In recent years, the constantly growing importance of postmodernism and deconstructive attitude has largely challenged the basis of structural knowledge, constructive ideas, and consistent human condition. The latter notions have been accused of covert control and hidden agenda. The proponents of the new movement have stated that control and privileged knowledge should be uncovered by deconstructing establishments or even destroying them. Respectively, this idea has acquired power itself, by taking it from the other sources. It has now settled in many of our daily practices and has insensibly become part of human consciousness.
You can now pretty much make any unreasonable statement and get away with it. Actions are very weakly tied to responsible ends, and practices are no longer that dependent on meaningful experiences and purposes. Anything goes. Technology, for example, is no longer about creating a meaningful, universally synchronized thing. It has become a technique to develop new ways of getting away. Clouded and shared networked responsibility leads to disguise and speculation locked into omnipresent pseudo-banners, pseudo-ads, and pseudo-everything they say. We are living in a well networked speculative pseudo reality. To my mind, all this is posing risk and a huge uncertainty to our authentic condition. We are starting to feel dodgy, edgy, unfulfilled.
The opposing perspective of positivism has expressed some sort of skepticism towards postmodernism by proposing open-mind and open-end notions, but at the same time it has become a station or a tool for controllable environments. It hasn’t fully developed a good immunity for bad purpose. By drawing strict lines and bounds, in a way, it has enabled that kind of purpose be spread and systemized by templating the set of acceptable rules within the bounds of its frame area. Unfortunately, even though rules are rather clear they can also quite often imply bad purpose.
In this way, we are getting to a point when it will be difficult to determine if unconditional action still exists. We are constantly and unconsciously dependent upon controllable environment and conditional existence. The combination of postmodernist indifference and positivist rigidity is working perfectly together. They both are different sides of the same world of uncertainty. The only difference is that positivism is setting and postmodernism is voiding. For example, the consumer setting is voiding the notion of human needs. Also, modern relationship is voiding the notion of family and love. Due to this tendency almost any structure or fixation, such as tradition, has started being questioned with suspicion. Accordingly, humans have been detached from their true feelings of existence and knowledge.
In this essay I would like to argue that through creation any human being should be able to bring back the true senses of structural knowledge, constructive ideas, and consistent human condition. I will debate below that instead we have an attitude of improving, cherishing, and generally loving what we do. Deconstruction or universal postmodernist doubt has no meaningful basis and consequence, because it is dealing with the same suspicions of controllable world. If the latter cannot have it, why should the new movement posses it, or why should it be handed to other parts. By thinking of control, you’ll never get out of its territory. Whether you want to challenge it, or whether you want to intensify it, there’s no way out. Instead it is about giving yourself to good purpose. We need to transcend above the notion of control. This general purpose has been the center of my recent ideas and thoughts.
Let me start by analyzing imagination that stretches out our empirical knowledge. Open and free mind does rest entirely upon empirical data, but instead on your imaginative will and real live situations as a whole. In this way you can free your mind from the set of any conditions that the existing system template might have, and don’t have to wait for new empirical data that would either change things or leave status quo. Carl Sagan was always repeating to the public that everything we know is a product of cosmic evolution – a sequence of moments of free creation. And I am always repeating to myself that this evolution is beautiful. That is why we live and should express a moment of beautiful creation that is part of the matter of everything we know around us. Waiting is not embedded in this process. It is about constant, ceaseless expression that can only happen by connecting imaginative will with the empirical world around us. It is about stretching out and constantly bringing imagination to our empirical world.
This is where positivism just doesn’t help. It takes away expression, energy, intuition, and experience that come with any empirical object and should therefore be evaluated the same way we evaluate properties of that object. Empirical object is not just a thing, but it’s also an act, that can actually be recognized by systematic reflection on and analysis of the structures of consciousness behind it. I believe that positivism should take the path of empirical phenomenology and work on the ways how to either merge methods of studying these two sides of object together, or prioritize beauty and expression as the basic grounds of evolution of empirical matter and its consequence. In such way we could achieve what I call a moment of creation instead of locus of control. This would help us realize that empiricism does not fully define our knowledge and scope. There is something else that is not just observable.
There are some good practical examples around us. In one of my favorite TV series The X-Files the two famous characters, Mulder and Scully, had two opposing attitudes, though they seemed to have a very fine interlink. Mulder was positivist-empirio-phenomenologist and Scully was positivist-hard-empiricist. Mulder was able to make a connection by evaluating the expression (or energy, if you will) of empirical evidence that is not directly linked to actual object, but rather an experience caused by remote source. This is pretty much the way a mother is worried when something isn’t right with her child. Thereby I’d like to argue that we should observe the expression of empirical evidence the same way we observe hard qualities of that object. We should discern hard qualities, the meaning or intent, and the act that every object possesses.
Unfortunately, imagination is usually put in contradiction with empiricism and this is where, in my opinion, reside the dangers of contradictious posture, that does not help to understand imaginative world in detail and in relation with empirical sphere. Additionally, what I want to point out is that imaginative realm is observable the same way we observe our real world, if you will. Elements, properties, and processes are not bound to positivist philosophy. They are part of a broader pool of logic, including imaginative realm. Even if our imaginations are not empirical, they can actually be observed using the mentioned qualities and, accordingly, they can be put into practice by organized duplication of these qualities in real empirical life. Such reflection gives the creator more power and a good methodic set of actions in order to embody his ideas.
What is more, there are stages of observation that stretch in time and scope. The very first stage is primary observation or first look, which gives you a basic idea about the observable object. The second is deep relations, when you start seeing relationships amongst the hard qualities of the object – or authentic empiricism. And finally, third is when you realize the meaning and the purpose of the object as the ultimate end of its existence. This tells us that we should put a lot of attention to detail, be very attentive to the world around us, and practice our sensitivity as the main habit for at least authentic finelink empiricism or ultimately authentic existence. Thus the creator is not only manipulating the hard qualities of object, but also trying to realize the true meaning that’s behind that object, and find the expression.
That is creation I’d like to think can be both empirical and spiritual. It is positive in its roots. Creative mind has a true and pure belief in its intensions. Having said that any empirical object or creation in this case, is both material and phenomenal, it is no wonder that any creation comes with beliefs and expression of that object. It is not only a temporary experiment based on methodological calculations, but rather a statement of creators’ attitudes and beliefs. That is why best creators are those who strongly believe in what they are doing. Strong passion and belief is the key to success in creativity. They fuel the creation and in this realm they are substitutes for control, hard methodology, instrumentalism, strategy, etc. Since expressions are channeled intersubjectively, people will instantly interpreter your belief as truth. That is why with creation you can practice your beliefs and attach yourself to internally driven, but at the same time externalized object.
Furthermore, if there is a truly true passion and control-less intension, the creation, as a fixed object in time and space, is reluctant to destruction, reconstruction, or questioning. It is absolutely pointless to look at it with distrust. The fixation that it forms should be approached with the qualities of positive development, cherishment, love, and comfort. We just love what we create and we want to admire it. No uncertainty. No reservation. No destruction. This should help us exercise our sense of dedication, substantive development, and trust.
The other two important expressions are beauty and inspiration – something that they no longer teach at school or university. Think that instead of another boost of consumerism and dull efficiency management you would dedicate your time to beauty assistance and building. Think how beautiful we would be. But most of people don’t do that anymore. We are different. Nowadays we always start with a question of control or organizational management. Education does not prioritize beauty as means for learning, statecraft, and practice realization. Creation suddenly is about just making causal relations. Efficiency is making us uniform, flat, making the same thing, talking the same phrases. Don’t get me wrong. Coolness factor isn’t beauty. Stuff isn’t beauty as well. It’s just a set of material elements in such pattern that satisfies your ego. Beauty and inspiration are spiritual notions.
Well, I want to be inspired. I don’t want to be induced by measured information, motivation, and quasi -rational choice. Inspiration holds transformable power, a will for robust change based on your inner-self. Excitement and joy gives you momentary episodes of positive attitude, but inspiration gives you an unlimited scope and key to your soul in order to transcend above the oppression and to know yourself. It is the ultimate moment to position yourself for good purpose and meaningful consequence.
I have a vision of human community where beauty and expression are the means and ends of everything, where motivation is replaced with inspiration, where every conversation, audience, message is started with a question our most fundamental structures of love, beauty, inspiration, and each and every thing these notions express, whether it’s peace, good will or dignity.
Last but not least, the causality between creation and sadness hasn’t been addressed properly due to the delicacy of this matter. The same is with another correlation between sadness and truth. I recall listening to an artist who said that sadness does produce conditions needed for authenticity and truth. Good artists want at least a glimpse of truth and unconditional reality. When they are sad, they all do the same thing. They create to support the feeling for pure reason and circumstance. Sadness, as well as inspiration and love, does give the power to step over our conditional existence and at least for a moment to know the original essence of our own way.
I am in sadness tonight and that’s why I am so passionate about the true sense and meaning of my condition and existence. I am able to detach myself, but at the same time I don’t lose my true sense. I am able to reveal the true inner-self, an original being, and culture that I posses and that was given to me upon my advent in this world. At this moment of pure creation, I am free and devoted to my unique way of being.
Sadness can be hard sometimes, but it presents an opportunity for change and transformation. Having a sad expression of our being, we usually write down true stories, draw meaningful drawings, and embed drama into films and books. We reveal the true and authentic meanings of our condition. We are then stronger in terms of our ability to rethink and balance for harmony and perfection.
But somehow nowadays we want to rely on networking, thinking that it actually makes us stronger. We are afraid to step back and look into our original and unconditional soul. The pseudo security of our empty condition makes it seem that impermanence is the only possible basis. We leave the questions unresolved, thinking that there is no answer, no concrete basis. We talk the same phrases, do the same things, we clone personalities, and duplicate actions not knowing our own unconditional mind. We are afraid to devote ourselves to unavoidable condition, whether it is beauty, inspiration, sadness, or true love. These notions are now voidable, or set within someone’s agenda, or caught somewhere in between, where both of these are used to produce pseudo reality and empty evidence.
I am really hoping that this article gives a perspective and helps to reflect on some of the risks of our contemporary and future lives. I am also very hopeful about the creative attitude that can help us practise true feelings and produce conditions needed to reveal and exercise our positive and unique qualities. By creating we can bring back inspiration, we can again experience beauty, and find the sadness sometimes releasing from the pseudo reality, showing tough, but unconditional choices. With creation we can build unquestionable trust, faith and, most importantly, love – the supreme condition of human existence.