is not Man-Reason at all. Homo-centrism is the tower of Babel of human presumption, presumption which be draws from his reason, from his consciousness; it is a tower erected by man in a world which was not established by man; it is essentially a hideous monument to Reason devoid of Pathos.
Homo-centrism has long been maturing by degrees, as a result of a persistent separation of that which is conventionally termed the East from that which is just as conventionally termed the West, a separation of Pathos from Cogito, sanctified by the tradition of separating that which is called Consciousness from that which cannot be called Consciousness, and is therefore called the Non-Conscious. Homo-centrism is primarily the result of the development of philosophy (philosophy as it began with Aristotle and has now, regretfully, «matured» to become positivism) at the expense of non-philosophy (as it took shape in the immortal books of the ancients, books in which it la impossible to dissever thought from Pathos, the idea from the image, pure Reason from «sympathy». («Sympathy is the feeling which feels the feeling to which it reacts» (A. Heschel, The Prophets, Harper Row, N.Y., 1962, p. 311).
The escalation of rationalism has for a long time been making an impression of progress, inciting one to celebrate victory after victory along the path of this progress. However, these victories kept revealing their tragic nature more clearly from day to day. And by today the excruciating problem of existence which has faced man since the very beginning of his triumphal march with the lamp of Reason, has actually come into greater relief and appears still more dangerous. There can be no other interpretation of the evident fact that the Absurd in all its forms, rationalized and distilled in some cases, fancifully ornamented in others, has penetrated into every cell of the present-day world.
Still, it cannot be stated that the refinement of Reason was entirely futile. Perfected in its own power, even if in part and therefore illusive, confirmed in its own strategy, albeit out-and-out imperialistic, it is owing to its age-long development that Reason has proved capable of bravery: it is a veritable act of bravery on the part of rationalism, veritable bravery of Reason to admit its non-absolute nature and its own limitations. The great power Reason has accumulated in the long course of its development manifests itself in the avowal that in many cases it is actually powerless. This avowal was, in fact, made in the twentieth century and initiated by a rationalist — Dr. Fraud.
On the other hand, the fact that the process of fission of the non-fissile, of subdividing something that is organically whole, has reached its climax just today, and is manifested not only negatively, — in the crisis mentioned above, but also positively, in the form of an opposite process which is called synthesis, i.e., unification of the divided. One of the signs of the waining passion for dividing is the growing passion for unifying. It would be impossible to mention a single sphere of human existence where this tendency to unify the Universe which had previously been subdivided by our reason is not expressed today with a greater or leaser degree of clarity. In this context, our topic — the non-consciousness and creativity — appears to be not only a grateful, but even a cardinal one. The schema presented by us justifies the title of this work; however, before stating the basic points of this schema, the key terms are first to be discussed.
2
Where is the beginning of the end which ends the beginning?
Kosma Prutkov
We understand the unity of consciousness and the un-conscious not through the categories of their binominal inter-relations, but as a single unbroken line. Psychics, if you will, is one unbroken line, where only a small portion, named consciousness, is illuminated. It is only this portion that our eye is able to discern, for the eye has only a limited solving capacity of vision. Everything that «precedes» and «follows» this illuminated portion is indiscernible in principle.
Now, as regards creativity. Creativity is a certain state of culture, a state which carries an intensified human, i.e. life-asserting sense. Culture is a term covering everything that Man has added to Nature: creativity is that which lends a genuinely human, i.e. life-asserting sense to the act and fact of addition, to the act and fact of man’s penetration into Nature, to the act and fact of its transformation; for man is a being that aspires to remain in existence in despite of the laws of Nature. Culture is a result which retains significance even without any connection with man. A bomb created by man is also culture, but, created by man, the bomb already exists outside him and will exist after him and, what is more, — the bomb can change Nature without man’s participation, i.e. it can change something not created by man. Creativity presupposes a living contact with Nature. A scientist comes to certain ultimate conclusions; these conclusions imply man’s inevitable mortality; these conclusions are culture, they are knowledge, co-knowledge, i.e. death (as Byron said, knowledge means despondency, and the tree of knowledge is not the tree of life). But a scientist’s creativity is life; while the scientist is in the process of creativity, the non-conscious is activated within him, owing to which the «ultimate content of his work on the problem of one’s inevitable mortality, his own mortality included, is „not apprehended“ by him. The work of this scientist is not so much his conclusions concerning mortality, as establishing contacts with Nature, penetration into Nature, into that which is immortal. Israel Zangwill said that reason spells darkness rather than light; and in the above sense it is true. Reason offers an alienated knowledge of Nature, but the process of creation overcomes this deadly alienation. The process of creation is that which permits man to overcome the comprehension of his own finiteness, which makes man be „as God“, i.e. gives him an inner, insurmountably powerful sense of being an organic part of a whole oneness, of the whole-oneness of the Universe, a sense beyond the control of consciousness and generated by non-consciousness, — a sense of his own immortality, i.e., oblivion of the end.
This is, incidentally, the origin of the idea of eternal life in the beyond. We should like to emphasize here that it is not work, but the process of creation which is responsible for this effect. Work belongs to the sphere of the conscious, of the rational. The power of creation belongs, also, to the sphere of non-consciousness. It is Pathos that constitutes the essential principle of non-consciousness, a conventionally singled out sphere.
3
If there is a church, it is invisible to those who are inside it.
Leo Tolstoy
In what way are non-consciousness and creativity linked with the cardinal problem of existence? What are the general and concrete „issues“ of the theme we have selected? The answer le suggested in the schema of which we present a concise outline below.
As is known, the agonizing „truth“ about the inevitable end was discovered by human consciousness. This tragic discovery is connected with the fruit of the tree of knowledge. The serpent, or consciousness, led Adam and Eve to leave Eden of their own free will, Eden which embodied harmonious oneness, the oneness of man and the Universe. Eden preserved man from the knowledge of death and, consequently, from death itself. If it had not been for the fruit the serpent beguiled Eve with, if it had not been for consciousness, there would not have finally emerged the tower of Babel of homo-centrism, that tremendous self-deception.
Having withdrawn and having been expelled from Eden, man comprehended the inevitability of death and began to perceive „the futility and uselessness“ of his labors „under the Sun“. Outside the walls of Paradise, he began to reflect, to „cognize“, to philosophize or, as M. Montaigne put it, „to learn to die“. Armed with knowledge, man found himself face to face with the problem of the meaning and the aim of existence; cogito turned out, in the long run, to be the symbol of despondency, an index of scepticism, of the end, of a week will, of hopelessness. But despite the full clarity of this initial situation (comprehension of the finite nature of existence and futility of any activity), man, so to say, from the very first minute manifested something that should be called the greatest paradox: the paradox of continuing to live, the paradox of vitality. (Ecclesiastes, that most depressing of all books, a book which, from verse to verse enhances the sense of futility of existence, of unfathomable darkness, — ends in a paradoxical adjuration to go on following, the path of life). Despite the paralyzing content of knowledge (cogito, da’at), man goes on living and creating, obeying something as yet unnamed, and he lives on, i.e. from day to day, nearing the grave with an inexhaustive and unaccountable charge of optimism in his soul. (Schopenhauer, a man who, together with Ecclesiastes and Buddists, keenly felt „the reality“ of the pessimistic impulse, was, as is known, „the most jovial“ of men. What, then, is the motive.force?
Evidently, it is not consciousness. If we may resort to such an obviously conventional term, it is something else, namely, non-consciousness. This force, permeating the whole Universe and, therefore, present in man, constitutes his essential force. Despite cogito, it causes man to create, causes him to forget that of which man is fully aware, that is makes him forget, even at the last moment of his life, that it is really his last moment. Owing to this force, the
