Horror outside the blanket

Once, back in "stagnant times," I saw a terrible car accident with victims from the tram window on the street, but when I turned my head towards the cabin, I found that most passengers who were traveling with me in a tram left him to see the accident. They seemed to obey some unknown power that carried them somewhere? Why? To come to the rescue? To check if there are no dead relatives? Polls showed that this is not so. Most found it difficult to give an answer.

Already in our time, having got into the same situation, he discovered that the tram also reacted, but a minority of passengers. Apparently, in stagnant times, there was a shortage of everything, including such spectacles, which are now so often represented on the television screen, how much people have already adapted to this.

Is a person capable of feeling the pain of others as his own, to surrender to this pain for several days and thanks to this for days to look at the suffering of the victims of terrorism or disasters? If it is capable, then this is self -torture, it is sadomasochism. Practice shows that if a person really feels someone else's pain coming from the television screen like his own, then he turns off the TV so as not to bring himself to a shock state.

Indeed, some from such a shock state fainted. But only some ... the majority, without realizing it, looked at the events in Beslan as a film of horror, as a certain reality show. They got, at this time, into a certain psychological trap of aesthetic, but destructive pleasure, from which they could not get out and, therefore, all the days all watched and watched, sorting through all the buttons of the television remote control, as if looking for something? .. What were they looking for there? What did they expect there? Can we assume that they expected the moment when all this will be resolved faster with a good end? Or maybe, sitting at the television screen and sorting through all the programs, they were looking for a way to help the victims? .. Recall the two thousand five hundred of our tourists, who, in spite of everything, flew to Thailand to rest. Despite the fact that the country is laid by corpses. Flew to savor the grief of others?

Another example. At the very beginning of the attacks of skyscrapers, the Americans, striking all sorts of horror films, inertia only keen up this spectacle. I say I feel good, I lie under the covers and look at what is happening. This is a special destructive pleasure, as a positive tension caused by external horror and internal (home) comfort. It was in this destructive pleasure that all of America was, watching everything on TV and swimming in a high energy, which was already vaccinated with American stomach films. America fell into this psychological trap, which was based on destructive aesthetics - lubricating the grief of others. At this time, most Americans did not feel pain at all for those who were on skyscrapers. That is why they sat at the TVs for hours, savoring the sight throughout all the channels, as if engaged in searching for help.

Is it possible to sit at the TV all day, feeling the pain of the victims like yours? As we have already noted, a shock may come from this. But only a few were dragged with a shock state from the TV. Only a few felt this pain as their own. Only a few were able to accept others - to accept the pain of others. Therefore, they either did not watch the TV, or flew, went, ran to the aid of the victims. There were such, but a minority. They succeeded because, most likely, they themselves were in a similar situation.

When this spectacle ended in many Americans in depression, but not from what they experienced for the victims, but from the fact that the sight was over. They resembled crying children who first visited the circus, and the performance ended ... all this is destructive aesthetics.

With true empathy, a person himself falls into place of the dead and stucks in this place. He seems to bury himself. And with destructive aesthetics with a high frequency, a border contrasting movement is going on - from death to life and vice versa, but at the same time in the context of life. Consequently, the basis of destructive aesthetics is pleasure. True empathy is the empathy of all in the context of death, since the empathy can die (for example, at the front). Some are so closely connected with their loved ones, they feel so one unified part of the deceased that they follow him, unable to withstand life without a dead loved one ...

How is all this different from sadomasochism? The sadist enjoys the suffering of another and that’s all. For example, one woman, communicating with her daughter, so “embellished” in her stories her father, who left them, that her daughter began to be afraid of her father. And the more mother told her daughter horrors about her father, the more she reacted, and the more the mother enjoyed and started. Later, the mother, according to a similar scheme, began to "process" her daughter's boyfriends ... she achieved her goal. Now the daughter, for the company with her, is unhappy. And grief together with two wise men somehow easier. So the daughter became a victim of the destructive aesthetics of the Sadomazochist mother.

With destructive aesthetics, Estete does not enjoy suffering , he does not want such suffering, but he rejoices that he does not have them. Although maybe a sadist is also a destructive esthete, due to the fact that there is a borderline state, as a kind of sadomasochism?

Example. The viewer looks at the horror and wishes the death of the hero, as he himself will be alive while in comfort under the blanket.

Example. Having learned about the deadly diagnosis of his competitor, he hastened to get a destructively aesthetic pleasure to him, but was upset that he was still energetic and competes with him on an equal footing.

Example. Everyone already lived in the destructive aesthetics of leaving his other boss, but he never died - for some reason, subordinates were not happy, they had a mood.

Example. Some media and newspapers often savor the crisis state of the health of famous personalities, which readers envied. Now readers plunge into destructive aesthetics - those to whom they envied, suffer and, in a sense, no longer have the former success. It turns out that "the rich also cry", but we do not suffer and, therefore, is more successful than these "great."

Example. One beggar once said: "Many servants are relishing my misfortune. I go into a rage, depicting a sufferer, and they pay me everything and pay ..."

Example. Smoking your superiority over others.

Example. A person goes shopping and enjoys the fact that he scored - bought the same goods for less money.

Example. Are you bad? .. Tell me, and I will listen to you, relishing your misfortunes that I do not have.

Example. People love to communicate with those who are worse, but at the same time is a competitor. (At the same time, it must be admitted that our loved ones, I am a part of ourselves, cannot claim the role of competitors. Therefore, the probability of destructive aesthetics is lower in relation to loved ones. Although mothers and fathers exist - sadomasochists in relation to their children).

... According to L.S. Vygotsky, aesthetic pleasure is a mental stress caused by two opposite affects, which are allowed in catharsis at the end (i.e. they destroy each other as two opposite charge). Therefore, from our point of view, destructive pleasure is always a clash of comfort and horror and vice versa, as a kind of psychological fluctuation, like a kind of pump, pumping adrenaline. These two affects (comfort and horror) constantly destroy each other and microcatars arises, as a kind of destructive pleasure. In this case, a large catharsis is also possible, which causes devastation or enlightenment of consciousness. It all depends on the sign of aesthetic pleasure (negative or positive).

Example. If the character just survived, this is not catharsis. If he died, he is also not catharsis. There must be annihilation. Catharsis is what the viewer causes ecstasy. If the viewer is a sadist, then for him catharsis is the death of a character. If the viewer is normal and empathic, then for him catharsis is the life of a hero. The latter merge with the character, become part of it, unite, empathize ... We can say that this is spirituality - to feel the pain of another as their own. Spirituality is closer to pain (for others) than to God. All the sins from the fact that they confuse pain and God.

Thus, the origins of soullessness in destructive aesthetics . It needs to be constantly aware of it, and, as far as possible, suppress. Only in this case, a person will discover the ability to feel the pain of strangers as his own. This is the basis of the unity of people, that is, spirituality. Otherwise, life itself (through grief and suffering) will make a person become spiritual.

Spirituality is such a production of values ​​that does not go through the mechanism of suffering from others, but through the mechanism of suffering of man himself for all of humanity.

Compassion ... co-suffering. CO (joint) - suffering. It is possible when:

- One person suffers about one thing, and the other, located nearby, is about the other.

- One person suffers for the one who suffers and the other suffers only for himself.

- Both personalities suffer for themselves. Moreover, one suffers for himself through the other .

In other words, external suffering for another occur due to internal suffering for themselves . In this case, the personality seems to be present to the present and only through such a feeling suffers for another. That is, he suffers for another through himself (passing through himself), imagining himself also suffering.

Some in the process of such suffering can completely switch to suffering for themselves. It becomes so bad that they cease to perceive the suffering nearby and can no longer help him. Thus, the question arises: what is true compassion? Where is the boundary of the ratio of suffering for oneself and suffering for another, beyond which true compassion stops?

According to Weinger, a truly suffering person cannot calmly provide assistance to the suffering. Weininger in the sisters of mercy saw evil. Which is better for the suffering - true compassion or help? Is true compassion capable of helping the suffering? As long as healthy egoism is warming in person, and he suffers for another through suffering for himself - he can still help. Otherwise, he cannot help.

Apparently there is a certain ethically optimal ratio of suffering for oneself and for another, which allows such a combination of feelings to be called compassion in the everyday sense of the word. True compassion, from a pragmatic point of view, is evil. And with purely ethical - inaccessible good. Great good is suffering through suffering for itself than the lack of suffering (that is, indifference to the suffering). Sympathy is a feeling of another through a feeling of oneself in the role of another. So our ego is arranged.

That is how we come to the phenomenon of holy personalities for whom the ego is minimized, and they are merged with a single spiritual mind. For them there is no "I", there is no subject. There is something one. This is a phenomenon of enlightenment - the absence of an ego. Saints are true compassionate . They will not suffer from themselves and through another. They are connected with him as a supersensitational connection - they feel with him (and with others) as a single organism. However, they can help the suffering. But do they exist? ..