What will happen to us in the nearest future? We cannot use someone else's historical experience

What will happen to us in the nearest future? We cannot use someone else's historical experience
Opinion

14 April, 15:33
Алина Витухновская
Писатель
To answer the question of what will happen to us in the nearest future, one cannot use someone else's historical experience, it can only be experienced by going into history, as one enters the water in order to learn how to swim.

In the context of current historical events, many are in a state of frustration and depression.

When I look at what is happening, I understand that there is practically nothing random in it. Everything has already been laid down in the architecture of Russia, in its past. Laid down, but not a foregone conclusion. For me as a writer, as a politician and as a person, there is nothing surprising. Except stupidity, perhaps. But it's time to get used to it. However, I do not endow the current process with the features of sacredness, fatal predestination, fate. Unlike many, many who ask, “What is all this to us for?”, “What is wrong with us?” and asks other well-known Russian questions.

My readers reacted in different ways to the question about the importance of fate, the reasonableness of nature, and the general universal abstract good. For example, like this:

“Nature is more mad than intelligent. Fate ... well, as a cause and effect, if, for example, you were born in poverty, then you will live in poverty all your life, and so on. And I understand the common good as a basic income for all”.

The poet Svyatoslav Belkovsky commented as follows:

"No, I don't believe it, I'm an individualist and a materialist".

An old friend of mine wrote the following:

"one. No, nature is unintelligent. Certain species have learning ability (count, interpret words and commands, ride a bicycle, etc.). But in general, nature is unreasonable and not united.

2. No. Fate is a consequence of deeds, actions, circumstances. Predestination exists in the form of upbringing, heredity, character, and other similar objective things, as an influence on events - but the subject is also able to change this.

3. The common good is a utopia”.

One social media commenter put it this way:

“Do I believe in the truth of the statement “nature is rational”? No I do not believe. I think that this is an absurd statement, I omit the proof of the absurdity. Do I believe in fate? Yes. Any “thing that exists” has a set of inherent properties that determine its life in a world based on laws known and unknown to us. But fate is probable. The general abstract universal good - no, this is a game of the mind.

The opinion of the poet Anastasia Lukomskaya:

“I think all these categories are transcendental, they describe not the structure of the world, but the structure of the human psyche. For some reason, it is convenient for a person to describe the world using these concepts, where he cannot find other explanations. The laws of how our brain perceives the world are more or less universal. It's like we would look at the world through the same lens and see the same distortion".

If a person relies on the religious concept of “divine design” or “destiny” (an analogue of “divine design” for an atheist) often unconsciously, then in this way he feeds social delusions in the form of predestinations. And already in the form of predestinations they are manipulated by various kinds of totalitarian regimes.

In fact, a totalitarian sect and a totalitarian regime are phenomena of the same order, but of a different scale.

As a child, I saw both nature and being itself as a huge totalitarian construct. But since they do not have subjectivity and often personification, I cannot literally blame being. But I can blame those who endow him with a false subjectivity, with the features of a deity. I can also blame those who suggest sacrificing subjectivity to an abstract common good.

So, for example, we are offered in real time, for breakfast, lunch and dinner, something like a national repentance. What is this if not another totalitarian practice under the humanistic cover of a fashionable agenda?

I recently wrote about the dangers of such an archaic mental construct as religion. Which previously led to irreparable large-scale tragedies. Today, in the context of what is happening, it makes sense to talk about the so-called agenda.

So what do we have? After the Middle Ages, the religious consciousness of the masses (the mass unconscious) gave way to modernist ideologies. Which, in turn, fell under the information blows of the postmodern and degenerated into the post-informational. Who produced the agenda. What is an agenda? This is any information feed, in the distribution of which there are certain interested parties and beneficiaries. Regardless of its actual relevance and expediency. That is, in the actual present we are witnessing the Third World Information War of all against all. The messengers are easy to identify by their excessive emotional charge, dislike of facts and the lack of convincing arguments.

You are now trying to play with your own history and level out the possibility of gaining political subjectivity, not only dissolving in the mass neurosis of induced guilt, but also making references to quotes from Arendt and Jaspers.

This experience is not universal and is applicable only to a specific situation at a specific historical moment. Yes, and it is, by and large, nothing more than a humanistic interpretation of reality that you are not able to bear.

There is something in human nature that allows him to talk about the world as a kind of linear-cyclic structure, each time returning back to its own circle, in order to move on, nourished by the experience of previous generations. But we have long been in a world of non-linear interactions, where the traditionalist approach to the value of the experience of previous generations is no longer representative.

You can not use someone else's historical experience, get it from books and movies. It can only be experienced by going down in history, as one enters the water in order to learn how to swim. That is why I want those who are tied to the concept of predestination and destiny to critically reconsider their positions. Otherwise, we risk drowning in a historical swamp.

Found a typo in the text? Select it and press ctrl + enter