meta-ritual, that is to say, the coincidence of the content and the form of consciousness. In addition, technology is the tool with the aid of which man makes of the nature something technical, i.e. something that has a certain function. In this regard one should note that technization or meta-ization is also granting a certain function to that, which is meta-ized. Meta-ization always takes place for some purpose. That is why like meta-ization, functionalization should also be sought in the nature of being. In this context it should be noted that the so-called utilitarian approach, which is so prevalent in our environment, is derived from the nature of being. Above we have raised the question about something empirical, which causes the totallization of the principle of time and by doing this assumes an appearance of a certain worldview. It seems to be the question about being. Every principle of time is totalized by meta-ization. The principle of myth is the very first meta-, which ever takes place. Thats why it cannot be distinguished from ritual. Both are based on the principle of repetition. It can be said, therefore, that first the world is given only as a myth. Metaization of myth results in the chronicles. In other words, traditional worldview is a result of meta-ization. But as long as meta- is being, it should go its way up to the end: history and ultimately cosmogonic myth is the next and essentially the last form of meta-ization. The next time aesthetics of consciousness pointed at is that of chronicles. In also this case the cosmogonic story is given in its entirety, but it seems that the chronicles is totalized. For this time the principle of chronicles steps into the spotlight 7, meta-ization of which results in a religious worldview. Afterwards, in consequence of the meta-ization of history, we get nationalism.
7

As aesthetics of consciousness demonstrated, such stepping is conditioned by the nature of language.

19

As we can see, being with the aid of technology is striving for embracing everything. To use traditional concepts, being is not something that is, but rather something that ought to be. In other words, it is an essence, which ought to be, with an exception that unlike the usual meaning of this concept, it is an essence that will definitely be. This being is gradually penetrating into everything and is trying to absorb step by step the contents of consciousness, i.e. the everyday actions of man. endeavors to finalize the initiated meta-ization. As for the form of consciousness, i.e. the meta-world, here meta-ization has already been completed. As we have mentioned, myth is given first. Thats why it should not be apprehended as meta (although it is already meta), but rather as an empirical fact. A new meta, formed as a consequence of its double meta-ization, no longer produces a new form. That would be nothing but a repetition of meta-meta. The times, therefore, exist only as a means for totalized and omnipresent being, and they force man to meta-ize until the end. On the other hand, the very reason for the existence of time is nothing but the capacity of human being to meta-ize, i.e. to assign functions. If we presume that man techn-izes the meta-meta world, i.e. separates actions from it and assigns certain functions (in this particular case these are worldview functions) to them, the being of times becomes understandable. Meta- is the essence of mans existence. All his actions, whether mental or empirical, are based on meta-. (In other words, everything is implemented by virtue of technology, rather than nature.). Even the most familiar actions, such as domestication of animals at the dawn of mankind should not have happened through a direct contact, but rather through the sacralization of a wild animal and then the vulgarization of the sacred one. This assumption can be proved by both material data and cultural tradition of considering all wild and domestic animals as sacred ones. All these have an implication that meta- is the phenomenon, from which the human existence receives it form.. In other words, it

20

Technology is something that is universal and ubiquitous.

But as aesthetics of

consciousness pointed out, there is a certain phenomenon in our environment, which essentially coincides with technology. This is play. Play, like technology, can be described as meta-ritual. This means that the definitions of technology and game are identical in functional terms. What we have described as play, now appears as technology. In the context of the abovestated this becomes acceptable. If technology (meta-) is the primary mode of being in our environment, it comes as no surprise that living being is getting prepared for being with the aid of technology. When we, from the functional viewpoint, defined game as metaritual, we were keeping in mind the preparation for existence, the refining and testing of rituals. This methodological exercise accords altogether with those contents of being, which we have discerned through technology. The technological nature of play is also proved by the fact that modern games are getting more and more technological. In our time hardly could be found such a game, which would lack a technological expression. Out of the existing phenomena play is the only one of which I am not able to say that it has been penetrated by technology, like both the other actions of man and the nature. Play, from our standpoint, is an initial metaphenomenon and, therefore, technology. modern world becomes understandable. If technology in our time becomes omnipresent, that is to say if the meta-meta-action and the meta-meta-world are the same and technology penetrates into everything, everything ought to be described as a technological phenomena. This is exactly what happens: our existence, politics, language, relationships, and so forth everything is referred to as the game. The relationship between game and technology might be represented in two ways: first, game is the mode of being, its manifestation, its principle. But in this particular case its function is undetermined; technology is more comprehensive and does not require that game, as a separate phenomenon be distinguished. On the other hand, if we say that In this context the boom of games in the

21

game is a secondary matter in relation to technology, we will still be wrong: both immanent wholeness of game and its omnipresence from the standpoint of modern empirical consciousness are strong factors to oppose to such an assumption. As aesthetics of consciousness teaches, everything that is represented by empirical consciousness has its basis, which should be discovered in the trace of consciousness. The last presumption points at the second possible scenario: that game is something different, a new unknown quantity, which still needs to be identified and scrutinized. At first glance this is needless. If meta is being, then game, as an originator of being is quite acceptable. In this case we might be allowed to convert the relation technology/game into the opposite and state that technology is a further manifestation of game and the name and mode of being. But this would be a repetition of what was stated above. If we try to make one more abstraction and imagine that game is the game of initiating existence and nothing else is existent at the time of such initiation; if we further imagine that we are watching the very first game, which repeats or refines nothing, we may get an absolutely different picture, which will put us on a very interesting track.

Addition: The Conclusions for Philosophical Experience We stated that being could be characterized as meta- and described the most distinct mode of it, technology. But both indications are far from being sufficient: the first one is too abstract and fails to tell us what is being; the other one, on the contrary, is too specific and, therefore, unusable prompts confusing associations. That is why for the purposes of marginal description of being a middle point should be found, which would circumscribe those boundaries within which being is to be apprehended, as it did while describing consciousness. Being is meta-. This means that it makes everything exist as meta-. In other words, if we are willing to say something about the original state of things, we must presume that they had not started existing as originals or as themselves, but rather as meta-s. But it is impossible to imagine this. It is impossible to imagine that meta-being precedes 22

being. It is impossible because the common sense opposes this assumption by all available means. after that. But if being, which is nothing but the being of all existent or the way of being, is meta-, then the picture looks different. (Another factor which prevents us from understanding being as meta- is that being in the philosophical tradition is conceived as an origin, and it is absolutely impossible to imagine meta- as the origin.). If we translate the above-stated into the language of traditional (classical Hegelian) philosophy, we will see that the first for the phenomenology of spirit is not being in itself, but rather alienated being. More modern philosophy, in turn, says that among the beings the authentic is the most furthest from being among beings. As aesthetics of consciousness pointed out, the tradition of presenting being as the origin is a result of historical time, that is to say, it is based on the principle of time altogether. But, at least, for a good reflection, if not for an imagination, it would be reasonable to trace meta- to the end. According to a universally accepted belief, meta- is something, which is beyond. The passing beyond like this is something that encompasses even the area beyond which you are passing. Metaphysics is the meta-, which includes physics too, as something derivative of metaphysics. Meta-science, which is used by many referring to philosophy, is a teaching that contains science, as a derivative of meta-science. Thus, meta-, as it might be discerned in the relevant words, is directed to something that is to be meta-ized. Such a relation results in the fixing and distinguishing of the meta-ized object. Based on this definition of meta- we may state that any definition is meta- in relation to the object that is to be meta-ized. For example, the expression man is a tool making animal is meta- in relation to man. Therefore, what really matters in any definition is not that each definition circumscribes the definiendum, but rather that each definition is meta in relation to that definiendum. In other words, each definition gives the definiendum a For an empirical mentality an object always comes first by its independent existence and all influences on it, including meta-ization take place only

23

meaning.

Only after that is the meaning circumscribed by its boundaries and is

separated from the other meanings (Bedeutung rather than Geltung). On this basis we can already say what meta or meaning is. Being is a meaning (giving a meaning). Being is nothing but meaning. Such a reference to being enables us to transcend a margin, which has always annoyed philosophy, a boundary between the possible, real existence and thousands of other existences. This relation tells us that only that can exist which has meaning. In other words, being resides only there, where some meaning is present. In response to that assertion we might be told that saying this does not requiers to comlicate the things so much. But, on the one hand, as Heidegger says, we encounter being every day, thats why we never recognize it; on the other hand, all the above-stated was needed to comprehend being as a meaning and to avoid confusing it with certainty. Such a description of being has an implication that the giving of meaning is the remotest point, which can be reached by the reference to being. The most complete definitions known over the history of philosophic developments confirm the same: Hegels philosophy, which defines existence as an unity of being for itself and being for others, is nothing but the definition of meaning, which, like a margin, limit is for itself and for others coincidentally. Heideggers philosophy, which is looking for means of expressing being through being being and Ereignis, is nothing but an attempt to say exactly that an existent exists only as the meaning, which is attached to it at a given time. Consequently, when we say that the world may be considered as an order, an array of meta-s, we say that the world is a complex of meanings. When we say that man first discerns the world as meta- (e.g. as a sacred one) and only after that he domesticates it, we mean that the very first thing man encounters is meta and then, after further metaization of what he encounters, he gets closer with it and to a certain extent even de-metaizes it. In other words, man deprives the object of its meaning and afterwards, with the aid of technology, he confers back meaning to that object.

24

If we are willing to get back to historical consciousness, we should say that the first arrangement of man and his environment is his relation to being, or meaning. By appropriation or assimilation of the world man eventually deprives it of its meaning, that is to say being, and by doing this he places himself under risk, as the destruction of being will inevitably lead to the destruction of mankind as well. Such a risk can be well manifested in the possibility of the ecological catastrophe. After that man starts attributing the meaning to the environment once again and thereby he drives being back to its own milieu. This means that being, or the confering of meaning acts in two ways: on the one hand, it is due to it that meaning is expelled from the environment and in doing this being is assisted by technology, which makes everything that is not technology insignificant; on the other hand, with the aid of the same technology the meaning is back in place. In other words, being acting through its two modes is acting in two ways and both ways come together in man: on the one hand man becomes a technological subject and, on the other hand, the environment results form technology, i.e. it becomes a functionally existent one. Furthermore, it becomes a functional entity in relation to man. By doing this, being coincides with itself, as meaning. The whole world is striving for that and eventually, like consciousness, being comes to its end. Such a definition of being leads us to one more important point: when in the light of aesthetics of consciousness we tried to give a marginal description of the world, it was equated with the consciousness. Now, when we described being on a marginal basis, we wound out that it can be characterized as a meaning. This means that if the consciousness is a system, and we know that any system is an arrangement of meta-s, the world as consciousness exists by virtue of meanings. In other words, what gives the world an opportunity to be, is those meanings by virtue of which the world as consciousness is given. Beyond that the consciousness in which we live and within the limits of which we are reasoning is not likely to go. But how about the forms of consciousness in this case? As we have seen, meta plays an important role in this regard.

25

If we use the above descriptions as a starting point, we can see that the arrangement we have discovered remains viable from this standpoint too. As we stated above, each form has an inclination to be meta-ized in a cosmogonic story. This means that every specific form of consciousness, as a result of meta-ization, loses its meaning, that is to say, a mythical form is a first giveness - meta without meta-ization. The next meta, as we have noted, deprives it of its meaning and makes it assimilated, familiar and accustomed to. (We have said that meta [being] is the giving of meaning. To the extent that the forms of consciousness are concerned, when we say that meta-ization results in the loss of meaning, this arrangement looks like this: any being has already become meta-, so long as man has been meta-izing it. The very first giveness, as we have noted, is meta (mythical form), which, as a result of meta-ization, loses its meaning. This means that in this case, meta-action takes place in relation to meta rather than any indeterminacy. In the case of the action the meaning is conferres upon meata (through meta-meta) and the meaning attributed by the latter is annihilated. The reason for such annihilation is that as a result of the first meta-ization [in cosmogonic myth] metas meaning steps into the spotlight, that is to say, meta assumes the meaning. Such an arrangement, in turn, points at the moment when meta becomes a characteristic of human Dasein). From this viewpoint it becomes understandable why it happens that with the origin of cosmogonic myth the existing form starts disappearing. It is disappearing as something, which is meaningless and domesticated. No wonder that after that the meaning shifts to a next story. After the domestication of this story, historical story steps into spotlight and the same event occurs again. Here one more point becomes comprehendible: it appears that the annihilation, i.e. discharge of meaning, or domestication of being is necessary for being to accomplish its aim first of all, to encompass the consciousness. The reason for the origination of cosmogonic myth must be the same double met-ization, i.e. the completion of meta as a meaning-giving process. If myth is perceived as the first givenness, it should be followed by the first and second meta-ization. Like in the case of relationship between the man and the nature, here two meta-s are active, although this action happens in relation to the first giveness, which as we have already noted is meta. But we also noted that meta is not meta-ized: man first perceives his environment as

26

meta, then as something domestic, different from meta, and insignificant, and finally as meta again. In the event of cosmogonic myth the principle of two meta-s is in place once again, which tells us that there could be just two real meta-s, i.e. meta-izations. Only repetition is possible beyond that. Consequently, at the time of the creation of cosmogonic story the historical form loses its meaning. But nor the two other forms of time assume their meanings: they have already become the forms, which have lost being. This means that all three forms have become domesticated and being, by means of the fact of being, has possibility to meta-ize. This is exactly what being is doing by virtue of technology, a mode of being. When we say that form loses its meaning, we imply that it becomes domesticated, i.e. felt, sensible, being next to ourselves and self-evident. Such a situation may seem a bit paradoxical, but apparently the form of consciousness can only become a worldview after it has lost the meaning. That is to say, if we put it in the words of existentialist philosophy, it becomes the form of consciousness after the man-type domestication. In our time, when all forms of consciousness have already lost their meanings, a question arises by what means it is possible to transform this domestication into meta again to have it reassume the meaning. On the one hand, as we have already indicated, this is technology. Technology, as we have seen, meta-izes, but such meta-ization takes place at the level of its content rather, than of the consciousness. This means that ultimately, by means of technology the contents of consciousness is also involved in the understanding of being. In other words, in this way this understanding of being becomes comprehensive. Consequently, it might be assumed that the modern consciousness to a certain extent is reversed, overturned: the forms of consciousness are sensible and perceptible, technology, however strange it may seem, is a reference point (as the last instance of the understanding of being). This happens because it is just everyday actions of man that could be confined to meta. Only such actions are left without the universalization of meta. In the meantime, such actions take place and gradually all spheres of mans activity are getting invaded by double meta (meta-meta).

27

In our time, when all forms of consciousness are domesticated, it becomes hardly possible to avoid man. In previous times this was possible by getting belonged to a next form of time and, therefore, by being progressive. But today (or tomorrow) this is impossible: one group whose man (a form of consciousness which has lost its meaning) is history, may be opposed by another group with chronicles or myth. At this stage of consciousness the possibility of giving a new description of the world comes to an end. Thats why each man-group in relation to another may deem itself progressive. This is a context of action, which directly and inevitably leads us to coincidence of being (consciousness) with itself. This activity is technology. If it can fit any form (that is proved by history), it can also be the contents of several forms at the same time. Such domestication of the forms of consciousness indicates that non-man-being is no longer possible in our time. Everything that used to be considered progressive, bursting and resoluteness seems today to be ordinary and habitual. It must be noted that the understanding of being, in which we live and in which we started living has exhausted itself. Moving forward with this understanding becomes impossible. In our time this being is approaching its closure. New forms of consciousness hardly could be created any longer. All opportunities given in cosmogonic myth have been exhausted. In the meantime, all forms, which have lost their meanings, can exist without end. Their disappearance only depends on being or nonbeing of their carriers men. We may be told that so long as one understanding of being exists, there could be another one as well. But according to a well-known metaphysical judgement, the existence of one object does not mean the existence of two objects, while the existence of two objects inevitably implies the existence of many. In the age of coincidence of being with itself, man faces a very interesting phenomenon: unlike the forms of consciousness, which have an ability to vary, the transition to a new understanding of consciousness is not possible. In other words, if we admit a bit of metaphysics to our judgement, we must say that the laws of the universe and being do not imply the replacement of one understanding of being by another. They do so by virtue of that completeness and comprehensiveness, which we have encountered many times in the

28

course of our reasoning. Being, or the existing understanding of it is so universal, and specific at the same time, that in it, as an objective givenness, it is impossible to see a new understanding. In other words, the transition can not occur by itself, as was the case to a certain extent in terms of the forms of consciousness. Such transition necessarily requires a leap, but any leap, in turn, needs a push-off point. Such a point should be found in the existing understanding of being. It can be an exclusive property of that understanding, but for a certain reason, may be because of an illusion it may be useful for our purpose. As we have mentioned above, this point may be play. But before we start to deal with game, I would like to recall another, previously noticed phenomenon. This is a fairy tale. As we have seen, the structure of fairy tale is identical to the structure of cosmogonic myth. This fact may indicate that fairy tale and cosmogonic myth, as manifestations of the meaning-lost forms of consciousness, originated at the same time. But if fairy tale is essentially nothing but cosmogonic myth, why it exists after all? According to the understanding of consciousness, which as we have noted consists in the functional existence, two phenomena (essences) with a common function can not be existent. This principle, owing to Occams razor, is most clearly expressed in logic, which is the perfect manifestation of this understanding of consciousness: What can be done with less resources, should not be done with more resources. This means that fairy tale must have other descriptions as well. Fairy tale, as it already contains all three forms, talks to us about the universe, as a whole. Furthermore, in fairy tale all three forms have lost their meanings. (Before we continue reasoning on this topic, we must note that here, like in the case of game/technology, the doubling of the functional definition, or formal characterization takes place: game and technology, as we have seen, were described in the same manner. Cosmogonic myth and fairy tale, in turn, are described in the same manner too. By this

29

clearly points at a certain relationship between fairy tale and game has expressed, the existence of which has been suspected so far on an intuitive level.). We considered the phenomena of cosmogonic myth and fairy tale on a formal, structural level only. But we never pointed at a more noticeable or empirical difference that exists between them. This difference briefly can be described as follows: a cosmogonic story is a real world-picture; fairy tale is a fiction, an enjoyable description of unreal events. This assumption is not a result of an evaluative approach. It is entirely inferred from the contents and literary structures of these two stories. To make this point evident, it would suffice to compare the introductory words of each story: In the beginning was and Once upon a time. A cosmogonic story has an implication that the what it talks about has always been and takes place right now. A fairy tale implies that the story was once, but, upon the time, i.e. it was (once) and was not (upon the time) at the same time. This could also be understood as the expression of the loss of meaning: as we have seen, what is given in fairy tale are the meaning-lost forms of consciousness. This should mean that just like cosmogonic myth, fairy tale tells the story of something sensible and specifically existent. But fairy tale, due to its introductory words, points at different possible existence of the loss of meaning. This means that if a cosmogonic story begins with being whose forms are represented there (was), fairy tale begins with a different principle of being, which can not be seen or felt in our environment (there was and there was not). In this context the meaning-lost forms of being do not reveal to us as sensible, worldview phenomena, but rather as the description of the parallel world, in which we can also find ourselves. In other words, fairy tale tells the story of the different world, which is not included in this understanding of being, but in which we can exist, because all our sensible perceptions of the world (meaning-lost forms of consciousness) are participating in it. The fairy tales of all times and ages perform exactly this function. For the purpose of illustration let me refer to modern fait tale the fantasy. A classical fantasy (Zylanzy, Farmer, etc.) is written as a spatial expansion of the everyday world. More specifically, our environment, the universe is one of the minor fractions of that universe,

30

which is described by the masters of fantasy. By doing this they directly point at the possibility of different being, or different understanding of being. Fairy tale tells us that all men, irrespective of age, status, time and space, may be encompassed by the different understanding of being. This means that it is possible to go beyond that circle of the understanding of being, in which we reside at present; that we may keep away from the catastrophe and, furthermore, what depends on the new understanding, we may avoid the catastrophe at all. Man listens to fairy tales from the very childhood. This is no accident. Nor is it a mere historical fact that fairy tale originates at the time when our understanding of being, as we understand it, in the form of cosmogonic myth is finally established. As a mere metaphor it could be stated that anybody who has ever heard a fairy tale and who having been influenced by that fairy tale has ever tried to discover a magic creature in the dark or in the forest, wont be unfamiliar with the new understanding of being. The new understanding of being, therefore, is not the law of nature which will take place sooner or later, but rather a result of the concrete actions of the concrete person. As we have seen, the rout of this effort rests on fairy tale. The magic nature of this rout was indicated, first of all, by the fact, which in the context of functional being and metabeing looks strange, and which is the functional identity of two phenomena. According to the law of being this should not have happened so. It was anticipated, therefore, that one of those two phenomena had had a different purpose and, accordingly, a different essential characteristic. These two phenomena are cosmogonic myth and fairy tale. By fixing their functional identity it became possible to suppose a real essence of fairy tale. The answer to the question why and how this essence was created or established should be provided by analysis of language. The similar functional identity was established between technology and game. It was discovered that their formal and structural descriptions, just like in the case of cosmogonic myth and fairy tale, were identical. This enables us to pay a more systematic

31

attention to game and try to discover in it, as a substantial phenomenon of consciousness, those distinguishing features, which like in the case of fairy tale, will show us the way of transition. Hence, now we face two more problems the problems of meanings, i.e. being of language and game. For the purpose of solutions we should address to Heraclitus once again, as these two words are strangely linked with each other in his fragments.

32

PART II THE CONTINUATION OF TRAGEDY

I
Herakleitoc men oun fesin einai to pan diareton adiaireton, geneton ageneton, jneton ajanaton, logoc aiwna, patera uion, jeon dikaion (Hippolytus Refutatio omnium Haeresicum IX.9.1.). As for Heraclitus, he said that everything that was divisible was indivisible, the originated the un-originated, mortal immortal, logos aiwn, father son, the God fair The same treatise contains the famous 52nd fragment of Heraclitus, which says that time (aiwn) is a child playing stone-casting, its a realm of child. (Ref. IX.9.1). Translating aiwn as time is as conventional as translating logoc as word. In philological tradition these words either are not translated at all, or the translation has been accompanied by the original Greek word. Even at the very first glance, it comes to mind that these two words with similar fates are mentioned side by side in the above-quoted fragments of Heraclitus. The meaning of aiwn has been established somehow in the light of aesthetics of consciousness. This is time, a period of time, or rather a principle of time, on which the existence of consciousness rests and which divides its way into different worldview branches. Now we have to determine what Heraclitus meant when he spoke about logoc. In fragment 1(DK) Heraklitus speaks about the logos, which is heard by men. The same hearing denotation is carried by the word logoc in the following passages of Hippolytus: de logou toud eontoc aei <azunetoi gignotai anjropon, kai prosjen h akousai kai akousantiec to prwton (Hip. Ref. IX.9.3). By this 33

logos people are ignorant until they hear it and they remain so even after they have heard it. In the above fragments logos has been translated either as speech (Lebedev), or as sense (Sinn Kranz). So long as the text speaks about the hearing, translating this word as speech seems more appropriate. But understanding logos as something that can be heard is more likely to have arisen from Sausures famous dichotomy, rather than the real state of affairs. When we analyzed language in the light of aesthetics of consciousness, we found out that its nature was identical to a childs playing with stones, as stated in the 52 nd fragment (when it makes Times through interrelation of the limit-concepts). Therefore, in this case it would be more correct to translate logos as language, not in that sense which is applied in the modern linguistics (which distinguishes language and speech from each other and in historical sense gives priority to language; in this case language is understood as a complex of grammatical rules, which are manifested in speech), but rather as language which speaks and in which being dwells. If aiwn and logoc are the same, then the 52nd fragment may be read as follows: language is a child playing rock-casting. To a certain extent, the meaning of rockcasting has been identified in the light of aesthetics of consciousness: this was done by drawing analogy with the limit-concepts. But we dont know yet what should be understood by the expression, that language is play. During the tracing of consciousness, we defined play as meta-ritual. But this is its functional rather than essential definition. It was found out that in the light of functional definitions, game and technology coincided with each other. This fact enabled us to suppose that game, like fairy tale (whose structure is the same as that of cosmogonic myth), could be a sign of new understanding of being. That game could have a definition other than of meta-ritual was demonstrated by aesthetics of consciousness too: the interpretation of the fragment of Heraclitus, in other words, game as it was understood by Heraclitus, does not coincide with the content of phenomenology of play. As is becoming evident now, phenomenology of play is not the study of play,

34

but rather of technology, which includes and covers game, and treats it, presumably, as something other and alien. (Similarly, cosmogonic myth and its phenomena [e.g. exact sciences] give a very meaningless and frivolous role to fairy tale. Generally, any evaluative approach may be described as a manifestation of this understanding of being. The evaluative approach may be divided into two meaningful and meaningless evaluations. As long as being is meta and the giving of meaning, it expels any alien from its realm and tries to attribute a very meaning-less meaning to it).

II
We characterized being as meta, or meaning and the giving of meaning. In order to understand language, we must look at it from the standpoint of being. Supposedly, this is the only way to understand its real essence and to identify what it has in common with game. But before we start scrutinizing language, we should re-view that sphere, in which game and language (not in Sausurian sense) reveal themselves and become touchable. This sphere is the empirical world, which according to our experience amounts to the empirical consciousness. If meta, that is to say, giving of meaning is really the marginal description of being, it must reveal itself in the empirical consciousness as well. Furthermore, it must reveal itself totally, that is to say, not only on transcendental levels of being, but also in our everyday life, in our environment. It is common knowledge that human psyche, once it can not perceive any order in its environment (e.g. when it looks at chaotic movements of countless points), becomes confused. This and many other examples, quoting of which is not really necessary say to us that man looks at his environment with an implication that something important is hidden behind it, in it or beyond it, which is the basis of this environment and which determines it. In other words, man looks at the environment as if it were the effect and the section of a certain system. In each sphere of human activity could be found such phenomena, which exist on the basis of this plan. 35

This attitude is nothing, but belief (faith). Believe (faith) is the desire or urge to see meta in everything. In other words, faith is an approach to the world as something containing meta, as phenomenon behind which something is necessarily hidden. Faith has multiple modes faith in God, scientific faith (which implies that behind the world the laws of this world are hidden), faith in humanity (which says that in any human being, behind his appearance, irrespective of his behavior, something sublime and sacred can be found), and so forth. Belief has so deeply penetrated in our life that we even do not notice its omnipresence. Only faith empowers man to focus himself on the perception of the world. Only faith makes it possible for men to establish normal relationships with each other and so forth. In short, faith is meta phenomenon. Its time to say that the empirical consciousness, with the aid of which man can discern and live in the world, is faith, or meta. Consequently, faith or empirical consciousness is that primary phenomenon, on which afterwards the whole transcendental universe is based. We may disagree with a wellknown assumption and state that what is primary for senses is primary for being. It is due to faith only that existent objects assume meanings that faith, according to which all existing objects have their meanings. The giving of meaning sets up a system, without which man cannot exist. In the meantime, in the realm of empirical consciousness or in the realm of faith the meaning amounts to sign, i.e. to faith that this specific sign is inalienably and inevitably characterized by this and only this meaning. The sign is nothing, but meta-ization of existent and thereby giving it a specific meaning. This is such a level of empirical consciousness or empirical being, which is common to all consciously existing objects. The term consciously existing is not limited to men and animals only, but rather it includes the whole nature, which at the scientific level may be referred to as a system of signs or codes. In this system, each sign (if we assume that any action is a sign) will have a specific response (this means that any specific action

36

has an exclusive determination). As for man and animal, in their context this assumption becomes clearer: any sign has a certain meaning for both a specific man and animal. Although man is characterized by having language, but for a specific man there is no difference between the system of signs and language. But we may suppose that language is something different from any system of signs. According to the functional principle of being, two different forms for the manifestation of one and the same essence must have been needless. In other words, had man needed to act with the aid of the system of signs, language would not have been created. But on the other hand, the only thing which in reality makes man different from animal is language. Now we have to deal with language.

III
At first glance, language really might be perceived as the system of signs, in which case the words could be referred to as linguistic signs. But if we get closer to the subject, we will discover that unlike signs, words do not have everlastingly assigned meanings: a word itself, taken separately, tells nothing about these meanings it may have. Any word assumes the meaning only in a certain text, which gives an indication of the meaning this word has been used there. This means that unlike signs, words do not have meanings. If we look at this subject from the historical viewpoint, we will see that the word, which originally used to be the sign, loses its meaning in language. In other words, the sign, which is meta-being, in language is re-meta-ized and thereby is deprived of its meaning. In other words, after that the words are given back their meanings only in languages, that is to say in meta, in which signs once lost their meanings. All these tell us that double meta-ization has already taken place in language. In other words, the understanding of being has been completed and brought to its end. As in the case of the cosmogonic myth, in language meanings exist only to the extent that language is perceived as a whole. As the modern linguistics says, text is a component of language. This is true to the extent that the meaning of a word is determined in the text. But what 37

kind of text can be an atom of language if not that one, which describes the event in its entirety; in other words, the one which contains all basic marginal concepts of language event, time, space and the subject? (See Aesthetics of Consciousness, Part III). As we see, the study of language in the light of being proved to be the same, as it was found to be during our tracing the consciousness completed in itself and completely meta-ized. But closing our reasoning at this point would mean establishing a one-sided view of language. When we analyzed language from the standpoint of consciousness, it appeared to us as something completed, halted up, and being itself. But looking at it from the standpoint of being, or meta brings us to the assumption that this is a wrong idea and that language also implies an action, moreover, an essential action, which could be described also through meta. Language is a double meta. This means that language itself is meta and that from this standpoint language can not be described otherwise but with the aid of meta. This is a process of permanent meta-ization. Language first of all meta-izes the environment and by doing this deprives it of its meaning. Afterwards, due to the repeated metaization, words assume their meanings in the text. It can be said that the meta, on the one hand, is completely fulfilled in language, but on the other hand, the process of such fulfillment is endless. In language, the process of creation of new words and establishing of new signs is perpetual. Then these signs are deprived of their meanings. The newly created signs and symbols are nothing but the phenomena resulting from the combination of previously existing words. In other words, language, on the basis of existing language(s) creates new signs and, accordingly, words and texts. At first glance, the process of meta-ization in language continues. But according to the existing understanding of being, such meta-ization neither makes any sense not bears any function: language has already been meta-ized, double meta has already been fulfilled and completed in it. We might be told that this way language encompasses and

38

meta-izes more and more existing objects. But the point is that existing objects are already meta-ized without the help of language by technology. And if language really does so, by the assignment of the understanding of being, another instance of functional doubling takes place (between language and technology). Language accepts the existing words, on their basis establishes new signs, i.e. new metaworlds, then deprives them of their meanings, i.e. annuls them, and finally deposits them among other multiple annulled signs, or worlds. This process described in this fashion resembles nothing but a child playing rockcasting. In other words, what language is doing, is nothing but playing game, which neither makes sense, not bears any function. In other words, according to the existing understanding of being, the activity of language has neither a function, nor a purpose. Such an activity may only be referred to as playing game. As we can see, language and game-playing, unexpectedly, coincided with each other in a bizarre manner on the ground which at first glance seemed to be an exclusive and permanent domain of the existing understanding of being. This means that it is possible to see in language different being, the different world and the different understanding of environment. But this being is a passive and hidden being. This is a characteristic, which has been peculiar to it from the very outset. But that this break-through will be successful, can be guaranteed by language. It says that a new understanding will feel itself as comfortable in language, as the existing understanding does. Thus, the substitution and invention of a new language will be needless. (If we look at the process of origination of language and domestication of the world from the historical viewpoint, we will see that domestication, i.e. meta-ization of sign begins at the time of creation of language. Historically, the creation of language is a long process, which results in the meaning-lost words that afterwards assume meanings in language (as a result of further meta-ization). But before this happens, it may be stated that the language of a primitive man is not complete and signs and symbols prevail in it. Man receives the meta-world as an inheritance. In the beginning of the language formation process he must perceive the world as a sacred one. Afterwards, with the

39

development and perfection of language, during which the signs lose their meanings, the domestication of environment begins. [At this point, its re-meta-ization on the textual level takes place. To make this assumption lucid one can give the following example: to the empirical consciousness the so-called man-world, the environment is no mystery or question. This question may be put on a so-called intellectual, transcendent, meta, scientific level, which is the domain of the text.]. It may be stated that the domestication of environment begins with the creation of language. In other words, the domestication of environment has begun with the appearance of the first metaphor. The whole passage above is just an explanation of the state of affairs from the viewpoint of historical consciousness, and not the reality. But it is quite likely that in reality all happened exactly in this manner.).

IV
Such deliberations concerning language lead us to the point what could be meant from the standpoint of aesthetics of being by the expression in the beginning was the word. The word is the same as nothingness, non-existence, which has neither meaning and, consequently, nor being. The expression in the beginning was the word is the best and the clearest manifestation of nothingness. Unlike the introductory words of other cosmogonic stories, which say that in the beginning was nothingness, or in the beginning was nothing, Johns Gospel speaks about the existence of nothingness. This is the kind of existence, beyond which and in any manner other than this hardly could be possible to think about anything. Nothingness is nothing, which, to the extent that it is absolutely free of meaning, has nothing to do with being, although it will neccessarily assume a meaning and will be converted into being so long as it is a word. The word, exactly because of its nothingness and meaningless implies language. Owing to the expression in the beginning was the word the senselessness of talking about the being of nothingness is avoided and, at the same time, the law of origination of the world is demonstrated, according to which, although the world 40

originated from nothingness, such origination was predictable because of the very nature of nothingness. What Im doing here, is just trying to explain the words from Johns gospel in the light of aesthetics. It is not my aim to decode the concealed sense of Johns message. Aesthetics, which is the method of my philosophy, is looking independently from any personal or psychological intention for any traces or imprints, which could be left by the object to be looked for. For this time what is looked for is being. Also, there should be no delusion as though I have tried to explore the mystery of the origination of existence. This is the issue of science. If philosophy had set before itself such a courageous aim, it would have betrayed itself and put itself in a stupid position. Tracing the imprints of being means looking for those imprints and images in our environment, which force man to think and to act exactly this and not in any other way. Thats why, just like in the case of aesthetics of consciousness, my philosophy is seeking to give a marginal description of being, which is formed and can be traced in the existing understanding of being. To this end, the analysis of the expression in the beginning was the word will provide the same service as the consideration of the achievements of modern physics and the observation of the manifestations of todays almost apocalyptic consciousness. Consequently, my analysis, that is to say, the aesthetics of the expression in the beginning was the word by no means can be considered as the interference with theology. Because by doing this philosophy would renounce itself as it does by the interference with science, although it refers to such interference as Naturphilosophie. Thus, the expression in the beginning was the word represents the formula, which enables one to discuss the origination of something from nothingness without any interference from outside. This is merely a marginal description and a result of aesthetics. This means that my explanation has nothing to do with that reality, in which the writing and consideration of this phrase takes place.

41

Now, when it seems to be possible to say that language has been elucidated from the standpoint of aesthetics of being also, we can direct our efforts to play the game and see whether it is possible to give any essential characteristic/marking of this phenomenon. That it cannot be defined within the limits of this understanding of being was demonstrated by aesthetics. But to the extent that we have got language, just like in the case of fairy tale, at least, we must be able to mark it.

V
As we have noted, game can be marked essentially, if we represent it as something, which does not repeat or refine anything, or in other words, if we try to liberate game from the signs of the existing understanding of being. Such representation is not an easy task. Although language, as a universal field of any understanding of being, can assist us in making such representation (so long as it may be expressed orally or in writing), in reality this is not possible. If we represent game as something, which neither repeats, nor refines anything, we have got just one option: to represent it as the original game, which forms the universe. Originality and historical nature, as aesthetics of consciousness has proven, are integral and essential parts of the existing understanding of being. Still, to the extent that it is possible to oppose game to meta, that is to say, to state that game, rather than meta is the priority (in response to which the existing understanding of being will note in indignation that these two phenomena are the same), even with this representation is possible to speak about game as something that has certain implications of the new understanding, without giving a clear idea of this understanding. In other words, hardly would be possible to speak about this with certainty. The necessity to give such a description of game reveals the plan of action of Heraclitus, who, perheps, tried to represent something similar to that, though he had clearly understood the impossibility to have a pure representation obscurity and metaphoric character of his fragments point at this.

42

Game, which never refines anything is not technology and, therefore, is not meta either. In other words, it is not meta in relation to something. If we use the analogy of Heraclitus, we must say that game is the giving of various arrangements of elements. From the mathematical standpoint, the number of such variable arrangements is limited. But if we consider these elements as non-mathematical units (i.e. if we dont perceive them as points) the number of such units will be limitless or, at least, close to limitlessness. Any degree of angle at which one element may be placed in relation to others can be considered as essentially new arrangement, though a little bit different from the previous one. Each new difference makes a new structure and such differences are well noticeable by the hypothetical child playing with rocks nothing apart from playing game can be within the scope of his interest and concern. Such clarification of game has an implication that the number of playthings is limited. In other words, all possible arrangements even the most different ones consist of the same elements. It can be said that each arrangement is unique and is not meta-ing or meta-ized in relation to anything. This means that neither of these arrangements, altogether or separately, can assign meanings to the elements of which each of them is comprised. The reason is that each meaning, which is assigned by one arrangement, is immediately annulled by another. But such annulment does not take place in the manner usual to our understanding of being (meta-ization of meta), but rather through the complete disassembling of existing meta and creation of a new one. These, in turn, seem to be the signs of quite different understanding of being. Although Im trying to describe it by the words peculiar to our understanding of being (because I dont have any other words to use), the difference is well-noticeable. Finally, because we embarked on representing the original game, lets follow up it until the end. The limitlessness of arrangements of the elements does not mean that these arrangements never recur: so long as game is concerned, there is no necessity of nonrecurrence. And to the extent that this game is original and there is no (mathematical) time in it, all these arrangements must have been placed next to each other (neither

43

space must have been in the original game) and have been overlapped by each other endlessly. Heraclitus said that aiwn - paic esti paizon......, which means that aiwn is a child playing in period or in time. This extremely complicated and obscure metaphor in reality discloses the essence of game in the best and clearest manner. Before I continue my reasoning, I would like to interpret one more fragment of Heraclitus, to whom I feel much indebted due to the assertion that aiwn and logos are the same. In the light of the above-stated, this should not be bizarre, but Heraclitus (or rather Hippolytus) confines this phrase to a bizarre frame: As for Heraclitus, he said that everything that was divisible was indivisible, the originated the un-originated, mortal immortal, logoc - aiwna, father son, the God fair. We should not forget that this phrase has been taken from the treatise of Hippolytus and it is quite likely that Hippulytus has omitted or changed something important. Still the sense of this fragment is clear enough: Heraclitus speaks about the unity of opposites. Over the many centuries, this phrase has been quoted as evidence to the assertion that Heraclitus was a dialectician. Logos and aiwn are the same we have seen this. But how can it be that they are in opposition to each other, like the originated to the un-originated, mortal to immortal, father to son? All what can be said in this regard is that this fragment speaks about the origination and foundation, i.e. that the originated stems from the un-originated, son from father; on the other hand, the un-originated and father are the foundations of the originated and son. Similarly, from logos originates aiwn. Logos is the foundation of aiwn, i.e. this understanding of being. Likewise, fairness (justice) originates from the God and the God is its foundation. This fragment indicates that in this case aiwn should be understood as the understanding of being, which prevails and whose foundation, as we have seen this, consists in language. Therefore, the expression a child playing rock-casting is referable to both logos and aiwn; in case of aiwn this is so because as a result of the operations of language different times are created in it; in case of logos (language) because language provides 44

environment and foundation for all understandings of being. This is exactly why it should be considered the creator of aiwn. The relationship between logos and aiwn is the same as between the God and fairness (justice). It is possible that the signs of some other understandings, different from those, which we have discovered, be found in language. But noticing this is as impossible now, when time (understanding of being) is drawing to its end, as it was in the beginning of this understanding, in the times of Heraclitus. At any rate, I dont think that now it were possible to find the signs of a new the third understanding. The two phenomena found in our environment, namely game and fairy tale, point at the different understanding of being: fairy tale says that the existence based on a different principle is possible and that such existence will not be alien or unacceptable to man. The reason for this is that the model of the universe described by fairy tale contains the same environment as that one, which surrounds us. This is an indisputable indication of the fact that living with a different understanding of being is possible. The analysis of game, in turn, has demonstrated that different perception of the world is also possible. Such innovative perception of the universe is opposed to the existing, empirical, meaning-lost worldview, the foundation of which has been laid in the times of Plato and Aristotle. We characterized this empirical consciousness as functional and named it belief. Function, like faith, has an implication that each object contains a certain purpose, assignment. In our time it is impossible to imagine the universe without faith, although it is quite possible to think about it: this will be a universe, in which there will be no room for a strict functionality. The environment (supposedly) will not be perceived as something that performs a certain function, but rather as that, which exists as itself. (This does not mean that by achieving a new understanding of being an earthly paradise will be established. Non-existent one is always more attractive than existent, because it does not have empirical phenomena.). Many of those phenomena, without which the present empirical consciousness cannot think of itself, will disappear (e.g. the concept of fate). Even the existing understanding of being, how strange it may seem, is getting ready for transition. This assertion is in no conflict with the above-stated: getting ready to the

45

extent that this understanding is drawing to its end. As we have stated, the ways of the new and existing understanding of being will by no means be crossed by each other. For this purpose, a long leap is required. But just like in the case of catastrophe seen by aesthetics of consciousness, this leap can be too slow to be noticed. Thus, the existing understanding of being is getting prepared for its own end. As we have noted above, computer, as a multi-functional meta-phenomenon, is the best and clearest reflection of this understanding. The role of the achievements of modern technology in the creation of the games of the parallel worlds is obvious. Exactly these parallel worlds will enable man to receive the new understanding. Why it happens so that game necessarily follows the aiwn of technology, hides in it, fights against technology, wins and establishes itself or is such series of actions just one out of the many possible alternatives philosophy is unable to give answer. The existing understanding of being would opt for the first alternative, the future one most likely for the second. At any rate, one thing is obvious: if the signs discovered with the aid of aesthetics of being really belong to the future, this means that we have drawn the most optimistic conclusion from this understanding of being if there are two, there must be many as well. But this is the conclusion of this understanding of being only. Im not going to predict the possible answers of the future understandings. understanding, such an endeavor would not make sense. Finally, we have one more question to solve. Putting question is a very risky and precarious business to philosophy, so it needs a certain level of care. Every question puts philosophy in the position of an explorer and gives it an appearance of science. It is accepted in our environment and understanding of being that the foundation of the universe should be searched for. Due to this fact, the empirical consciousness makes of everything, which is related to text, an exploring object. At the same time, it is impossible to put a question, unless the limits of the possible answer are not determined in advance. This means that the question could only be raised if the answer is already In the context of this

46

known, that is to say, if the answer is implied by the question. (I mean the possible answers rather than the necessary outcome.). Nothing prevents us from making a statement that philosophy is also an exploring phenomenon. Nothing, except its name: filosofia - love of wisdom. Unlike the sciences, the name of philosophy does not tell us anything about the universe. In other words, it does not set the universe as its task to resolve. The business of philosophy, as is clear from its name, is wisdom, i.e. mans thought of the universe. But even this does not exclude the relationship between philosophy and the aim understood as the subject to explore. The point, which precludes philosophy from being science and scientific phenomenon is the second part of its name filia. Philosophers (including those, who understand the modern world very well, such as Heidegger and Natorp), while interpreting this word, usually translate it as longing. Longing is the longing for something familiar, delineated and implies a possibility of puting a question. It is to be established whether longing could be applied to love. Each longing is the longing for taking possession of something, or satisfying ones urge. According to our understanding of being, love is defined as sex. In other words, in the language of this understanding sex is the function of love (even in the empirical consciousness these two words mostly denote the same phenomenon). Defining love as sex is the exclusive product of our understanding of being. It is for this reason that the philosophers (especially modern ones), in the view of the existing understanding of science and being, translate filia as longing and philosophy as the taking possession of or longing for wisdom, i.e. science. The word filosofia is not a new one and has been familiar almost since the establishment of the existing understanding of being. Even non-scientific texts (e.g. poetry) often give a quite different meaning to the phenomenon of love. We have already practiced the two ways of defining phenomena: one of them is functional, i.e. scientific, the other so-called essential, which may be referred to as something broken into or stolen in (i.e. the sign of future). Possibly, love could appear as such a sign.

47

If we listen to the language of poets and the lovers, we will learn that love is a sudden obsession and unexpected discovery of oneself being in love. The obsessed person sees in everything the trace, the imprint of his or her lover. He or she perceives the whole environment in the light of or through his or her lover. He or she senses the presence of his or her love is everywhere, or he or she is in aisjesic. Such a definition of love points at a very interesting phenomenon in relation to philosophy. So long as love is obsession, this should have an implication that philosophy is something, which invokes as sudden interest. The reason for such an interest in the case of philosophy is as mysterious, as in the case of falling in love. Or rather, the reason may consist in everything, even those ones, which can not be noticed with the naked eye. As for love for wisdom, it must amount to having idea of each phenomenon of the environment, as a whole universe, to ability to perceive the traces of wisdom. Such traces could be found in everything which is exactly why philosophy is unexhausted and endless like the traces of consciousness (wisdom) in the universe the universe, which is wisdom or the trace itself. Consequently, philosophy can only be the seeking for and the describing of the traces of wisdom. But any movement away and any belief that the whole universe has already been encompassed by philosophy, expels a philosopher from philosophy and transforms him into a scientist. This could also be considered another trick and struggle of the understanding of being. It is for this reason that it is impossible to put a question in philosophy. One can not put a question before he is in love. It does not make sense, because one can not predict that one will necessarily fall in love. It is impossible even after, because no question makes sense if it refers to the known trace. It does not make sense as regards to the future comer too, because one can not know his or her lover in whole and can not know while one is in love. If you know what wisdom is and how it reveals itself, you are no longer the philosopher. Thats why philosophy can not put a question. This can only be done by a philosopher,

48

under the influence of the existing understanding of being. But in this case, he has to take a risk of becoming a scientist. Putting a question is the first sign of this. Still, I am forced to put a question. This is the question, to which I was driven by my philosophy: if the transition to a new understanding can not take place by itself, what is necessary to accomplish this new understanding? This is not a real question and any answer to it will be indicative and hypothetical, if not wrong. But that it is wrong can not be proved in the light of this understanding, while after the new understanding is being established the answer will no longer make any sense. In the course of transition from one understanding of being to another philosophy has to make dangerous steps.

49

PART III NEW OBJECTIVES OF PHILOSOPHY

I
As we have learnt in consequence of applying aesthetics to being, existence of the new understanding of being is possible. Aesthetics even pointed at the signs of this new understanding. It showed also that the existing consciousness that is to say understanding of being is directed towards its end: it is getting closer to catastrophe and is destined to cessation. But such getting closer may continue endlessly. This means that in reality the existing understanding of being may never arrive to its end. As aesthetics of consciousness has indicated, there are two possible alternatives to the end of consciousness: the sudden catastrophe and the eternal existence of catastrophic consciousness. The eternal existence excludes the possibility of establishing the new understanding. The understanding of being, with which we live, is a functional existence being characterized as meta, the domain of technology. This is the understanding which is trying to meta-ize all, i.e. to make technology and technical matter of everything. This process continues in our environment, in our time as well. Inherently, or essentially there is nothing that could block the eternal continuation of this process. Through new divisions of mans actions, such meta-ization may reoccur everlastingly.8 As we have seen, all those signs, which belong to the future, as property and result of this understanding are freely interpreted in the light of our understanding. This is exactly why these signs themselves can not give birth to the new understanding of being. Moreover, in the case of eternal continuation of the process of meta-ization, they will remain as hidden as they are at present. In order to avoid catastrophic existence, to speak the language of our existence, we must say that the existing understanding of being must end and make way for the new understanding.9
8 9

That is to say, by separation and technologization of new actions. Global catastrophe in the present political environment is not likely.

50

Thus, if being is meta and it meta-izes everything, that is to say gives and deprives them of meanings, maximal meta-ization must take place. In other words, instead of fighting against the existing understanding of being, we must support the process of maximal meta-ization of all and confining of everything to the existing understanding. As aesthetics of consciousness has pointed out, technology is the main phenomenon of the present understanding of being, which implements this process in our environment. In other words, it is technology, which is striving for meta-ization, or technologization of everything. In other words, it is striving for depriving all of their own meanings and make of them merely functional items. Functional existence, in the meantime, is such existence, which can assume its meaning only through function, i.e. only in relation and due to something different. So long as science is mostly technical phenomenon, everybody expects practical results from it. Even literature and arts have their technologies. Its a different issue, however, how acceptable are their functions to everybody. As for specific human life, it is needless to speak about the technological nature of this phenomenon. It would suffice to note that long time has past since the questions about the sense of life, in general, and each specific activity, in particular, had been raised. The only phenomenon, whose technologization has been a failure, irrespective of multiple efforts taken almost since the origination of this understanding of being, is philosophy. If we take look at the process of development of philosophy, we will see clearly that there has been no sole idea about the objectives of philosophy and methods of achieving such objectives. There have been many attempts to invent different methods and terms in reference to philosophy: dialectics, phenomenology, existentialism, anthropology, etc. In reality, however, every philosopher claiming that he is a founder of new direction in philosophy, chooses his own way. Thus, it seems at first glance that philosophy has been the oldest and strongest fighter against this understanding of being, as it has opposed to its own technologization most of all. Although every philosopher has his own method, every two philosophies have different methods. This is exactly why the development of universal method is impossible. Furthermore, as a rule, every method of

51

philosophy tries to include and incorporate to all previously existing methods, even those ones, which are in opposition to it (either by negating or proclaiming it as the previous stage). After Kant, the objective of philosophy has often been presented to have different contents. means. The history of philosophy, as a science10, is determined to integrate all By doing so, the history of philosophy is trying to give philosophy the philosophies and present them as the product of the sole problem, objective and appearance of technology. It should also be taken into account that science originated at the last stage of the development of our understanding of being, i.e. in historical time, when the understanding of being, by establishing science, was preparing a decisive strike on the universe. But even the history of philosophy is just discussing philosophy from outside, i.e. from the side of science and by no means should be considered philosophy. The most serious attempt to meta-ize philosophy, that is to say, to make of it the domain of the understanding of being, was taken in the 19th century by the positivists, who proclaimed philosophy as the methodology of science, which generalizes its results and creats the world picture. But this attempt was also just a scientific view of philosophy and, therefore, was found unsustainable in the long run. Furthermore, it prompted science to doubt the effectiveness of its own methods. In order to have our understanding of being concluded it is necessary that philosophy become technological phenomenon. As we have noted above, there have been many attempts to transform philosophy into the property of our understanding of being. One of such attempts, by the way almost successful, is metaphysics. According to the above definition of being, metaphysics is something that meta-izes physics, i.e. the nature. In other words, it deprives the nature, i.e. something that is specifically existent, its independent meaning, so long as it considers the latter as a reflection of something metaphysical. Consequently, physics, i.e. the nature assumes the meaning to the extent that it is metaphysical. If we look at this phenomenon from the standpoint of aesthetics and take into account that the nature fusic has already been meta, metaphysics will
10

It is really science as it is a history.

52

represent the first, comprehensive implementing phenomenon of meta, as well as the first and basic indication of the fact that the understanding of being is directed to the loss of meaning and technology. But despite all attempts, the meta-ization of philosophy has been a complete failure and every fact of negation of metaphysics in the history of philosophy resulted in its new establishment. Although philosophy was almost the first initiator of the domestication of the universe, it seems that its complete meta-ization is not possible. This must mean that metaphysics is not (or no longer is) the method by which the understanding of being could be concluded. Metaphysics is the discussion on what is beyond nature. As a rule, metaphysics assumes that the whole universe is based on a sole principle. This means that by knowing this sole principle it makes the universe familiar and domestic. This is exactly why the boundaries between metaphysics and theology were so transparent in the Middle Ages. Both of them were striving for the domestication of the universe, its complete metaization, or full confinement to the understanding of being. Metaphysics gives answer to the question what the universe is for. No doubt, this is a functional question. This question makes it clear that metaphysics does not consider the universe as itself, but rather as something which exists for or due to something else. But philosophy contains something more due to which it never became completely metaphysical, although it is clear and I have been trying to demonstrate this that each philosophy, at the time when it is striving to its end, is at risk to turn into metaphysics. Thats why it seems that our understanding of being will never end until it gets back its the oldest prodigal son. understanding of being. This struggle between the understanding of being and philosophy may never end, which may be the hypothetical reason of endlessness of the

53

Therefore, if philosophy has to become a part of this understanding of being and, consequently, technical phenomenon, or meta (making meta of philosophy means domesticating or applying, i.e. giving function to filosofia) it needs that having been meta-ized it respond to the following three questions: What is philosophy? What is philosophy for? objective? Of course, all these questions have been traditional for philosophy especially in the 19th and 20th centuries. But like in other cases, in this case too the answers were sought for somewhere at the boundaries between mysticism and epistemology. These questions were raised at the time when philosophy was strictly required to determine what it was. In the meantime, within the limits of our understanding of being there is just one method to determine this: philosophy should have liquidated and redefined itself as something that performs a certain function and, therefore, is needed. The last and the most fruitful definition was introduced by Heidegger who established that philosophy (metaphysics) should study nothingness. But this was not the complete definition either. In addition, to Heidegger philosophy has been metaphysics and metaphysical, i.e. the product of this understanding of being, from the very outset (see his work What Is Metaphysics?). From this viewpoint, the objective of philosophy must have been to make something completely meta-physical. Heidegger took an attempt to bring metaphysics to its end, with the aid of which, as he hoped, he could have overcome metaphysics. But that bringing metaphysics to its end does not enable one to overcome it was proved by Heideggers lectures in metaphysics (see his Afterword to What Is Metaphysics). Presumably, making something metaphysical never results in the transformation of philosophy to become the part of this understanding of being. In addition, as it becomes evident now, we must take into account that such a transformation of philosophy may be in the best interests of our understanding of being, because if metaphysics can not and will not be overcome (see Heideggers lectures), neither will be the understanding of being. Such state of affairs would result in the endlessness and eternity of this understanding of being. Trough which method (technology) should philosophy achieve its

54

II
Any discussion of the understanding of being cannot avoid the expressions like completion, finalizing and so on. But we have not discussed so far what should be understood by finalizing, which is an inescapable companion of almost all phenomena of our understanding of being11. Everything in our universe is striving to its end. Science is trying to give a complete description of the world, that is to say to bring to the end studies and the description of its laws. They say that human life is determined by its finiteness. They say that human being is a developing creature and so forth. All these indicate that finalizing something is almost the main phenomenon of our understanding of being. Finalizing means concluding or completing something, or establishing its limits. Establishing limits is nothing but to delineate, demarcate something. As we have noted above, in any definition meta is the main definiers, that is to say a definition is effective by virtue of meta. It is meta that gives meaning to the object to be defined. Finalizing, therefore, which has encompassed everything in our understanding of being, is a way to the meta-ization. Meta-ization, if we remember our way, finally amounts to assigning function. (As we have seen, the understanding of being or our way is understood as first depriving the universe of its independent meaning and then assigning a certain function to it. In other words, the first act is meta, while the second one is the cancellation of meta, i.e. depriving it of its meaning, and then its domestication or assigning function.). Consequently, finalizing amounts to assigning function. Finalizing bestows function on mans life: an obituary provides a short account of mans deeds. It is finalizing that gives functions to scientific theories or literary works one can make judgement on their values only after their completion. The trivial religious and intellectual phrase that human life makes sense only because it is finite and because human being is mortal
11

I would like to express my thanks to Mr. Mamuka Lekiashvili, who indicates the necessity of developing this point for finalizing my book .

55

becomes understandable: human life is defined by finalizing and having it oriented to an end. As becomes evident, our understanding of being, so far referred to as meta, may be understood as finalizing or completing. Now it becomes clear why aesthetics of consciousness established the consciousness to have tragic contents: this is the inevitable result of the nature of being. Thats why my willingness to finalize or conclude the understanding of being means to finalize finalizing, or to assign function to finalizing. Indeed, the only thing, which can avoid the assigning of function, is being itself, or rather our understanding of it. It becomes also clear why it is impossible to overcome the understanding of being by finalizing or completing metaphysics. Metaphysics is the mode of the understanding of being and when philosophers (e.g. Heidegger) discuss the possibility of finalizing it, such finalizing should be placed in the ordinary line of objects to be finalized.12 Thats why the finalizing of metaphysics is one more attempt to establish the understanding of being rather than to overcome it (such a reproach could also be applied to Derrida, one of the most prominent philosopher of our time: his entire philosophy is the finalization of language and linguistic phenomena. But the point is that finalizing is never finalized in his books.). But when we raise the issue in other fashion, in other words, when we say that the finalizing should be given a certain function, we will avoid the risk of falling into the vicious circle of this understanding of being and by doing this we will definitely find the appropriate function for the finalizing. Such a function is represented as a guarantee of insuperability of this understanding of being, i.e. the mechanism, which forces the consciousness to be confined to one and the same understanding and to move in the circle of the modes of this understanding. Finalizing is not only the foundation and principle of the understanding of being, but also its defensive weapon, final barrier, limit to be overcome, which because of its omnipresence and everywhere-being-on-surface is not visible. As the way of reasoning has shown, this barrier is the most difficult to overcome.

12

Such as science, human life, etc.

56

It is exactly for this reason that finalizing can be most tangible in philosophy. This latter, which is the only one out of all the existents that is oriented towards the understanding of being and the grasping of it, will turn into an eternal prisoner of finalizing and be established as the worldview, i.e. the sight of the world, which can explain the function of the world. It is exactly for this reason that finally philosophy assumes the appearance of metaphysics. All attempts of finalizing and completing metaphysics will be vain and real finalization will never take place because of the antinomies established by Kant and because there will always be an opportunity to assign some more functions to the world (to the extent that the meta-ization is an endless process). For this reason, we dont say that philosophy should be brought to an end. To the extent that it is trying to comprehend the understanding of being and that the function of this understanding of being has been established somehow, all efforts of philosophy should be mobilized to perform this function. To perform the function of the understanding of being means to cancel this function, or in our case to find out the ways of overcoming, demolishing or removing the above-mentioned barrier. Orienting philosophy to this task will result in the neutralization of that defensive weapon, which is so effectively used by this understanding of being. Such an approach does not imply the end of philosophy and, if our reasoning is strict enough, by this approach philosophy will never end (or rather it will end with the end of the understanding of being, when the latter will have been overcome). For philosophy the way to endlessness will start off when it is functionalized, that is to say when the answers are given to these three questions: What is philosophy? What is its objective? What philosophy should do to achieve this objective? Answers to these questions will outline that endless way, which should be taken by philosophy and which will lead it to the end of the understanding of being. However, this is probably the most difficult way philosophy has ever chosen because everything in our world, including the way, needs to be finalized, that is to say to be brought to an end.

57

III
Still, first by one should answer to the question why it is the lot of philosophy to overcome the understanding of being. On the basis of the above-stated, in particular, and the aesthetics, in general, we say that philosophy is the only one out of the existent phenomena, which is never finalized. As soon as it ends, it will lose the appearance and properties of philosophy at once. Of course, the finalizing of philosophy that is our goal will not differ from the finalizing of all other existent phenomena anyhow. But our goal is to finalize it in such a manner that there could be no doubt in respect of the philosophical nature of such finalizing. In addition, only philosophy is able to finalized finalizing (i.e. assign a function to the understanding of being), because it is philosophy only that is the reasoning about the understanding of being and, consequently, the understanding of being itself. Any time when philosophy scrutinizes the understanding of being, that is to say, the consciousness, it remains a reflection of consciousness and the consciousness itself, irrespective of any mistake or divergence, which it may commit. Its every proposition, even erroneous ones, reveal something about the nature of consciousness. Therefore, any time when we talk about the finalizing of the understanding of being, we imply the finalizing of philosophy too. Such finalizing, as we have already mentioned, has the ways of both the understanding of being and philosophy match each other (irrespective of these ways) and arrive at the same point of the end. The situation in which we are now is oddly paradoxical: we have just argued that the function of the understanding of being13 is to prevent its own finalizing. As long as philosophy is the very first reflection of consciousness, the function of philosophy must be the same. This means that by the refusal to get through finalizing and the impossibility to have philosophy completed, philosophy serves the business of the understanding of being it makes the consciousness and, consequently, its own existence more enduring.14
13 14

That is to say of finalizing. It appears that our vision of the struggle between the understanding of being and philosophy is a delusion. In reality, no two phenomena other than the understanding of being and philosophy are more compliant with each other than these two.

58

This means that if we can not make an immediate substitution of the understanding of being we must change the function of its reflection. As the long historical experience of the paradoxical reasoning has demonstrated, as soon as the reflection changes, so does the image itself. If, therefore, we are able to change the reflection, that is to say, to alter the objective and the function of philosophy, we will get the alteration of consciousness too, because any change in reflection results in the immediate change in image and vice versa. To the extent that image and reflection are metaphors with respect to the understanding of being and philosophy, the assumption, which we made, although it is metaphoric, must be true as well. It must be as true as the neutral as it may seem at first glance phrase that philosophy is the reflection of consciousness [understanding of being]. In the meantime, the alteration of reflection, i.e. philosophy is possible only through the alteration of its function. In other words, we must assign to philosophy such new function, which would be opposite to its present one. We have seen that the function of philosophy is to contribute to the endlessness of consciousness, that is to say, of the understanding of being. Now, the new function to be introduced should be the opposite: philosophy should mobilize all its efforts to overcome the existing understanding of being. This means that by doing this philosophy will finalize the existing understanding of being. However, instead of doing this as our understanding or consciousness would like to do, philosophy will do this in such a manner that it would be impossible to continue it. Philosophy must be determined to finalize the finalizing. From the side of philosophy this, to a certain extent, will be a step correspondent to the existing understanding of being as this is going to be the step towards self-destruction and catastrophe. However, this is another evidence to the correctness of our way because it tells us that as long as the new way of philosophy is correspondent to the paradigm of consciousness it is feasible and that such actions are not unfamiliar to our consciousness.

59

The replacement of the existing understanding of being by the new understanding means that the signs of future must gradually become universal and play a decisive role in the humans consciousness. If this happens so and the new understanding of being is established, the man will have to face an entirely new phenomenon. This expression of the future will be so new and unprecedented one that at present it would be totally impossible to characterize the consciousness of the future through any analogy. There is no such historical experience, which would enable us to get prepared for this step. The replacement of one time by another, which was demonstrated by aesthetics of consciousness, is unable to give any indications of the future developments. Of course, the future consciousness, that is to say the future understanding of being is not paradise. Still, it is expected that a number of difficulties and troubles (such as nationalism, a threat of nuclear war, other restrictions of freedom) will be liquidated. This can be seen in the signs of future, which give clear indications of a different worldview. But the main point is that the likelihood of the other understanding of being has an implication (by virtue of the formula suggested by the same existing understanding of being) that if there is the other understanding, that is to say if there are two understandings of being, there could be the countless number of understandings. This means that the consciousness, as a general rule, can not ever reach a deadlock, although every particular consciousness may be at the deadlock (the last phrase is also the result of the existing understanding of being. The next understanding may develop different assumptions in this regard). In the beginning of this subsection we mentioned that it is only philosophy that is not finalized and immediately upon its ending is transformed into something different, which is unfamiliar to its nature. If philosophy is the reflection of consciousness, we must say again with the aid of analogy and metaphors that our consciousness, that is to say this understanding of being, if we try to bring it to an end, will be transformed into the other, or to the extent that there is nothing in this consciousness (in itself) for the understanding of other being into the other understanding of other being.

60

IV
Such are the answers to those three questions, which were raised in the beginning of this section. As we have noted, the raising a question in philosophy, to a certain extent, means rejecting philosophy. As it turned out, we really rejected that philosophy, which had been performing the function assigned by the existing understanding of being. The new function of philosophy is addressed by the first question: what is philosophy? Philosophy is the finalized reasoning about the existing understanding of being, or our consciousness. In other words, philosophy finalizes in itself the understanding of being. The objective of philosophy, which is inferred from its new function, is striving for overcoming the existing understanding of being and, accordingly, developing the methods leading to the new understanding. The method, way or technology, by virtue of which philosophy should achieve its objective, is the identification of the signs of future existing in our environment. According to aesthetics, it is not necessarily expected that only those signs of future exist, which have been mentioned so far. It is quite likely that such signs be found in many other phenomena, which surround us and because of the existing understanding of being seem to us to be unnoticeable and insignificant. The signs of future are dispersed in our environment in an disorderly manner. The two of them, which we have noticed, game which is characteristic to man from the very beginning and fantasy which is just about to come to existence point at the possibility of existence of other signs too. As to the main sign of the understanding of being described in this section finalizing it is our goal to determine what are the relationships of the two signs of future game and fantasy with this reference to being. When we were analyzing play as the sign of future, we noted that principally it is an endless phenomenon, that is to say it can not have the end. This means that game is in opposition and contradiction to the existing understanding of being even in terms of this main aspect. The response of our consciousness, as we have noted, is that it confines game to technological bounds and establishes it as a finite phenomenon. But this 61

characteristic of finiteness does not stem from the intrinsic essence of game, but rather from the understanding of being, which endows its every phenomenon with the capacity to come to en end, to be finalized. This is achieved, for example, by establishing winning/losing as the essential condition of game, or confining game to the limits of empirical time and so forth. As this last analysis proves, game is opposed to the existing understanding of being understood as finalizing. As for the phenomenon of fair tale, the classic fairy tale known to every child is characterized by being ended, that is to say it is finalized. Needless to say that the end is conferred by the consciousness. Now our purpose is to find out whether finalizing is the immanent property of fair tale. Aesthetics of consciousness pointed at several texts on which the consciousness rests and which are the bases of times. All these texts have the same structure: the subject, time, space and event. In other words, the text of our understanding of being is narrated as an event that takes place in time and space and in which the subject acts. The consciousness gives different modifications of this text: e.g. the event in which time and space are indefinite and the event itself is the subject; the event in which there are several subjects, space is definite, but time is not; and the event in which there is just one subject, space is indefinite and time is definite. To the extent that all these texts describe the actions of the subject that forms an event, they have an implication that the event must have the end by virtue of the very fact that it is the event (already). This means that these texts have an immanent capacity to be ended. In other words, all these texts are finite. If we look at the empirical reflections of such texts, we will find out that the capacity of being finalized is clearly expressed: myth is a finite event, which may unchangeably be repeated in the corresponding space; chronicle is a finite event, which began and ended some time ago; history is another finite event, which has its own past, present and future (it determines its future by virtue of its past and present). Even cosmogonic myth, which as we have demonstrated is the quintessence of the texts of our understanding of being, is finite and finalized: it describes the origination of the universe, the laws on which the universe is based, and the end, which will inevitably happen. Each cosmogonic myth is a part of the cosmogonic story, which describes the

62

inevitable end of the universe. Such inevitable end was predicted by that physical theory, which was described above in Part I above. But what about the fairy tale? As we have noted, the structure of fair tale is as follows: definite is either the subject, or time, or space. As is clear at the very first glance, unlike the main text of consciousness fair tale is characterized by or. But neither this or indicates the possibility/impossibility of finiteness. Fantasy, which stems directly from fair tale and rest on it, is somewhat different: here the role of subject is performed either by time, or space, or the subject itself. The subject itself is either an inanimate object, or human being. This means that to the extent that the text of fantasy is multi-subjective (in other words, new event [i.e. one action of the subject or subjects] begins until the end of the previous one [e.g. the story of the sword and its owner: the story of the owner may be finished, but that of the sword may be continued, or vice versa.]), it is essentially infinite and unfinished because of the multiple texts or events. Such possibility exists in fair tale too. However, over the centuries it has never been realized by the understanding of being. The birth of fantasy became possible only after the consciousness had got through its way (in other words, when it had exhausted all its texts). The multi-subjectivity of the new text (it should be called the field of possibility for events or the parallel event, rather than simply event) is different from that of myth, i.e. the text, which our understanding of being is used to. In myth multiple subjects are the participants in one and the same event and make up one text. Conversely, in fantasy multiple subjects represent multiple texts. Each text, which within the limits of the old paradigm of consciousness used to be understood as one, in fantasy is understood as the part of one of the multiple parallel events outlined in this text. It is not an accident that fair tale originated (at least, presumably) after the establishment of the first quintessence, i.e. cosmogonic myth, when the original time, marked by the sign of myth, came to an end and transformed into a meaning-lost form of

63

consciousness. This enabled the birth of the sign of new understanding. It must also be taken into consideration that at the time of the end of time increasingly more attention is given to fair tale. The works of Brothers Grimm is the best example of that in Modern age. Presumably, in this case with the conclusion of one stage of the time of consciousness, i.e. the understanding of being, a new understanding is trying to establish itself, against which the existing understanding is trying to use the old and experienced methods. As we can see, the signs of future point at the possibility of essentially new texts. Such an perspective is directly open to the phenomenon of language also, which will be subject to our scrutiny in the last section of this book. Addition: Illustrating Aesthetics with the Aid of Inflational Cosmology In Part I of this book (The New Personage) we described the old cosmogonic theory, which about a decade ago was accepted by theoretical physics. As the aesthetic studies have proven, this theory was a legitimate result of the existing understanding of being and had all the signs which might be characteristic to the texts of our consciousness. In addition to those signs which were described in Part I and were applied to the physical theory, this cosmology is characterized by the sign, which was established during the analysis of the objectives of philosophy, namely bringing to an end, or finalization. According to the old theory, the universe originates (the scheme of such origination has already been described) and after some time is ruined or ceases to exist (see Paul Davis, The Superpower, ). In other words, the event, which is an occasion, begins and comes to an end - according to the law of the understanding of being or the text of consciousness. Here, as we can see, the understanding of being feels comfortable and is fully realized. We also noted that physics as a science, following the understanding of being, had ceased to exist, and so had done all other sciences -in principle. Such a conclusion was inferred from taking into account Locks paradigm.15

15

To know the object means to know its genesis.

64

But to the extent that we leave in our time, when the understanding of being, i.e. the consciousness is finalizing its appearances and the signs of future are becoming more and more evident, it is quite likely that the phenomena of future, which have a capacity to be revealed or established, will be discovered in the existing phenomena, which are alreadyfinished, or rather unfinished but eternally-striving-to-the-end . The reason for that is that language and man, as we have already demonstrated, will easily accept any new understanding so long as the likelihood of such an understanding is included in their essence. If we look at the data of contemporary physics, such signs will seem definitely evident. The signs of future are seen in the context of contemporary inflationary cosmology.16 We are not about to discuss here why and how such a cosmogonic picture was formed. The interested persons are invited to get familiar with the specific literature. Aesthetics is just interested in those results and conclusions, which are provided by contemporary physics in the process of the study of the universe. While discussing the issue of inflationary cosmology, I refer to the following work of Linde: Physics of Elementary Particles and Inflationary Cosmology. The first result interesting to us is the assumption that one region of the inflatable universe produces many such inflatable regions. Furthermore, the temporal and spatial qualities and the laws of relationships between the elementary particles can be different in different regions. The evolution of the universe, as a whole, if we take into account the permanent creation of the inflatable regions, is an unending process and probably it has no beginning too either. With this approach, as we can see, the main mode of our understanding of being finalizing is avoided. Although according to the contemporary cosmology the cosmos, as a whole, never ends, is never finalized, the individual inflatable regions cannot avoid such a fate. The scheme, which used to be applicable to the whole universe, now may be applied merely to the individual regions. However, in comparison with the old theory,
16

To inflate means to fill something with air. Inflationary cosmology denotes the cosmology, according to which the existence of the universe, the cosmos is described as the process of inflation (i.e. expanding in the space).

65

the life time of the inflatable segment of the universe has significantly increased (p. 52). Here I would like to make a stop on one more aspect of the old cosmology. The end of the universe, according to this theory, could take place in two different ways: the hot end was to be expected as a result of the collapse of the universe; the cold end could occur in an endlessly empty space (p. 262). These two representations of the worlds end coincide with the results of aesthetics of consciousness (two versions of the end of consciousness). As we can see, the existing understanding of being is manifested in all its modes entirely and without any losses. Now in the closest proximity to the truth is the assumption that the universe, as a whole, will exist forever, that it will endlessly produce new regions, in which the laws can be different. It is not known so far, whether life can endlessly develop in each individual region. But it is definitely known that life will emerge over and over in different regions and in different kinds. Linde says that such representation of the universe is one of the most important results of the development of inflationary cosmology (p. 261). Now owing to aesthetics we have formed an idea of the two understandings of being. One of them, which is ours and exists in ourselves is reflected everywhere and in everything. The other one, which may be realized, is known due to a few signs. The consideration of the achievements of contemporary physics enabled us to take account of the signs of future, which exist in this area. Although all these signs are unnoticeable and incompletely developed yet, in the context of the modern inflationary cosmology the possibility of the new text is clearly visible. The signs of the new understanding of being may be discerned in the assumption that the existence of the universe is endless and that it has neither end, and nor beginning. The signs of the new understanding of being can also be noticed in the way of describing the worlds existence, which is represented as a process of creating the new worlds. In the view of these signs it is expected that in the future the idea of finiteness of individual regions will be rejected and the inflatable regions of the universe will be represented as eternal phenomena as is the whole universe. Although it likely that the idea of the end

66

will be retained, the possibility of finiteness of specific existence will be avoided somehow. Its not news to aesthetics that each inflatable region has its own end - yet. In our environment, where one consciousness or understanding of being is approaching its end, and the other one is still on the horizon, any other continuation of our existence is hardly imaginable. The reason is that our understanding necessarily implies finalizing. In other words, the new understanding assesses our consciousness, our world by the main sign of ours and gives a verdict of end. As we can see, the picture of the inflationary cosmology includes the fragments of the new text. Event, the beginning and the end of which used to be the limits of the text has been canceled and is represented as one of the fragments of a larger text. The origination of the new regions from the inflatable ones entirely matches the outlines of the new text, which were established by aesthetics in relation to fantasy. Like in fantasy, each text produces new texts, just like each inflatable region, each mini-world, according to the inflationary cosmology, produces new worlds. This means that we have to do with something which is essentially infinite. This, in turn, means that the phenomenon of the parallel worlds (texts) has already penetrated into physics that necessarily points at the co-existence of the new understanding of being. Furthermore, another strong indication of the existence of the signs of future is the gradual escalation of the anthropic principle. There is one more sign of the new understanding of being, or new consciousness this is a substantial difference between the old and new cosmologies. A few years ago theoretical physicists have been discussing about a major unity (of electromagnetic, gravitational, strong and weak relationships), as a real process, which must have been existed long ago and afterwards was divided into four relationships. (This hypothesis was the basis of that version of the cosmological theory, which was discussed in A New Personage.). Today subject to discussions is not real, but rather experimental, i.e. essential unity of those four powers (p. 117, 154).

67

This means that science, represented in this case by the science of physics, is gradually rejecting its old paradigm, which says that knowing an object means knowing its genesis, and is adopting a new paradigm, whose outlines become more and more visible. Even at first glance it becomes clear that those aspects of contemporary theoretical physics, which are subject to our interest, and the subject matter, i.e. the study of the genesis of the world, have diverged. Gradually this divergence may become progressively evident. As the data being at hand have demonstrated, the universe in all its potential states even in that one, which can not be observed (in inflationary cosmology they are speaking about the uniformity of the observable sections of the universe, rather than the uniformity of the whole universe) is becoming the subject matter of cosmology. The question of the parallel worlds, which is becoming more and more actual, is the best evidence to such a situation. Therefore, at least in reference to that aspect of physics it would be possible to state that it does not aim at studying the genesis of its object, but rather the possible states of that object. Perhaps it would be justified to make a generalization and ascribe similar objective and paradigm to the science of future, as a whole. Whether this phenomenon could be referred to as science at all thats a different issue. But lets leave the prerogative to select the name to the future, if this prediction comes to be true. It can not be ruled out that the similar signs of future be discovered in different sciences as well. To the extent that all sciences have approximately the same paradigm and origins, it is quite possible that they have common outlines of continuation and conclusion too. Studying the potential state of the object means knowing all states in which it may appear. Inflationary cosmology has already indicated that all kinds of existence are possible. The question how observable they are is a different one. Once again with the analogy of the structure of the new text, such studies will never end, because each aspect of the studies, each potential state of object generates more and more new regions, whose states are also to be studied and established.

68

This means that with the introduction of the new paradigm of science the concept of the object will also be modified. Object (Gegenstand) in a number of languages is a composite word (it was introduced after the origination of science) and denotes something that is before us, to be looked at, i.e. which can be observed. According to the new paradigm, although object may not be an observable phenomenon, it will remain an object to be studied. Therefore, according to the new principle, no specific subject can be the object to be scientifically studied any longer, because it will be established as one of the variations of the object to be studied rather than that object as such. This means that if in the future the new understanding of being is established, no individual field of science can exist separately. All of them will unite and study the potential variations of the universe (I dont imply the unity of natural sciences only). The study of specific, observable object will not be an objective (as is nowadays in technical sciences [see A New Personage]), but rather the analysis of one of the expressions of the potential being of the universe. Therefore, to the extent that the signs of future point at the total rejection of the existing paradigm of science (there will be rejected subject matter, as it is too narrow from the standpoint of the objective of science, as well as genesis, as it is the passed stage), the new paradigm will probably be established as the study of the potential states of the universe. The study of the potential statuses of the universe will bring together such sciences, which are quite alien to each other at present, including physics, biology, philology, etc. Up to now it has been said that the unification of the results of different sciences would generate a world-picture. But any picture is inelastic and inflexible. In addition, it is always static and claims to be the only and true one. A new, future unification, if it is successful, will open essentially new horizons to every human being. Finally, we have to respond to the question, which is likely to be raised by every reader: why it happened so that the signs of future became visible in physics rather than any other field of science? The point is that, over the decades, physics has been doing the thing which has been attributed to philosophy and which has been accepted by

69

philosophy itself: physics has designed and constructed the worldviews, i.e. the worldpictures. (In the meantime, each world-picture is followed by a relevant disposition. The relationship between these two is the same as between myth and ritual). Thats why the exhaustion of the world-pictures under the existing understanding of being and the showup of the gleam of a different one was to be expected. (As was noted above, upon coming to a real end the understanding of being must be transformed into a different one). I just took an attempt to notice and describe that gleam. Of course, it is quite possible that under the new understanding of being, that is to say, under the different consciousness the situation that we have just predicted either never occurs or does so in a different fashion. But it must not be difficult to notice that the signs of future, which have been sought for in the light of aesthetics, will be found exactly in the same places, which we had anticipated in the places, where the existing understanding of being has been in crisis. In addition, the uniformity of these signs is clearly and easily noticeable. But the existence of the signs of future does not mean that these signs will be realized without any help from outside and that they do not need any support. The existing understanding of being, with the aid of pseudo-interpretations, is able to give them the appearance of its own phenomena. Just like game is given the appearance of technology, the new text is called one of the versions of the old texts. And what is most important and hidden, finalizing is presented as ordinary, universal, harmless and self-evident phenomenon. In this way, our consciousness has a chance to continue existence endlessly. (When we described our consciousness in the light of aesthetics of consciousness, the signs of future, although we noticed them, had been concealed from us in their essence. This is another example how the existing understanding of being works. As for philosophy, because it is a reflection, even through its mistakes it indicates the nature of what has been reflected by it).

70

71

INSTEAD OF POSTFACE Aesthetics indicated that one of the main actions of our consciousness, i.e. our understanding of being is the conferring the meaning (and finally the function). All rational phenomena, which exist in our environment and surround us, are marked by that sign. As we have already noted, one of the basic performers of this action is faith. One of the best expressions of faith in the history of mankind credo quia absurdum (Tertulianus) has exactly this implication. From this viewpoint faith is a means, order, interrelation and need to see ones own, ones familiar environment there, where logically it can not be seen; in other words, what can not be meta-ized by itself and what can not completely be meta-ized otherwise. If we take account of aesthetics, faith (and belief) may be applied to that phenomenon, which can not completely be deprived of its meaning, can not be finalized or confined to the limits of a certain definition (by virtue of the phenomenon, which is to be meta-ized). Faith is determined to meta-ize all and to see in everything something that determines and deprives things of their meanings. There is one phenomenon in our environment, whose relationship to faith, on the one hand, and to reason and logic, on the other hand, is indicated by the words, which express it in different languages this is prejudice, Vorurteil. Each prejudice is giving a meaning to the object of prejudice, marking it by the function of universe. Prejudice is giving a meaning to the event, defining every particular event, meta-izing and finalizing it. As we have noted, this transforms each event of the universe into a functional phenomenon. Transforming any event into a functional phenomenon is nothing but recognizing and accepting the fact that this event has been finalized, completed, brought to an end and the only thing it has to do is to perform a certain function. As we can see, it is clear that by virtue of prejudice (i.e. faith) everyday events are being kept in the circle of the understanding of being. In other words, faith forces any existing phenomenon to yield to being.

72

(As for the word prejudice, perhaps it has been assigned to this phenomenon by another faith, i.e. by something, which is willing to interpret the interpreted event in a different fashion. The latter could be religion, science, etc. Actually, prejudice is the meaning-lost form of consciousness). From all above it could be inferred that in our understanding of being the universe, i.e. the world-view provides meanings to events and participants in these events, which exist in it. Accordingly, by virtue of the world-view all existent in the universe becomes functional, i.e. phenomenon of being. (Of course, this does not mean that every individual bears in his mind a coherent picture of the world. To speak the language of our understanding of being, more or less all world-views that have ever existed in the history of consciousness are reflected in a specific consciousness as rudimental meanings and functions). Such description of the state of affairs is identical to the nature of language, which we have identified with the aid of aesthetics, that is to say, during the search for the relevant trace. When we were describing language, we said that the words, which actually are the meaning-lost signs, are provided with functions in the text. In other words, a word per se does not have any meaning without and outside of language. At the same time, we have also noted that to a specific consciousness language is nothing but the unity of signs, in which all these signs have got their own meanings. In this regard, language as a means of communication does not differ from other communicative phenomena, which can be met in our environment. The difference, i.e. the nature of language appears and is established at a so-called transcendent level, where it becomes evident that language is a unity of texts consisting of the meaning-lost signs. Now, it could be said that according to our consciousness, the universe, in marginal terms, should be described as a text, in which the words (or rather objects) have been given certain functions. As we have noted, the text, which is characteristic to our language, or to our understanding of being, that is to say, which is our world, is the description of the event in which the roles are performed by time, space and the subject. Therefore, our understanding of being unavoidably needs the concept of the active

73

subject, which in the main text referred to as the universe is called the God, law or whatever. As for the variations of the text, different characteristics of the subject, time and space in different texts, this is the matter of technique. This indicates that the universe, which exists in our understanding for us, is homogenous, a sole event, which begins and ends somewhere and which, because of its homogenity, can not occur but in a uniform manner (to the extent that it is the event). According to aesthetics of being, the universe is nothing but the manifestation of this understanding of being, our consciousness and our language. As aesthetics of consciousness has pointed out and now aesthetics of being has agreed with it, the universe is reflected in language and vice versa. It is natural, therefore, to ask this question: if our language is entirely our understanding of being, how can we exist with this language in other understanding of being and couldnt it be that such transition required that language be radically changed? The last section of this question factually nullifies all efforts that in the course of the search for the way to the new understanding of being were made by aesthetics. The radical change of language is so unimaginable a venture that any discussions about overcoming the catastrophic consciousness become senseless. But here again the results of aesthetics are hurrying to rescue us: as it becomes evident, the changes must be applicable to the main text rather than the communication system of language. In other words, language is just the text which determines the texts of this language and it has nothing to do with those signs, which make up the system of communication (has nothing to do with means that communicative language is the process of retransformation of the words of text into signs, i.e. the process of giving meanings and the capacity to be signs back to the meaning-lost signs. Speech is the next phase of language). To change language does not mean to change our everyday language, but rather to modify its roof, something that transforms it into language. In the light of our understanding of being it is impossible to predict what effects such a change can have on the nature of language. However, perhaps the new language can also be defined in the

74

context of our understanding of being as something that gives meanings to the meaningless words. Such a definition could exist along with some new definition. We have already noticed the likelihood of such a new text in fantasy and the contemporary inflationary cosmology (as well as in the phenomenon of play). This new text requires the variety of the subject and, as it has already been mentioned, the variety of the worlds too depending on the texts. The existence of the new text may also be drawn from the assumption of inflationary cosmology that the universe, the cosmos is not homogenous. In other words, it may be assumed that in the future text (in the future universe) the process of assigning the meanings (functions) either takes place in different fashion or it does not take place at all (in some of them). As aesthetics of being has shown, language is playing a game, that is to say, it continues creating the words, i.e. assigning functions without any purpose and function. Therefore, language always creates signs (as a rule it transforms words into signs). Exactly because of this capacity the language, that is to say, the main text can be changed in such a manner that the empirical mode of language speech predominantly will remain the same as it has always been. As it turns out, language, which originally appeared as a complete and perfect reflection, or image of the existing understanding of being, contains a phenomenon that is a guarantee of reality of the new understanding. All signs of future, which we had distinguished here, came together in a sole phenomenon and appeared as different expressions of one and the same phenomenon. Also, however strange it may seem, the traces of the existing understanding of being brought us into the domain of language. This has an implication that if steps are made towards establishing the new understanding of being they will be successful, because there are favorable conditions for such steps. Still there are just conditions rather than determining factors. Again, according to the new text, the success (or failure) in the realization of the new understanding depends exclusively on men, i.e. specific individuals. Irrespective of its new objectives, philosophy can not speak about the necessity of such a transition. The main motive, which may ensure the desirability of such a transition is overcoming the catastrophic consciousness and, therefore, avoiding its effects. Just saying or wishing that this

75

transition, whether we like it or not, must necessarily take place, would be nothing but returning in our understanding of being. It would be returning because in this way we would find ourselves in the event which once has happened. In other words, we would stay within the limits of the old text.

76