Roman Gange. Sixth sense

H Am would like to build this small note on comparison Mamardashvili and Husserl. At the same time, the biggest problem will be the clarification of our own place from which we will compare. For the starting point, you can take that empirically aware fact that literary products manufactured under the Mamardashvili brand are largely reproducing the market strategy of the creators of the Husserl brand. In both cases, consumers should be sure that inside will be exactly the same drink as the last time. In other words: like a Husserl text is considered a “introduction into phenomenology”, any newly published lecture course Mamardashvili turns out to be a foresight of one single thought, which, if lucky, will be embodied in a listener or reader. Therefore, we will take the “recent” text of Husserl for our reader - the first volume of “ideas” - and somehow set the guiding thread of our reasoning.

Husserl writes that the phenomenology “should ... become a science of entities,” and this was given to him in “contemplation” . It does not smell either by ancient or new ones, there is no philosophy at all, but there is only a “beginning” formulated in a state of special intellectual abstinence, spiritual austerity. Outside of this state, a person - let's call him an empiricist - imagines that any science is obliged to proceed from experience and that “ideas” and “essence” are metaphysical phantoms, the fruits of the sick imagination. Alas, the empiricist is hopelessly mistaken in the fact that it mixes the experience and knowledge of the things themselves . After all, experience correlates us only with the reality of nature, and a thing is not a thing of nature at all. In addition, in experience it is impossible to achieve universal, and empiricus one way or another has to go beyond the limits of experience, getting confused in the networks of traditional forms of reasoning, the essence of which he does not clarify and which thereby create a moment of negative in his statements.

Negative is everything that stems out of something other than we ourselves. If the milk that we bought does not come from under the cow, but from a mixture of plant proteins and fats, it is negative for us, simply put, bad, fake, "something wrong." If the friendliness and postat of my acquaintance does not come from disinterested friendly feeling, but from carefully hidden evil intent, it is negative, harmful, dangerous to me. Positive is, according to Husserl, “seen from the original source itself,” that is, the source of which coincides for us with the place where our gaze is directed. The poorly understood idealism does not want to understand that “there is such a thing as pure contemplation” , in which the entities are given “from the original source” , that is, they are completely positive, just like ordinary objects, considered without any implicit content. However, a bad idealist does not want to understand that evidence is a modus of the look itself, and invents a special mystical “feeling of obviousness”, which supposedly accompanies our judgments and gives them a specific emotional coloring. He is inclined to believe that a suddenly flashed insight, an incomprehensible sensation of a trick and deception can help us theoretically can help us to help us. He believes that this is how we are likened to the Almighty of God. Husserl chooses a different path - the path to the things itself. Treat the subject so that its essence is seen directly from it, that is, from the original source itself, and then your in and the dice will acquire no previously transparency and purity. No "sense of obviousness" will help you expose the evil intent of your overly diligent friend. Therefore, simply do not attribute to him any qualities that are not seen directly, such as "devotion", "fidelity" or "selflessness". Remember that the closest friend can betray you, a warmly loving wife can change you, and the banker to whom you entrusted your money can let you go in the wind. This does not mean to break with all friends, divorce your wife and go into the desert. You must refuse only unreasonable hopes and stop feeding illusions about people. Take such friends with whom it is pleasant or profitable for you to communicate, and be prepared for the fact that your friend will become your enemy. Drink the milk, the taste of which you like, and not in which its noble origin is indicated. In short, become a phenomenologist!

To become a phenomenologist, one should abandon the natural installation, according to which the world as a combination of things and their natural, natural qualities is being, positive and presence. It is not necessary to say that there is no world, it should only be remembered that the fundamental possibility of non -being is never excluded. In order to fence yourself away from the appropriation, otherness, controversy and doubtfulness, it is enough to refrain from any transcending operations, that is, from the claims of the existence of something that has any properties. Suppose we say "I have a friend" and we are mistaken, since he is a hidden enemy. To avoid a mistake, you need to turn the angle of view and say that "I have the consciousness that he is my friend." Or we say "here is a chair" and again we are mistaken, since this is actually a hologram. I must say: "I perceive it as a chair." Of course, no one is ever expressed, so it’s enough to say this to yourself in the mind, that is, to maintain a certain level of accuracy of expression for yourself. In a well -known example, Mamardashvili when the husband’s question "Where was it?" The wife replies “with the lover” and the husband thinks: “This is a joke,” - be a husband with a phenomenologist, he would think: “I took it like a joke, but it may well not be a joke, but to be true. And if I had never thought that she may have a lover before my wife’s answer, now I have the consciousness that it is possible.” Yes, we think that there are tables, chairs, people, earth and sky around us, but all this can be the fruit of our sick imagination; But, despite this, we still think that all this is the real world in which we are, and the very fact of our thoughts does not disappear anywhere.

What is the advantage of the position of the phenomenologist? The phenomenologist refers to the world as something random, ready at any moment to collapse into the abyss of non-being. He does not feel fear and does not cherish hope. In fact, it is the implementation of the ancient ideal of the sage - impassive, serene, with all his Amor Fati and Mempento Mori, calmly blows all the blows of fate that does not expect anything from people and not tied to people or things. No emotions, no fetishism, only pure and clear consciousness.

Oddly enough, Mamardashvili says the same thing (but, however, something else). Just as Husserl says that there is such a thing as pure contemplation, in which entities are given from the original source itself, Mamardashvili literally claims that there is something that we will call a thought and what should be distinguished from some natural mental states that we are used to calling thinking. Thought has no natural prerequisites, it is not based on anything (and Husserl claims that ideas do not come from experience). In order for the thought to be, one must already be in a special state of tension of all forces. Husserl calls this state of a phenomenological installation, Mamardashvili calls it differently - the assembly point, being, the limit of humanly possible. The thought that arises at this point is not permanent. Mamardashvili says that thought is a condition for the possibility of thought. How to understand this if we are accustomed to the fact that, according to Husserl, the thought is aimed at an intentional object? But the fact of the matter is that for Husserl there is no subject with its properties and its own history, which a thought is directed to. Thought is not like an arrow, it is rather habitus, the state of the mind in which you can be and from which you can understand something.

Thought cannot be recognized by external signs. The dictated thought turns into a similarity of thought, which is always at hand in the form of a finished verbal structure. The thought is not displayed like a judgment, it has no prerequisites in experience. There is no natural mechanism of thought, as there is no natural mechanism of goodness or love. The motive of the work appears here. Man is not a natural being. A person is what produces itself, but from what? Or, more precisely, by means of which organs? Such organs are works of art or thought. The artist, creating a work, actually creates a mechanism that will create an artist in it. A work is, of course, not a reflection of some in advance of these emotions or thoughts. Just these emotions and thoughts arise as the effect of the work - but not passive (they say, it is enough to go to the concert, attach, and you are another person), and as a result of the tension of all the forces.

After all, Husserl also does not justify, from where , in fact, pure contemplation is taken. And, in our opinion, it is a false understanding of phenomenological reduction, according to which it represents a kind of psychotechnics, yoga, consisting of several stages, the essence of which is in the gradual concentration of attention, the closure of consciousness in itself and the merger with the object. Reduction just means that if we are able to understand something in the life that we live every day, then the source of this understanding will not be experience, not objects with their properties and even myself with my mental abilities, but a pure thought, which is the source of which it is and which cannot begin, as, say, breakfast. If there is a thought (Husserl calls it a pure consciousness), that is, evidence. And when a certain special feeling or result of logical analysis is issued for evidence, there is no thought here.

Mamardashvili shows with numerous examples what non -smittering is. This is when it is believed that things such as truth, justice or love are achieved as a result of certain empirically defined actions, a kind of technique. However, all these things are actually technically unrealized, they are either or not. But then the question sounds like this: what can I? What can I do to make these things appear? I can only think. But the thought, as we recall, is impossible. And here is just the difference between Mamardashvili and Husserl, the moment that we would call a miracle is discovered.

After all, Husserl does not mean that it makes us think (switch from a natural installation to the phenomenological one, to carry out an act of pure contemplation). He describes thinking as an already accomplished opportunity, which from now on can be realized by a simple turn of the angle of view. Mamardashvili describes thinking as impossibility, which sometimes happens in the world - that is, as a miracle. He emphasizes that all the time it describes some intuitively understandable and close things to all, but he has to use philosophical terms or even words loaded with religious meaning so that something happens so that a thought arises. That is, he uses some symbols . The symbol is, for example, the Madeline cake from Roman Proust. That is, there is a spark of God in each, and in childhood everyone experienced special states of loneliness and isolation from the world, the state of being . But in childhood it is difficult to think, and therefore these moments - some pieces of their pieces - remained in special things, symbols. And then we meet such a symbol, and something happens to us, and here there may be a thought. These symbols are real bodily things, books, words, smells, the most ordinary objects. But their impact cannot be described as a natural process. This is a miracle. And here Mamardashvili suddenly talks about the difference between Christ and the Antichrist. The difference is that the Antichrist is perfect, Christ is embodied. We could now say that the phenomenology of Husserl is a kind of Christianity without Christ (expression that is often characterized by ancient idealism). Mamardashvili himself and says: "Thus, I set out the basics of the gospel for you, forgive me for such audacity." This metaphor will again be a symbol that is so completely obvious and seemingly completely understandable an object that is easy to interpret naturalistically (in the sense that Mamardashvili's philosophy is actually camouflaged, clothed in other words of Christianity), but the act of thought will just be not to understand what Mamardashvili speaks, as an allegory, as a translation into a different language of some kind of data prepared in advance. meanings. This is not a presentation, not a report, namely a work , or a symbol , that is, a thing that can hook, make something in us, and can remain a thing in itself, a voluminous book of pale salute color.