Chapter 5
(Being dualists)
5.1 ) Homo sapiens
dualis
For
the science the man is still the better or
at least the more interesting
product of evolution of the biosphere. The
mammal that with the gain of the
erect position has freed the two anterior
paws from the tasks of walking,
re-qualifying them, as hands, toward absolutely
extraordinary tasks of catching
and manipulation, that are in the base of
nearly all the human activities and
primary cause of all intellectual developments. But is its brain to notably grew in mass
and faculty in
comparison with the chimpanzee, with which
shares the common ancestor. It has
so implemented its abilities and widened
the knowledge and intuition of the
reality toward intuitive, imaginative and
logical-computational horizons not
allowed to his cousins primates, that became
possible for the man to overcome
the limits of its material nature.
But the indisputable mental capacities of
the man built in its psyche also such superiority complex that caused
its oblivion of own origins, that is to remain
still, always and irremediably,
an animal, even if a little more evolved
than others. Its presumptuousness
causes to consider itself earth’s lord and
project some ideal human excellence
in a “super-human” God, that was then situated
in a fantastic and celestial
transcendence. Topologic projection that
persisted not only metaphorically, to
spite of the awareness that in the sky is
a little difficult that God is able
to go into and that is very difficult to
give him any other place where He can
stay, unless to imagine Him in other universe
or, pantheistically, diffused in
this one. It is quite funny such conceit
to imagine some our creator and
transcendent father and then to draw the
universe in accordance with His
presence, as a lot of contemporary theologians
continue to do.
We have already said that recent
researches about the elementary matter and about the universe hallowed
to pose the hypothesis that the universe
in which we live to be only one of the
many existing, and that in this one could
be hidden spatial dimensions that
escapes to all our observation and researching
tools [1].
Even if this physical and cosmological theories
are today yet far to be
confirmed, they could however give us some
doubt about our metaphysical
supremacy. I mean that our possibility (already
rather disputable) to reach the
limits of our galaxy in “this” universe (a
fact that however would not change
our nothingness with regard to reality of
the totality) could make decidedly
ridiculous if are existing other universes
(where perhaps could be more life
than in this one), to the point that every
conceitedness would become laughable
over every measure. But moreover; all we
define “objective” has to be more correctly defined
“anthropic”, because we read the book of
the universe still always with human
eye and such little portion of reality to
which we have access is irremediably
limited to our very little action range.
But such human situation, clearly, not
changes neither when we do the little footstep
forward that involves our RD,
which yet opens a not little breach in the
wall of such sealed “anthropic castle”
that the monism has built stubbornly over the millennia.
Since from the Neolithic era the man,
increased in the number and in its vital
demands, has begun a systematic
transformation of the Earth to its benefit,
with predation operations of the
existing resources often blind and inconsiderate.
The conceited ennoblement of
our species has pushed to the point to detach
it genetically from the rest of
the biosphere, which, mother enslaved and exploited, became
only a
warehouse of resources at disposal, without
that any ethic restraint set some
limits to its arbitrary use. At the point
that the human race, comes today to
the number of six individual billions, has
to bring the account with the
anxious deterioration of the environment
and of the atmosphere. And all that is
happened without that inside mankind has
neither reach some intraspecific modus
vivendi, so to exit from cruel rules of the conflicts
for the supremacy,
the selection and the stratification among
human groups and individuals, in an
implacable logic of predominance and enslaving.
On the contrary, just one's own
intellectual capacities furnished to it the
means and ability for every kind of
intraspecific over-powering, of which the
wars, local or regional, are the more
meaningful aspect. But such remarks don't
have to lead us toward some
moralizing way absolutely untimely. We have
instead to value the past, the
present and the future still always in the
optics of a living being, which, in
spite of his intellectual and ethical progresses,
remains fundamentally a beast
among the beasts. It seams, indeed, that
the man using its own means tries to
favour itself whether in accordance or against
the biological reason
that regulates all biosphere. Of the other hand, from an ethological
point of view, we don’t see neither because
the man, in its evolution level,
could surpass and eliminated the instincts
concerning its nature, that probably
will for the most part persist, fixed and
unchangeable, even in the future; if
too corrigible with the civilization level
attainment always more advanced.
Arises then the enormous contradiction of
an animal that on the one hand had itself
attributed a divine investiture and
on the other was incapable to go much over
the predatory and merciless logics
of all other living beings, from which differ
for its evolutionary level, but
not just for the nature. The imaginative
ad abstractive ability of its mind are
surely extraordinary projections over the
limits of its intuition of the reality,
and not less important and meaningful of
the often overestimated ability of the
reason, but all that for nothing removed it from
the materiality, that
constitutes and conditions it. Therefore,
in spite of that and from the more to
the less, the man continues to remain tied,
as every other animal, to the
universal laws of the necessity, that pertain the quarks as every its
neuron. But, it is to remark, without such
exceptional projective ability not
could have neither possible that phenomenon,
in the same time anthropological
(natural) and cultural (artificial) that
is the birth of “sense of sacred ”,
from which came, across unknown passages,
the creation and the installation of
the organized religions.
The religious phenomenon assumes therefore
a particular anthropological importance,
since throws light on the mental
structure of the man and on its demand to
endow with ideal and axiological
references, which, projecting it on an existential
horizon that goes beyond the
animal level, were able to satisfy psychic
demands specifically human, but that
was present yet in species that have preceded
that of the homo sapiens.
To avoid then to throw away the good with
the bad, a philosophy of the
existence that wants come to an exhaustive
and correct conception of the man,
but that at the same time consider and surpass
such ancestral psychic demands,
has to take in considerations even this important
historical reality of the
religious feeling, to interpret it correctly
and put it adequately in the
anthropological context. To do that not means
to be conditioned by such psychic
demand that the religion satisfies, but actually
gather the more deep meaning,
by means of a correct philosophical reading
of the very important function,
conservative and protectress, of the psyche (that protects even itself
against the dissociative and destructive
risks) inside such functional complex
in which concur the other three mental organizations already considered.
In other words, the biological reason
has “programmed” our psyche to
work so and not otherwise, therefore it is
necessary to bring to account with
this anthropic reality, to see what it means
and what heuristic addresses is
able to supply us. The scientific point of
view in a strict sense, that
concerns mainly the structures and functions
of the human organism, in its
relationships with the all, doesn't have
very much to reveal us in this field,
unless to consider resolutely as sciences
the psychoanalysis and the psychology
in general, which are however useful (but
limited) tools of functional research.
The important for us is try to recover the
authentic aitherial reality,
underlying (but misunderstanded or hidden)
in the spiritualistic-religious
hypostases, recognizing it in transparency
as object of a true intuition of
which one has been given (naively or artfully)
an incorrect interpretation.
In replacing the false divine “spirit”
with the real aither, and eliminating every element of fanciful
transcendence, the RD tries to recover its
authentic traces and at the same
time to cancel that contingent and improper
track that was engraved the psyche
across the millenniums. In the idema, the core of the individuality, the
aither is perceived, introjected and elaborate
in a individual product,
but at the same time even extra-individual,
spendable in the ethics, in the
aesthetics and in all other forms in which
it could have expressed, according
to theist tradition, the “soul” of divine
origin. Therefore with the RD we pass
from such transcendentalistic and improper
interpretation, which considers the
soul as emanation of the God’s spirit, to
another that considers the idema
formed by the same matter of the body and then to it homogeneous.
Not
only, but goes even stressed that the aither is not a “elsewhere” respect to the matter, but is to
the margin [2] of it, in a
strict topologic relationship to spite of
its total extraneousness under the
“substantial” point of view.
The homo sapiens becomes then, in
our dualistic perspective, the extraordinary
phase of an evolution of the matter
that pushes it toward an approach to what
would be a metaphoric
"sister" of a common origin, from
which it was separate perhaps from
birth or perhaps from a precedent and unknown
cosmic event. The idema,
which is present, in various evolution degrees,
all over the animal world, but
perhaps, elementarily, in that vegetable
one, becomes like that “intern”
element of the biosphere in general, as advanced result of evolution.
The idema, in the dualistic perspective, expunges
the old hypostasis of
the soul, but as emergent product of
life on the Earth in its generality, loses
also that specifically anthropic
character that the human conceitedness has
attributed to the soul. As
theoretically common to all biosphere it, perhaps (and I stress the
perhaps), has reached in the homo sapiens the more elevated
functionality level for the passage from
the pure materiality to a certain form
of share to a reality, that aitherial, probably
blocked to the lower
evolutionary degrees.
It is yet evident that the human idema
is a tool of the matter in any case very rough to have deal with
the aither,
but nobody forbid us to think that in other
planets outside the solar system,
or in the same future of the Earth, exists
or will exist living beings equipped
with an idema very more evolute than our and capable to
have a
relationship with the aither much less confused and precarious of what
we are able to experiment. This makes even
us aware of the long way that would
be able await the biosphere, before it is reasonably able to reach
levels in which becomes possible produce
a living being capable of constitute a
true bridge of communication with the aither or with some other
presumable realities that we have hypothesized.
But,
as we already said, the reciprocal "extraneousness"
of aither
and matter is very far from the concept of “transcendence”
of the
“spirit” in comparison with matter as posed by religion, which
presupposes a hierarchical relationship between
what transcend and what that is
transcended. In the RD the two ambits, and what constitutes them, are
reciprocally independent and with the same
ontological dignity. The dynamic
being (or becoming) of the matter, in its temporariness,
would seem (but this would be only a mine
“inevitable anthropic deformation”)
reveal yet “a movement outside itself toward
some other” much more strong in
comparison with the being, probably more stable, of the aither.
That is to say that the matter would reveal in addition the tendential
capacity to surpass its borders and its structural
dimensions, projecting
itself toward the plurality of the general
reality. This capacity would
seem reveal in the fact that it, by means
of idema, becomes really a
co-creator of the forms of the aither. To bring to the extreme
consequences this our hypothetical speech
it would seem then that the matter
could be able to go toward the aither. This one, instead, would seem
incapable to behaviour as much, just because
it would not seems to go toward
the matter, but, on the contrary, to evade from it
hiding itself, and
this is the reason for which we are induced
to think the aither grounded
by a more stable being. How we see in the RD the relationship between
matter
and aither results upside-down in comparison with that
one of the
spiritualistic and religious ideologies,
where is the spirit to be mobile and
going to the brute and immovable matter (often creating it) [3].
Then the homo sapiens, in dualistic
terms, could be considered a biological outpost
toward such “plurale” reality we have hypothesized; being it able, already
today, to throw a look over the limits of
the matter. And perhaps in the
future, for evolution one's own, or as basic
material for further genetic
mutations, forms forerunner more evolutes
of the matter and still more
open toward what today there is totally us
unknown. An unknown that is
not distant, as the galaxies escaping each
other, but “here” , in the gorges of
a complex reality, that the theologians and
the philosophers has more or less
always (consciously or unconsciously) wanted
to simplify, hypostatizing a
monistic reality “one and unitary”, with
the purpose to maintain to a lower
level that tensions which could have been
able to damage a psyche not
still enough evolved, which, for homeostasis reasons, was not able to
accept a plural reality that warned as potentially
dangerous.
5.2) To
be and to exist.
If Heidegger was worried that
his ontology not was exchanged for existentialism, my worry, in
writing these pages, are exactly opposed.
The awareness of my materiality and
of the limits of my thought block me the
presumptuousness to research the being
as “origin and transcendence” of what is
existing. If I oppose the being
that is “inside the universe” to the nothing that could be outside and
use terms as dynamic being and (probably) stable being to
indicate what is to the base of the two ambits of the reality,
not for that I hope to add something, ontologically,
to the pure sound of the
words that designate them. They are used
as simple reference terms, to point
out what is supposed to be origin, cause
and substance of all that exists,
without of them we are able to advance some
further connotation.
The being for the RD
is simply the totality of the real single
beings, since, without real beings
to testify it, the being simply “is not”. But, if we want grant us
a
poetic envoy then can to say that perhaps
it is the mysterious “power” to which
is to relate the “act” of existing of our
universe in its complex whole; and
yet we of the whole being, in any case, would be able always and only
to
perceive (in Kantian terms) the show of his
effects “for us”. And with a
process of reduction to the "sure",
in the end, the only existence of
which we are able really deal is still always
"our" one. And that
bring back us to the ontological supremacy
that we had recognized in due course
to the individuality, when we had assumed it as starting point
of our
researches.
It is
in fact our existence, with regard to the
“all”, the true object of the RD. Everything
we are able to think of that is outside us
is the result of the limited
intellectual faculties which we have at disposal
and yet we cannot are able to
count on other. The main point is doesn't
clip the little wings of our intellect
and abdicate to pose the questions that the
existing set, accepting passively
the tempting answers prepackaged that are
offered from the religious
ideologies, or, on the contrary, limiting
us to a materialistic monism
that block every opening to the unknown in which we are dipped. It is in
such sense that the RD is even an existentialistic
philosophy, having it for
above all object the existence of the man.
But of the secular existentialisms
known and more recent (apart from that more
specifically religious ones) doesn't have that
intellectualistic character by which are
they determined and pervaded. Whose
issues go from the mystical ontology [4]
to the substitution of the religion, otherwise
toward a wishful libertarianism,
become the intriguing and ambiguous substratum
of cultural and behavioural
fashions of anticonformist and uninhibited
character [5],
which have assumed aspects of fashionable
aestheticisms. The RD is instead a
ground-to-ground existentialism, for the man in the street, where
prevails the good sense with a touch of pragmatism; characteristics
that
maintain it very far from elegant acrobatics
of the intellect and of the
reason, only references to real and practical
life.
5.3) The good and the evil.
The two terms indicate interpretative and
of reference concepts of enormous importance,
even linguistic, whose manifold
meanings cover all complex range of the human
esperience. In origin they have
to be simple verbal expressions tied to the
bodily pleasure or pain, a few
after they have to become in the speech of
the desirable and of the undesirable
expressive signals; only later they acquired,
for correlation, analogy or
extension, the wide range of meanings currently
in use. Yet is in the cultural
field and especially in metaphysical that
good and evil assume
the more amazing development, going away
from the primitive meaning up to twist
it ideologically in the reciprocal opposite.
So the transgression of the divine
law that produces pleasure can be considered
evil and the pain suffered
as homage to the divinity ca be considered
good.
But the relativity of good and evil
is of more wide importance, because the desire is an urge that goes to
thousand sometimes opposite directions. So
the damage of an individual can
becomes an advantage of an other, till the
extreme result express from the
Latin proverb “mors tua vita mea".
And yet, going out from the abuses of the
ideology, we can ask if have
to abandon the evil and the good to the pure expressive
relativism or, instead, try to attribute
to the two terms a less vague meaning,
with an univocal and definite meaning that
not opposes the good sense
and the reason.
In a dualistic perspective it emerges
immediately an adjunctive difficulty, because
we have to set preliminarily the
question about the legitimacy of the use
of the couple of opposite terms
relatively to both or to an only of the two
ambits of the reality
of them are we dealing. And, in any case,
what would be the respective, and
diverging, meanings? Luckily we are able
to clear away easily and at once the
field of a horn of the problem, affirming
that, probably, where is presumably
absent any form of material becoming, and is the case of aither,
becomes absurd to seek to apply it such two
merely anthropic concepts. Where it
is, presumably, stable being and not becoming (dynamic being)
in materialistic-evolutionary sense, cannot
exist conflictual states among the
different forms of the aither with regard to the couple good/evil.
On the other hand, being the fundamental
modality
(ways of being) of the aither those of liberty and quality
ones, we cannot consequently introduce in
the ambit of the aither
any effects of the laws of the necessity, inherent to the substance
and becoming of the matter, which admit the opposite results of
“positive” and “negative”. It is just doubtful
if, and in which way, it has
sense to apply our couple of terms to the
ambit of matter itself,
because inside it all is in transformation
and in continuous evolution, for
which the mechanisms of the necessity (alterable from the case),
with the exchange and the transition of the
causes in the effects (with those
of feed-back ones), make them often superimposed, muddled
and sometimes
interchangeable.
That with regard to the inorganic matter
it is impossible decide in a chemical reaction,
where certain substances become
others, if that happens is good or evil,
if not in utility or damage terms for
the men that observe, effect or suffer it,
that is out of question. And the
same thing we may say of that organic matter
only virtually living that
precedes or follows the life. The
things are in different way if we speak of
living subjects. The cells that
constitute a body regenerate continually
themselves and the death of a cell is
functional to the birth of that replaces
it: just such fact allows the survival
of the body [6] . But if we
from the minimal unity that constitutes the
living matter move toward the whole
multicellular living being, the binomial
life/death so express becomes
immediately an antinomy. "Ours"
life distinguish and match itself to
the life in general and our living becomes
the Supreme Good to defend above
all. Just the pleasure by which we are biologically
attracted becomes second-rate,
to the point that we are ready to suffer
for a therapy or a surgical
intervention if they assure us the preservation
of the life.
The point is that the cardiac arrest in a
living being is not a pure transformation,
but the functional cessation of a
concluded and isolated entity of the biological
“whole”. That results still
more evident if we think that from the chemical
point of view it remain, at least for some time, unchanged
the same bodily consistence and its molecular
composition. The evil is then
just here, in the passage of the individuality to a totality that
end a process where we pass from the existence
of an “I” to its annulment,
while the putrefaction that follows the death
is a normal chemical
transformation, where the nature and the
sum of the atoms remains unchanged.
But if the "breath of life" is
nearly a nothing in comparison with
the fundamental structure of the matter, it is yet the form of it that
testifies its evolution and progress, for
that the life has to be considered
the most precious value from it achieved.
Neither we can push over, to affirm
that a still greater value could have the
psyche, the reason, the
intellect or the idema, since they are simple functions of the
living organism, which end in the moment
when happens the cerebral death.
But the life dialectic, with the
implications over remembered, under the theoretical
profile (and then general)
doesn't admit only our individual point of
view, but even that collective of
our group or of our people, just, that of
the whole species. But that
legitimates then also the virtual point of
view of every other living species
and even the sum of all the living species,
then the biosphere in its
whole. Thence, if we want adopt valid concepts
of good and evil
are compelled, logically, to include the
virtual point of view that concerns
all the life forms, with them we linked and
relative by the common origin are.
If the criterion must have a general validity
we have then to abandon the
reference to the individual desire, that
has a pure psychological value,
passing decidedly to that of the general
“life will”, what direct us toward the
self-preservation and the survival. The term,
that we borrow from Schopenhauer,
in the RD assumes however a meaning a little
different. For us the life will
is irrational and blind only at individual
level, while for Schopenhauer [7]
it assumes totality character. Under the
profile of the totality instead for us
the life will answers fully to the biological reason, that
exstablishes and includes it. Biological reason that we can even define
as a kind of “intelligence of the evolved
matter”, because it regulates and
guides the biosphere, to the maintenance and the best adaptation
(in its
generality ) to the inorganic world that
it accepts.
It emerges
then clearly that the good/evil couple and its derived and connected has
a sense only if concerns the life in its
whole, but that its meaning cannot be
neither related only to the extremes of life
and death; therefore we must
include all that, in the form of situations,
happenings or corollaries to good
and evil, puts in the vital course of every being
of the biosphere
in the arc of whole its existence, that is
between the birth and the rigor
mortis. It is not only a problem of existing or
not, but even of modality of the existing itself, that
are subjectively perhaps more important than
to live or to die.
At this point we are able to draw a
conclusion, affirming that it may be considered
good all that in some
way promotes the life, preserves, develops
and improves it, on the contrary it
may be considered evil all that denies, damages, does regress and
worsens it. From such comes that even the
damage of any tool or means that
accompanies usefully our life is a negative
fact. The life precariousness in
itself is accompanied from that of every
our power or attribute, and that
allows us a further more extensive formulation
(but not devoid of some
ambiguity) that would be said so: «In the
becoming of the matter
and in its continuous change is good what involves maintenance, increase
and progress, while is evil what involves destruction, reduction and
deterioration.»
But what happens of all metaphysical and
ethical meanings that good and evil have assumed in all the
religions and in all the cultures to every
latitude and longitude? We’ll say
that the RD not denies aprioristically some
value to this traditional and
cultural determinations, but that abstain
from the judgment on parameters that
are specific and concerning civilization
forms nowadays still not superimposing,
and that then it is practically impossible
establish univocal criterions to
judge values and disvalues that go too far
the criterions above by us exposed.
They, electing the life (and its maintenance
and amelioration) as judgment
meter, have the characters of universality
hardly assignable to the single
cultures and local ethics.
But having we set dualistically matter
and aither and besides, in a certain sense, oppose
necessity to liberty,
neither can we abstain to give a further
opinion about the problem above posed.
Well, from the dualist point of view (and
coherently with what so far said) we
are able neither to say that the liberty is nearer to the good
than the necessity, with consideration that this two terms
have only an
anthropological meaning and not cosmological.
Then becomes evident that every
achievement of the individual liberty, against
every form of constraint,
limitation or danger, whether by natural
strengths, or by other life forms
(virus, bacteria, etc.), or by endogenous,
exogenous, environmental and social
causes, has to be considered a correlative
value to the good only “for
the man” in its oneness; but to this good,
I repeat, we cannot grant any more
extensive value beyond the “for me” or “for
you” .
5.4) Transformation and persistence.
In the preceding paragraph we spoke of
life and have it recognized the character
of Supreme Good for that portion of
universe that us concerns, but have even
stressed that is not possible separate
biologically the death from the life without
fall in the banality or in
uncritical schemes of the ideologies. It
is a question of two faces of the same
medal, and becomes just difficult to affirm,
in spite of that we have asserted
over, that the death of an individual is
“in absolute sense” evil. It
is, at most, to species level that the loss
can be considered evil when
it impoverishes the biological
“difference”, but to level of the individual
and from a general point of
view such consideration is enough irrelevant.
Instead to subjective and
individual level the “one's own” death is
essential, to the extent that the
person is conscious of it, and in such sense
it represents the pre-eminently evil,
at least up to the suffering not makes it desirable. And yet, if the
RD
is a philosophy of the existence, that wills
be a useful means for the life
whose adopts it as conception of the world, it is essential to face even
the theme of the death. But here we have
to be much cautious, because entering
on a conceptually dangerous ground, where
becomes easy to use, more or less
consciously, whether psychological rather
than biological elements, or to fall in
cultural perspectives of a millennial tradition,
rich of literary and poetic
elements, but often unrealistic. The death
is a variously seen and heartfelt
event, to the of loved/hated or exalted/despised
boundaries. The death is from
always and usually heartfelt as “end” of
something and a “begin” of something
else, ascent to the being or immersion in the nothing, access to
the whole or loss of whole, accession in
the God Kingdom or condemns to relive
toward an expiation.
In the dualistic perspective it is evident
that the death problem becomes the problem
of the idema and we will have
to limit us to proceed for induction, avoiding
to fall in the trap of the
metaphysical suggestions. We have said that
the idema receives and
elaborates aither and that every form of this one may be considered
released from the destinies of living matter, as it belongs to an other ambit.
Besides we, with the death, suffer the annulment
of our person, but at the same
time we take part in the maintenance of the
life in general. In other words,
“our” death is against “our” life will, but in favor of the life will
of biosphere in general. In a certain sense the will of the part
goes against the will of the whole, but the part ransoms this
guilt with
dying.
But what will happen to the “aitherial
product” that idema has built when this dies? Of such product
(that we
had called idioaiterion), which doesn't possess the qualifications
neither of the matter nor of the life (as of different nature),
what happens when loses our material support?
Before still, however, to sketch
an answer emerges an objection to such question
itself, that could be expressed
so: and why the idioaiterion has to need that support “to being”?
Let us to see: if such product is released
from the laws of the necessity then, contextually to the decease of the
body, it would can enter in that liberty world that the aither constitutes
(and of which the idema was before witness and anticipator without
be
part of). Already in its phase of formation,
without that the access to the ambit that is its own (the aither)
must await the death of that “material
receiver and moulding machine” that is the
idema. That do allow
perhaps just to forms the hypothesis that
already in individual course of life
some auroral form of the idioaiterion already could have autonomous
existence, capable of a relationship with
aither in its totality?
Perhaps.
But then: can we conclude that the idioaiterion
can be supposed as a “real” entity
even “outside” of individual
life that it produces and supports, during
which besides it “form” itself ? Is
it possible deduce that as child of the core
of our individuality (the idema)
and as exempt for its nature to the inevitable
necessity of the matter,
the idioaiterion is able to stay “tendentially” (and just
from its
birth) not “inside” the matter,
but to the margin of it?
In any case (but on this subject will
return) are we able to conclude that the
idioaiterion (that would
persist to the margin of our cadaver) can “enter” (or “re-enter”)
under
new form in the ambit that is its own? Have we perhaps reinvented
a
masqueraded form of soul immortality? Decidedly
and easily we can answer: no!
In fact is not the idema that survives, since in any case could only
its
product be so, as elaboration of aitherial
row material of which the idema
is out and only may perceive and transform.
We are then legitimated to form the
hypothesis that the idioaiterion is able survive to the death of the idema,
but in any case not for how long: perhaps
that would last only an instant! But,
is the matter that has created the time, having it as
coordinated. Then, may the aither have a time or place itself in
the time? We will speak again about.
5.5) The destiny.
The concept, in its common
meaning, is quite trivialized, become by
now nearly a therapeutic idea for the
acceptance of us ourselves or of what concerns
and surrounds, together with the
avoiding one's responsibilities for our apathy
or for our incapability to
choose and to decide. In philosophical terms
its history has distant roots and
intersects with that of the fate, already present in the farthest Greek
mythology, that has assumed in the Roman
world just the connotations of a god.
But more generically we are able to say that
the destiny is considering
as a mysterious strength (a vis a tergo), rational or irrational is not
known, that in ineluctable way determines
all what happens in the existence of
an individual, of a family, of a people,
of the humanity, of the planet. Then
historically the destiny concept, more that related to the individual
(to which is more often related the fate concept), concerns the world in
its totality and was shown even as “necessary
cause” of the becoming [8]
. In this meaning it was understood sometimes
even as “providence”, and this
has evidently created some problem to philosophers
and theologians worried of
don't invalidate the free will and the freedom
of mankind [9]
. The RD point of view (that assumes it nowadays
only as individual) I very far
from what above outlined, in fact it sees
the destiny as a “system” of
causes, that draws a “plan” of life to which,
all of us, unintentionally,
conform in the one's own think and especially
in the one's own acts.
From an ethological and
psychoanalytic point of view it is known
that the life experiences in the
childish period are conclusive, at least
how much the characteristics
genetically inherited; if to them we add
the social sphere and the following
experiential sedimentations becomes enough
clear what is meant in the RD with destiny
term. To completion of the picture it is
to add that, in physiological and
not pathological terms, the destiny as is by RD meant remembers a little
the Freudian coercion to repeat, that is that unconscious tendency to
the repetition, in analogous situations,
of constant attitudes and behaviours
(because conditioned by one’s own past) to
which is very difficult escape. But
at the same time for the dualist the destiny is something that pertain
to him positively, that concerns his personality,
and that then not only is to
be accepted, but, within certain limits,
shared and approved.
In the RD the elements-agents
that concur to determine, like pre-existing
causes, the “destinal project” are: 1) the genetic
inheritance, 2 ) the imprinstings, 3 ) the condition, 4 ) the
situation, 5 ) the role, 6 ) the social class, 7 ) the wealth.
The functional sum of these agents delineate
an existentive journey in which we are putted in and from
which can be very difficult and, in some
cases, inopportune, too deviate. That
said, it results that when we speak of human
freedom (and more properly of eleutheria)
[10]
in current sense (that is existentive) we
have to recognize the relativity of
it, without pursue fanciful and ideological
ghosts [11]
out of reality. Let us see now in the detail such elements-agents.
About the genetic
inheritance we don’t have very much to say, if not that
we make reference
to results of the scientific searches about,
whether genetic in narrow sense,
or ethological and psychological, that on
this subject have already clarified
what is useful to define the fundamental
importance in the determination of the
individual character, as of natural bents,
ability or incapability, inclinations
of thought and behaviour.
For what concerns the
childish imprintings has been the searches and the experiences
of Konrad
Lorenz with the animals, about to the half
of the '900, that have explain
clearly what they are [12]
. And the following searches, of him and
of other ethologists, not have done
other that confirm the importance of such
conditioning behavioral and
conceptual element in the man, relating to
the early life, even beyond the
starting terms of its discoverer.
The condition could be almost
considered superfluous element, since it
is in fact a resultant of genetic
inheritance and imprintings, but in it concur and superimpose other
concomitant and divergent element in adolescent
and juvenile experience, for
which it, in the adult, takes on some definite
characters that permit to
consider it independently from them.
The situation is the
“medium”, the external environmental-sociological
element, in which the
individual is integrated, lives and acts;
we would be able even define it the
geographical-temporal-social context in which
the person stays and lives. The situation
can therefore assume a contingent character,
but even stable or repetitive,
possess exceptionality character or of normalcy,
or also of transitoriness or
constancy, but in every case it is a decisive
factor of conditioning of the
mood and behaviour of every person. As all
of us have experimented, we are as
fishes accustomed to swim in a certain water,
if we are transferred elsewhere
we risk to meet an uneasiness and more or
less accentuated difficulties,
according to the degree of “desirableness”
or “congeniality” of the new social
context. In psychoanalytic-energetic terms
we are able to say that the situations
can be (freudianly) at high or low psychic
investment, according with the fact
that they produce stress or relax.
The role. Everyone of
us has one or more: in the family, in the
profession or in the relaxation.
Child or parent, head or subaltern, clever
or incapable, in every situation of
our life, except perhaps when sleep, we are
engaged to play a “part”, more or
less congenial and more or less easy, that
determines and moulds our character,
often determining esteem or disesteem of
themselves.
The social class. We
took in consideration this element-agent
although in developed world, that is
in that one of diffused democracy and advanced
technology, it can be considered
practically absent or however a few remarkable,
coinciding practically with the
wealth. But if we go in areas of the planet where
survive some old
social stratifications (for example the India
of the Castes or certain African
or underdeveloped Asian society) this last
destiny element-agent may
assume an absolutely remarkable importance.
In such social contexts becomes
even not less important the factor of the
sex (that normally could be
considered as included in the genetic inheritance), because there it
characterizes in heavily negative way the
woman, which pay for this fact and
may suffer some cruel and aberrant limitations.
Finally we have to consider
the wealth, element-agent of which I think all of us
are ready to
recognize the importance. This social factor,
primarily mutable and dynamic in
the developed world, may get instead joined
(in much traditional or
underdeveloped social contexts) to the agent
of the social class, with
which enough often is identifies itself.
That the money quantity that one can
have is an important factor of our existence
can deny only the hypocrite ones.
The fact that be rich makes more easy to
be good, tolerant and generous is
nearly a tautology. We not despise the money
and yet for the perspective in
which the RD set us its part is of little
importance. Unless we add that with
the money is more easy to buy some books
of poetry, to go at the exhibitions of
paintings, to the concerts, to the theatre,
to the cinema and to every other
cultural happening that improves our aesthetical
sensibility. In this case we
are able to admit that the money favours
the possibility (but only the
possibility) to have idemal experiences in
events of aesthetical
character. But the field of the idemal experiences,
as we'll see, is very much
ampler and deeper.
After defined the destiny in
accordance with the RD, we may ask us which
practical utility derives for our
existence by it. We affirm then that it is
a kind of “conventional resultant”
constituted from a parameters series, as
much conventional, and that may serve
as a means of auto-analysis of one’s own
existentive course of happenings. Or
as a tool to read the present to the light
of the past, looking for with that
to understand a little better because the
things that concern us are going in a
certain way rather than in an other. That
said, need however to account for the
destiny is like a stream that leads us to a certain
direction, but it is
always the possibility that the case disarranges such plain, doing that
some casual happenings are able “to redraw”
the destinal project so to also
substantially change it. Then the destiny conditions us, but such
conditioning can always reduce or straight
annihilates itself in every moment
by casual happenings of great existentive
impact.
We have pointed out seven determinable parameters,
plus one
indeterminable and unpredictable, to underline
the fact that are always plural
the factors that can give a direction and
“draw” the course of our life. And we
have done this to take away the destiny from that traditional idea of
existential “road” fixed in advance (by
God’s will o by Necessity) to which we would
be tied in the course of our existential
adventure. Which seem us, besides as ridiculous,
dangerously diverting, because
impoverish beforehand us of our eleutheria, that we may consider,
without any hesitation, the most precious
resource at disposal: a more precious
good than the same life.
[2] We use this figured expression to
point out the modality with which the aither is set in comparison
with the matter, making reference to “spongy universe” previously
proposed.
[3] But not in comparison with the Samkhya
system, where is the prakriti (the matter) that goes toward the purusa
(the individual spirit) in which it annuls
itself. In accordance with a
metaphor already quoted the purusa (that is inactive and stable ) acts
on the prakriti (evolving and chaotic) as the magnet acts
on the iron.
[5] An important phenomenon of undoubted social
and
of behaviouring importance was, in the decade
1950-1960, the spreading of
Sartre’s existentialism in a certain juvenile
and intellectual élite, with
notable effects in the of literature and
theatre world. That happened above all
in Paris, but later spread in the rest of
France and in other countries of
Western Europe.
[6] This affirmation in the
contemporary biology has become true under
manifold aspects. Among they is very
interesting the apoptosis phenomenon (or
cellular suicide) that we already
mentioned, where the cells that became useless
in embryo construction let
themselves die to leave void spaces that
permit the modelling of body
structure. One of the more assiduous researchers
and among the maximum experts
of this phenomenon is the French J.C.Ameisen
that in the book La sculpture
du vivant (Ed. du Seuil 1999) exposed his experiences and proposed a
very interesting interpretation.
[7] Arthur Schopenhauer has set the life
will as foundation of his masterpiece The world as will and
representation (1818). It is by him conceived as the universal
impulse that
is to the base of life. As an aboriginal
strength, unconscious and irrational,
it dominates the world and is the primary
cause of suffering that
pervades it. Only the man is able to take
conscience and to escape from it, but
to do that he has to go away from phenomenal
world (of representation),
suppressing the desire and going into a contemplative
state that makes him
accessible the worlds of ideas (by means
of art, compassion and ascesis). It is
evident that in such philosophy is strong
the influence of the Indian ascetic
philosophies, which began known in Europe
about at the end of the '700.
[8] By the Stoics, that talked frankly
of the fate in the same terms of the providence, as divine
government of happenings in the world for
a perfect and unchangeable order.
[9] It is quite
interesting the revival of the destiny concept in modern philosophy. Nietzsche and after him the existentialists
Heidegger and
Jaspers gave of the destiny a not-constrictive interpretation, but not
void of ambiguity. For the first the
acceptance of it becomes Dionysiac acceptance
of life (as amor fati]. In
Heidegger the realization of one’s own destiny
is the decision to return in
himself in the repetition of the one’s own
possibilities; that being worth as
reaffirmation of one’s own authenticity and
search of options to it connected. In Jaspers the destiny is seen as the
identity of the Ego in its relationship with
the world.
[10] We point
out with this term, that in Greek just means
“human” freedom (and add we: existentive),
in the sense of independence from constraints
(till all lack of restraint). We
enter such term to distinguish this concept
from liberty, that we had
extraphysically and existentially opposed
to necessity. Practically, for
colloquial timeliness, we will use yet often
the word “freedom” implying eleutheria.
[11] We relate it to the freedom concept as
understood by social-political philosophies
of idealistic type (as the Marxism)
and also by existentialist philosophy as
that of Sartre. For this philosopher
the man <is forced to be free>, decidedly
intellettualistic oxymoron, as
is all his philosophy.
[12] Lorenz discovered that a child of
wild goose, just after the opening of egg
and in absence of natural mother,
followed him as “present” mother, elected
because first object in movement of
which perceived the presence.