paradogma of the psychic entropy of evil and the … · 2017-12-27 · of ironically carrying the...

PreliminarycommunicationUDC111.84(045)doi:10.21464/sp32103

Received:February14th,2017

Luka JanešUniversityofZagreb,UniversityCentreforIntegrativeBioethics,IvanaLučića1a,HR–10000Zagreb

[email protected]

Paradogma of the Psychic Entropy of Evil and the Palingenesis of All-Oneness

AbstractObjective of this paper is to indicate inadequate general theoretical approach to the perception of evil, which in return contributes to the permanence of “evil in the world”. Analysis will focus on the logially imprecisely adopted and observed anthropocentric and romantic relation between good and evil through debatable pairs of notions such as virtue–sin, heaven–hell, white–black etcetera. I will lay out concepts that interpret evil as apriori psychic and epistemic phenomenon producing moral issues by the transmutation via mentioned pairs. It appears in the framework of social (political) community as the ratio of the energy of “openness” and “closeness”. With this pair I replace all the traditional pairs, and I further describe it on the grounds of the analysis of narcissism. I understand narcissism as being one of the results of the lack of knowledge potentiated by fury and fear in the relation to the self. It prevents us from knowing All-Oneness, a mereological principle that takes into consideration the entire biotic community. Expected contribution consists of pointing at the methods for the reduction of evil in the world.

Keywordspsychicentropy,All-Oneness,narcissism,evil,mereology,openness,closeness,luminance,integrativebioethics

1. Terminological and methodological issues: preliminary overview

Historically and philosophically captivating, the problem of evil is one ofthemost discussed topics to date, but strangely enough, also a permanenttaboo.Andwhileitsaporiaofcrimeandpunishmentinthisworldorintheaftermathiscertainlysymbolicallybewitching,Iclaimthatcategoriesplayingtheroleinunderstandingofthisaporiaarenotadequatelyprecise,thusouruseofthesecategoriesis nihilatingthepotentialityofnullifyingthelevelofnormalitypresentinourmoralreflectionregardingexistenceofevil.Inthispaper,Iwilltacklethecategoriesexclusively,avoidingcasestudiesofpar-ticularcrimesthroughoutthehistoryfortworeasons:becausetheirquantityisendlessandtheirexistenceapparent,andbecauseIbelievewewillhaveabetteruseofthisstudyifanalysingthecategoricalcausalitybehindthecrimeswillbeitstelos.Moreover,thispaperhasanintentiontobeapropaedeuticsto studyingAll-Oneness,1 that is, to studying the psyche as the dialectical

1

When Iuse the termAllOneness, I refer tothe conceptual and factual totality of bioticand abiotic community of cosmos. Similar

concepts are present throughout the historyof philosophy, fromHeraclitus andPlotinustoCarlGustavJung,andtheyfindsupportin

https://doi.org/10.21464/sp32103

SYNTHESISPHILOSOPHICA63(1/2017)pp.(31–50)

L.Janeš,ParadogmaofthePsychicEntropyofEvilandthePalingenesisofAll-Oneness32

syntheticforcewithinthesphereoflivingbeings.Tomakemycaseclearer,considerSvendsen’sobservation:

“…theideaofevilwasseenasaholdoverfromamythical,Christianworldviewwhosetimewasalreadypast.Initially,asIbegantoattemptthis‘rehabilitation’oftheconceptofevil,theideaitselfwasstillanobjectoffascinationforme.Thisfascinationwasaresult,mostespecially,ofourtendencytoregardevilasanaesthetic object,whereevilappearsassomethingotherandthereforefunctionsasanalternativetothebanalityofeverydaylife.Wearesteadilyexposedtomoreandmoreextremerepresentationsofevilinfilmsandsuch,butthisformofevildoesn’tbelongtoamoral category.Likemostotherthingsinourculture,evilhasbeenaestheticized.”2

AlthoughIagreewiththeargumentSvendsenmaderegardingperceptionofevilasbeingshiftedintothedomainofaesthetics,Icannotagreewithhimthataestheticsisthecontextfromwhichweshoulddrawouranswersfrom.Myquestionwouldbe–whyaesthetics?–andIwouldlookfortheanswerin thecausalityanterior toaestheticaldimensionof thephenomena. Inmyattempt toclarify the issues regarding theproblemofevil, in focusof thispaperIwilldiscussinparallelthemicro-levelofevil-doinginthepsycheoftheindividual,andmeso-levelofevil-doingwithinsociety,whilemacro-levelofthisdiscussionwillbeindirectlyimpliedasthemereologicalco-bearingoftheAll-Oneness.Mereology isamathematicaldisciplinewhichstudies therelationofpartsandthewholestheyform.HereIdrawfromthegeneralideatheconceptofthemereologyofcommunity(society)becauseofitsheuristicpower, theability tograspthecomplexityofcontexts, that is,ofparticularconstellations building next levels of thewhole. In a different context butsimilarsense,MatjažPotrčconcludedthefollowing:

“Thusfarweclaimedthatthescienceofwholesandparts,thatismereology,isfundamentalforphenomena.InGreek,meros meansapart.Mereologyisfundamentalforthestudyofphe-nomena,thatis,phenomenology.Phenomenaiscrucialforthestudyofwaysinwhichthewholeappears.”3

However,priortoanyviablediscussioninthegivencontext,therearetermi-nologicalandmethodologicalissuesthatneedtobeaddressed.Consistencyofthepermanenceofevilintheworldinfluencedmetobelievethatthereissomethingmisleadinginmoral(izing)interpretationsoftheevil-doing.Thehistoricalsituationcontinuestoleadustofalselybelievethattheexistenceofevilintheworldisnormal,evennecessary.Iclaimthatthereissomethingone-dimensional in thegeneral approach to theproblem, in thewayinwhichinterpretationsfailtocontributetotheprocessofovercomingtheconflictedstateoftheworld.Theproblemwiththewayinwhichwethinkabout the evil-doing is related to theway inwhich interpretations remainconsistentwiththeterminologicalstructureofthenotionofmoral,fromthelatinmoralis,havingalitteralmeaningof“pertainingto…”.Similarconno-tationispresentintheGermanversionSittlichkeit,inCroatiantranslatedas“običajnost”,both referring to theexpectedstructuredorderofmannersorcharacter.Allofthemsemanticallydisclosesedentarism,“beingsitted-in”or“inseatedness”.Itimpliespassivity,itmanifestsdreamyinseatednessofthemoralimmutabilitywhichinfluencesnotjustactionsper se,butthinking abo-uttheseactions.Thisleadsustoanothergeneralproblemwiththeanalysisofevil,mainly thefact thatweare toostronglyfocusedonphysicalactofevil.Werevolvearoundthetermssuchas“misconduct”,“atrocity”,“felony”,and“crime”,but this“evil-doing” isbutanoutcomeof the“evil-bearing”.Genesisofevilbeginsinthethoughtsofbeings,and,beforeanyphysicalactperformeduponothers,itfirstlymanifestsitselfthroughspeech.Ofcourse,anyspeechactissurelyphysical,butthatmissesthepoint:poisonousedge



toeviloccursintheinitialtransfer–inthethinkingitselfandinthecommu-nicationbetweenbeings,mostprecisely–inthepsycheofbeings,whichisthetruecarrierofthepotentialitytodoevilandtobeevil.Infact,evilcanbeperformedbynotdoinganythingconcrete,asArendtimpliesthroughquotingAugustineofHippo:

“Themanwho,knowingtheright,failstodoit,losesthepowertoknowwhatisright;andthemanwho,havingthepowertodoright,isunwilling,losesthepowertodowhathewills.”4

Inclassical termsofunderstandingevil, this isnotsomething tobeunder-stoodasevil–andthatispreciselytheproblembecausethisishowevilis“born”.Thus,beforeanydiscussiononmorallyproblematic acts,weneedtoaddressthea prioriepistemic–psychic–ground,whichgenealogicallypredatesmoralact,thatis,constitutesmoralreasoning.Thereisanelementoflearninginvolvedwithcommittingevilacts,apersonlearnsaboutmakingherselfthegoalofanydeed,includingcausingharmtoothers,actionswhichleadtoestablishingoneselfastheknowledgeparadigmfordoinggood.Bau-drillardmadeasimilarcasewhenheconcludedthefollowing:

“Unintelligenceofevil,absenceof insight intothingsbyevilandthereforealwaysthesamediscourseonthe‘foulbeast’andthesamenaïvetéintheanalysisofpresentevents.Ourwholesystemofvaluesexcludesthispredestinationofevil.Yetallithasinvented,attheendofitsburdensometherapyonthehumanspecies,isanotherwayofmakingitdisappear,thatistosay,ofironicallycarryingthepossibilityofhappinesstoitsoppositeterm,thatoftheperfectcrime,thatofintegralmisfortune,whichwassomehowwaitingforitjustattheend.”5

Thenecessitybywhichmisleadingoccurs,theperceptionthattheappearanceofabsoluteevilwillhappen,isempoweredbyanintuitionthathumanbeingsareevilbynature,whetherweare“taintedbythefirstsin”orwebehaveasif“onehumanbeingisawolftoanother”.Thiskindofnegativeanthropologyforcesustobelievethatweknowourselvesasevil,andthusweorientour-selvesonlytowardsourselves,givingbirthtonarcissism.Anarcissistexhibitsextremeselfishnessandeventuallyfailstocomprehendothersasworthyontheirown.Shewantstobethesubjectofeverysituation,andattemptstobealltheotherswhomightchallengeheragency,andthusworkstomentallyin-

thefieldofnaturalsciences,mostnotablyinphysicsviadiscoveryoftherelationbetweenelementaryforcesandthevacuumplayingaconstitutiveroleinthekinesisofthecosmos,butalsoinbiologyandchemistryinthecon-textofevolutionaryprocessesandself-organi-zationofitsinternalmovements.All-Onenessdoes not imply any type of anthropocentricgod,itdoesnotrefertooneanybeing,rather,thenotionimpliestheunderlyingunitywithinthetotality,theunifyingrelationsandthecon-tentoftheserelationsbetweentheaforemen-tioned biotic and abiotic, but more specifi-cally,betweenthephysicalandthementalorbetweenthebodyandmind.Itimpliessingleunifyingandunchangingtruth,thekindHera-clitusspokeabout, thoughnotas“minervis-tic”recordsofthecurrent,butasthecreative,dynamical,andanimatingforce.Ithinkofitnotasifit’sastate-liketotalitaritydrowningvariety intoundifferentiatedblob,butas theunity of phenomenological n-pluriaspectsgovernedbythecategoryoforganism.

2

LarsSvendsen,Philosophy of Evil,translatedby Kerri A. Pierce, Dalkey Archive Press,Champaigne,London2010,p.9.

3

MatjažPotrč,Pojave i psihologija[Phenomena and Psychology], translated by KsenijaPremur,Lara,Zagreb2017,p.42.

4

HannahArendt,O zlu. Predavanje o nekim pitanjima moralne filozofije [On Evil. Lectures on Certain Questions from the Philosophy of Morality], translatedbyNadeždaČačinovič, Naklada Breza, Zagreb 2006, p.103.ThequotationisfromSt.Augustine’sDe libero arbitrio,3.19.53.

5

JeanBaudrillard,The Intelligence of Evil or the Lucidity Pact,translatedbyChrisTurner,Berg,NewYork2005,p.174.



fluencethemtoherbidding.Lacandescribesanimportantaspectofnarcissistinthisway:

“Isuggestthatthereisaradicaldistinctionbetweenlovingoneselfthroughtheother–which,inthenarcissisticfieldoftheobject,allowsnotranscendencetotheobjectincluded–andthecircularityofthedrive,inwhichtheheterogeneityofthemovementoutandbackshowsagapinitsinterval.”6

FinaloutcomeofthisbehaviouristhemereologicalcollapseoftheAll-One-nessintoanarcissist,intoasingleton,whopseudo-logicallybehavesasif,andbelievesshe is theAll-Oneness.Narcissistenclosesaway themereologicalrichnessofthetotalityofbioticandabioticcommunity,andbecauseofthis,narcissismcanbeconsideredtheprimecharacteristicofhumanbeingsinge-neral–asspecies.Itisworthytomentionthattherootmeaningofnarcissism–narke –meansnumbness,intoxication–andassuchreflectsourspeciesasthosewhofellinlovewiththemselvesonaccountoftheAll-Oneness.Nar-cissismis thedominantopiateofourspecies,andwasnaively representedthroughpsychologyandpsychiatryasamatterofindividualcases,anano-maly.7Narcissismplaysacentralroleasaspecific“meta-magnet”attractingnumbness,greed,andmoralrelativism,itisa“mereologicalfissure”preven-tingusfromattainingcontextualunitybeyondtheunityofourselves,whileagainstitplaysthedispositionofthinkingaboutothersasareflectionoftheAll-Onenessweareapartof.Clearly,historyshowedusthatbysimplyesta-blishingasocialcontractwedidnotgetfarinsolvingtheproblemofperma-nenceofevil.IbelievethatwecanovercometheseissuesbythinkingthroughtheperspectiveofAll-Oneness,yetonlyifweobserveevilastheantithesistotheAll-Oneness,andthinkofitastheabsolutenarcissismpreventingtheperceptionofthemereologicaleccentricpositionalitythroughthejudgmentoftheenergyratioofopennessandcloseness.8Thisismyfirsthypothesis,andbyitIsuggesttoconsiderunderstandinginterrelationswithinsocietyasa“domainofenergy”madeof“atoms”ineverlastinginteractivemovement.Harmonybetweenthe“atoms”ismaintainedbytheenergyofopenness(theGood),whileaporeticlimitationsanddisorderaremaintainedbytheenergyofcloseness(theEvil).What is required is theshift in theperspective, theclarificationofthenewformoftheunderstandingofeccentricpositionality(Plessner)as thecontinual transcendingof then-positions inwhichwearenotsubjectsofanything,butpurepredicatesinrelationtoother“atoms”ofcommunitywhichwe perceive as subjects.This subversion of the role ofsubjectandobjectallowsustoinvestourenergyofopennessintoprosperityforothermembersof thecommunitywhosimilarlystrive to their telos, inreturntheydothesameforus.Onthemicro-level,therelationbetweenthetwoenergiesproduceseitherstabilepsycheoftheindividualsandapositiveinternalrelationtooneself,oritproduces“knotsofenergy”breedinganguishofire,bitterness,andfear.9Fromtheperspectiveofpracticalsolutionstothedisorder,wearedealingwithcertaincirculus vitiosiswhichamplifiespsychic entropyoflivingbeings–theprocessof“setting-apart”,disharmonizing,de-pletionofopennessintocloseness.Jungexplainedtheprincipleofentropyinthecontextofpsycheinthisway:

“Principeofentropyisfromourexperienceknownonlyastheprincipleofpartialprocessesthatrepresentarelativelyclosedsystem.Wecanobservepsycheasonesuchsystem.(…)Sinceonlyrelativelyclosedsystemsareavailabletoourexperience,nowhereareweinasituationtobeabletoobservetheabsolutepsychicentropy.However,thestrongeristheenclosingofpsychicsystem,thestrongeristheproofforphenomenonofentropy.[Jung’sfootnote41statesthefol-lowing:Systemiscompletelyclosedwhenoutsideinputofenergyisfurthernotpossible,only



thenentropytakesplace]Wecanseethisespeciallyincasesofpsychicdisorders,characterizedbytheintenseexclusionofoutsideworld.”10

This begins notwith acts, butwith talking and thinking, and the negativeenergy–manifestationofclosenessinthesenseofconstructingenclosuresin themeso-level network of “energy relays” of co-existence – has fertilegroundinthepsycheoflivingbeings.Thisinterrelation,andthecorruptionofAll-Oneness,doesnotreferonlytohumanbeings–itreferstoalllivingbeings, to the fullnessof thebiosphere andbeyond, as all of the livingornon-livingunitsareunavoidablymembersofthemereologyofAll-Oneness.Thepositive totality, the outwardity of openness phenomenon, suggests tousthattheremightbeaqualitativedifferencebetweenevil(closeness)andgood(openness).Moreprecisely,thatclosenessisadeviantpost-effectofthecomplexityofinterrelationsoftheever-openedtotality.Thisinfluencesourwayof thinkingabout themethod forpreventingevil.AugustineofHippounderstoodthiswell:

6

JacquesLacan,The Seminar of Jacques Lacan. Book IV: The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, translated byAlanSheridan,W.W.NortonandCompany,Lon-don1998,p.194.

7

Quite the opposite, I claim that history ofhumanityhas thetraitsofnarcissi-epidemic.Psychoanalysts provided somewhat bettertheoriesonnarcissism,andthereisanumberofthem.Forexample,Freudspeaksoflibidalnarcissism, Abraham speaks of destructivenarcissism, Kohut speaks of healthy narcis-sism,andMillonspeaksoffourtypeofnarcis-sism: unprincipled, amorous, compensatory,and elitist. See TheodoreMillon,Disorders of Personality. DSMIV and Beyond,WileyandSons,NewYork1996,especiallyp.393.InDSM-V, classification of narcissism as apsychicdisorderisidentifiedinthefollowingmanner: “Apervasivepatternofgrandiosity(in fantasy or behaviour), need for admira-tion,andlackofempathy,beginningatearlyadulthoodandpresentinavarietyofcontext(…).”SeeAmericanPsychiatricAssociation,DSM 5, London 2013, p. 669. Diagnosticsconsists of nine key points. I selected someofthemoreintriguingones:agrandiosesenseof self-importance (i.e. exaggerates achieve-ments and talents, expects to be recognisedas superior without commensature achieve-ments);hasasenseofentitlement(i.e.unrea-sonableexpectationsofespeciallyfavourabletreatmentofautomaticcompliancewithhisorherexpectations);isinterpersonallyexploitati-ve;lackempathy:isunwillingtorecognizeoridentifywiththefeelingsandneedsofothers.

8

Idevisedtheconceptoftheenergyofopen-nessandclosenessinspiredbythegeneralhy-pothesisonopennessandclosenessproposedbyLukaPerušićduringalectureattheinterna-tionalsymposium“RationalityandtheProb-

lemofEvil”,heldinTrogirfromAugust28toSeptember3,andorganizedby theCroatianDominicanProvince,CentreofExcellenceforIntegrativeBioethics(UniversityofZagreb),IanRamseyCentreforScienceandReligion(UniversityofOxford),andHumanePhiloso-phyProject.Perušićprovideddiachronicandsynchronicsynthesisoftheapproachestotheproblemofevil,andhasarguedthatthedif-ferencesinunderstandingtheproblemofevil– thus the problemwith solving it – comesfrommisunderstandingthemanifestationsofgoodandevil.Theyareemergingproperties.Moreprecisely,thattheyareinfactfullyun-derstandable through, and governed by, thehigherrelationshipbetweenopenness(open-ing)asaphenomenon,andcloseness(enclos-ing)asaphenomenon.Byshiftingthefocusofdiscussiontothemechanismandstructureof the coming-to-be of both good and evil,Perušićprovidedseveralexamplesofaporiasolvablebythismechanism,includingsomeclassicissuessuchastheKantianproblemof“lyingtothemurdereratthedoor”.

9

Dominantexplanationonthepurposeoffearisthatitisanaturalreactiontodangerwhichdeveloped through theprocess of evolution.Here, I focus more on the fear radicalizedthroughthesystemofprotection,anirration-ality of self-love and self-indulgencewhicheventually grows into a threat to the beingitself.

10

KarlGustavJung[CarlGustavJung],Dinamika nesvesnog [Dynamics of Unconscious],Matica srpska, Beograd 1978, p. 96. Moreprecisely,Jungthinksaboutcasesofaffectivenumbnessthatresultsfromschizophrenia,butIclaimthatthiscan,inamuchbroadersense,beconsideredincontrasttobeingfullyawareoftheAll-Oneness.InthesecondchapterofthispaperIwillprovidemoreargumentsforthisclaim.



“Butevilsaresothoroughlyovercomebygood,thatthoughtheyarepermittedtoexist,forthesakeofdemonstratinghowthemostrighteousforesightofGodcanmakeagooduseevenofthem,yetgoodcanexistwithoutevil,asinthetrueandsupremeGodHimself,andasineveryinvisibleandvisiblecelestialcreaturethatexistsabovethismurkyatmosphere;butevilcan-notexistwithoutgood,becausethenaturesinwhichevilexists,insofarastheyarenatures,are good.And evil is removed, not by removing anynature, or part of a nature,whichhadbeen introducedby theevil,butbyhealingandcorrecting thatwhichhadbeenvitiatedanddepraved.”11

Thekeymomentof“healing”is,muchasAugustineofHippodidinhisConfessions,communication.WeshouldnotbethinkingaboutAll-Oneness,ope-nnessandclosenessasiftheyarepseudometaphysicsofotherworldly,tran-scendentprinciplesthatimplystaticfactuality,rather,bothgoodandevilaredynamiccommunicationofenergy,atransferofinformationfrompointAtopointB.Eviloccurswithclosingoftheinformation,withsubjectscommuni-catingtothemselvesviaothers,insteadofsimplycommunicatingtoothersinordertogaintheirowninformation,whenbehavingasifothersaremerelyasubpointoftheabsoluteoneselfinthemereologyofrelations.Thistypeofbe-haviourisidentifiableinmostofthecommonevil-bearingacts:bullyingtheweaker,stealing,fraudulence,killingforpleasureorgain,falsifyinghistory,truthorknowledgeregardinge.g.god,takingadvantageoftheillordisabledforgainingwealthet cetera.Theproblemisthelevelatwhichthistypeofbe-haviouroccurs:itisthequestionnotoftheindividuals,e.g.psychopaths,butofmasses.Theyaregovernedbytheintentional unconsciousoperatingonthebasisofintuitedknowledgeofthenegativeanthropology.12AllofthemaredrivenbysentimentsofangerandfearorientingaroundsubstitutionofAll-Oneness for the self.Likewise,goodoccurswithopening the information,withbeingapointofprogressforthewholeandagatheringpointforthepar-ticulars,withdedicatingyourselfto“midwifery”,tomereologicalmaieutic:insteadofbullyingtheweaker,youofferyourbacktosupporthergrowth,andyouteachherhowtoofferherbacktotheweaker,becausealthoughmereo-logicalnatureoftheAll-Onenessstronglysuggestshierarchy,thereis,infact,nothingsuchtoit.Kantwrites:

“Theoppositeofegoismcanonlybepluralism,thatis,thewayofthinkinginwhichoneisnotconcernedwithoneselfasthewholeworld,hutratherregardsandconductsoneselfasamerecitizenoftheworld.”13

Finally,ifevilcanthusbeunderstoodasmiscommunication,thenweoughttodedicateourfocustothequestionofhowknowledgeistransferredandhowdoesit“contribute”totheproblemsofpsychicentropy.Fromslumberthiswa-kensanotherproblemwhichestablisheditselfinthepasthundredyears,whi-chisaneglectingofthetermpsyche,andcompletediscoursiveconfusionoftheterms“psyche”,“spirit”,“ghost”,“reason”,“mind”,“soul”,and“mental”.Forexample,inpsychologypsyche isunderstoodasthetotalityofconsciousandnon-consciouscontent,whileininstitutionalpsychiatrya“psychicdisor-der”isjustanorganicbraindisorder,thatis,disorderofthereason,meaningthat“psyche”islimitedtotheaspectsofthebrain,whileneuroscientistsoftenequatebrainwith“mind”withoutgivingmuchthought.Firstly,theproblemiswiththepresupposedunderstandingofpsychebywhichitisempiricallyobservable.AlreadyHeraclitusunderstoodthedepthofpsyche,claiminginfr.35thatyoucannotfinditslimits,14whichwassomethingthatKarlJaspersoutlinedinthecontemporarycontext:

“Wecancomprehendandstudyonlythatwhichforusbecameanobject.Yetsoulassuchisnotanobject.Itbecomesanobjectinasenseinwhichitappearsperceivablewithintheworld:



inaccompanyingsomaticoccurrences,inunderstandableexpression,inbehaviour,inactions–moreforth,itmanifestsitselfinlanguagecommunication,speaksofwhatitmeansandthinks,produceswork.Inallthesefacts,whicharedemonstrableintheworld,effectsofsoularelaidbefore us, occurrences inwhichwedirectly perceive the soul, or on the basis ofwhichwededuceregardingthesoul.Thesoulitselfisnotour subject[object].WeexperienceitinusasaconsciousexperienceandvisualizetheexperienceoftheOther,beitfromtheobjectivephe-nomenaorfromreportsofourownexperiences.Butthatexperienceisanoccurrence,too.Wemayletthesoulbecomeobjectifiedthroughpicturesandparables.However,itremainstobetheall-encompassingwhichdoesnotbecomeanobject,butratheroutofwhichtheindividualfactsbecomeobjective.”15

Inmoreconcretesense,theproblemoccurswhenwetakealookattheuseof these notions in the context of institutions:we have “mental” instituti-ons,“psychic”institutions,“sanitariums”,“bedlams”,and“insaneasylum”,accompaniedwithderogatorytermssuchas“nuthouse”,“funnyfarm”,and“madhouse”.InCroatian,a term“umobolnica”, literallymeaning“hospitalformind”or“hospitalforreason”,isoccasionallystillused“offtherecord”.Theproblemisthefollowing:patientsaretreated,anddiseasesunderstooddependingonthesemanticcontextofthenotionsinuse.Canmyissuesbecuredwithchemicals,orbysocial supportandcare, thatdependsonwhatnotionsendowourreasoning,andthustheprobabledamageoftheextensionofconfusionregardingthewaywethinkaboutphenomenaisnotmeasurable,butitcancertainlybeimaginedandshouldnotbeignored.Muchlikebodyserves toproduceandconvert substances intoenergy, sodoespsychepro-duceandcovert“cognitive”phenomena,suchaswilloremotion,intoacts.Whatwouldhappentothecurrentpracticeif,forexample,wewouldrestoretheAncientGreekunderstandingofpsychewhichrejecteddualismofmindandbodythatbecamepopularduringMiddleAgeandwouldcertainlyrejecttheconceptofeithersoulormindbeingequaltobrainfunctioning?Infact,Greeksinmanywaysarguedtheopposite,andpsychewasrelatedtobreat-hing,blowing,takingofspace,wasunderstoodastheprincipleofvitality,aspsukhēliterallymeaning“breath”,“life”,and“soul”.Democritus,forexam-ple,arguedthefollowing:

11

Augustine De Civ. 272. See Philip Schaff(ed.),St. Augustine’s City of God and Christian Doctrine, translated by Philip Schaff,Christian Literature Publishing Co., NewYork1890,p.437.

12

Intentional unconscious is a term that wascoined in collaboration with Luka Perušić.Thegoalwastofindasuitablesemanticim-age that explains the mereological agent oftheactiondynamicsofboththeunawareandaware subjects, of subjects that haveno au-thenticunderstandingofthestructurepriortotheactsbeingundertaken,andwhosemere-ologicalcontributioniscontrolledbyhetero-geneity,butalsoofthosewhodoyetcannotcontrol this agency.Theycanbeclosely re-lated to the social system of any particularideology,butnotnecessarily–theprocessesaremorefundamentalthanthemeso-levelofinteraction, they can originate from withinthe beings without outside influence. Thisnotionissomewhatcomplementarywiththediscussionregardingintentionalunconscious-

nessandunconsciousintentionalityasfoundinphenomenological researchand in the re-searchofmind,forexamplebyJohnR.SearleandCarlGustavJung.Thisrequiresadiffer-entstudyaltogetherandhereforthisonlyref-erenced.

13

ImmanuelKant,Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View, translatedbyRobertB.Louden, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cam-bridge2006,p.18.

14

“Youwillnotfindoutthelimitsofthesoulbygoing,evenifyoutravelovereveryway,sodeepisitsreport.”SeeCharlesH.Kahn,The Art and Thought of Heraclitus. An edition of the fragments with translation and commentary, translated by Charles H. Kahn, Cam-bridge University Press, Cambridge (MA)1979,p.45.

15

KarlJaspers,Allegemeine Psychopathologie,Springer-Verlag,Berlin1949,p.8.


L.Janeš,ParadogmaofthePsychicEntropyofEvilandthePalingenesisofAll-Oneness3�

“Itisfittingformenthattheyshouldmakealogosmoreaboutthesoulthanaboutthebody.Fortheperfectionofthesoulputsrightthefaultsofthebody.Butstrengthofbodywithoutreason-ingimprovesthesoulnotonewhit.”(B.187)

WhileitisreportedthatAnaxagoras,differentiatingbetweenmindandpsyche,instructedaboutthemindasfollows:

“He [Anaxagoras]haswritten the followingaboutNous: ‘Theother thingshavea shareofeverything, butNous is unlimited and self-ruling andhasbeenmixedwithno thing, but isaloneitselfbyitself.Forifitwerenotbyitself,buthadbeenmixedwithanythingelse,thenitwouldpartakeofallthings,ifithadbeenmixedwithanything(forthereisashareofeve-rythingineverythingjustasIhavesaidbefore);andthethingsmixedtogetherwithitwouldthwartit,sothatitwouldcontrolnoneofthethingsinthewaythatitinfactdoes,beingalonebyitself.Foritisthefinestofallthingsandthepurest,andindeeditmaintainsalldiscernment(gnōmē)abouteverythingandhasthegreateststrength.AndNoushascontroloverallthingsthathavesoul,boththelargerandthesmaller.AndNouscontrolledthewholerevolution,sothatitstartedtorevolveinthebeginning.Firstitbegantorevolvefromasmallregion,butitisrevolvingyetmore,anditwillrevolvestillmore.AndNousknew(egnō)themall:thethingsthatarebeingmixedtogether,thethingsthatarebeingseparatedoff,andthethingsthatarebeingdissociated.Andwhateversortsofthingsweregoingtobe,andwhateversortswereandnowarenot,andasmanyasarenowandwhateversortswillbe,alltheseNoussetinorder.AndNousalsoorderedthisrevolution,inwhichthethingsbeingseparatedoffnowrevolve,thestarsandthesunandthemoonandtheairandtheaether.Thisrevolutioncausedthemtoseparateoff(…).’”16

InTimaeus,Platoarguesthat“soul”consistofelements,emphasizingtheim-portanceofharmonizingthesoul,becauseinthecaseoftheopposite,whenthepoweroftheimmortalpartisnotalignedwiththepowerofthemortalpart,humanbeingsseethesoulandbodyasiftheyareseparated.Thisma-sksawaythetruepoweroflife,andcausesinternaldisorderwithinhumanbeings.17

Fromonlyaselection,itisclearthattheirunderstandingimpliesbroaderme-reologicalconnectionofelementsthatformthebioticandtheabiotic.“Dance”betweenlifeanddeath,betweenkineticsandstatics,betweenbodyandsoul,outlinethecomplexitypreciselyinthediscussionaboutthepsyche,appearingtobeanentanglingpolygonofthebeforementionedpoles.Itisherewheretheanalogybetweengoodandevilcanbedrawnthroughtheschemeofope-nnessandcloseness.Thesourceoftheserelationsalreadybeginsinthefieldofunconscious,anditistherepeatingthatembodiesitintoadriveunderlyingbothindividualsandsocietyasaparticularwhole.Isuggestthatweshouldthinkofpsycheasthemovingenergywhoseopennessandcloseness,andtheissuesthatareinthatsenseproduced,suchaspsychicdisorders,aredefinedbyinternalandexternalinfluencesordainedbythemereologicalrelationofelements.Mygoalwastopointoutthat“soul”,“mind”,“psyche”isneitherseparatedfrombody,noritisinanywayisolatedfromtherestoftheatoma-riumofAll-Oneness.Psycheistheoutcomeofthedialecticsofthetotalityofbodyandthetotalityofmind,the“actualis”ofthemindandbodypotentiality,agroundingsynthesiswhichrevealsitselfasthepresenceofbeingitself,theenergygoverningallinternalandexternalacts.Inthenextchapter,Iwillthusmorespecificallyfocusontheconclusionthatevilshouldbe,thus,consideredasapsychicdisorderinthesenseinwhichpsychewasdescribeduptothispoint,andthatwewillnotbeabletodealwithitinvasively,forexample,withmorality enhancement, advanced prison systems or exclusion punishment,rather,withbringingthemintothelightofAll-Onenessthroughnurtureandeducation.



2. Evil and knowledge

Consideringconclusionspresentedinthepreviouschapter,inthisoneIexplo-reanewhypothesis:thatevilisrelatedtothedisorderofpsyche,andthattheoutcomesofpsychecanberelatedtothecontentofknowledge,concludingthatevilcanbeconsideredaspsychicdisorderrelatedtoknowledge.InEmile,Rousseauwrote:“Wearebornweak,weneedstrength;helpless,weneedaid;foolish,weneedreason.Allthatwelackatbirth,allthatweneedwhenwecometoman’sestate,isthegiftofeducation.Thiseducationcomestousfromnature,frommen,orfromthings.Theinnergrowthofourorgansandfacultiesistheeducationofnature,theusewelearntomakeofthisgrowthistheeducationofmen,whatwegainbyourexperienceofoursurroundingsistheeducationofthings.”18

Goodnessandhonestyarecharacteristicsthataretaught,andsoareevilnessanddishonesty.Theyarenotmanifestedmerelybecauseofgeneticpredis-positions,theycanbetaughtandtheyarenotirreversible.Knowledge,con-servedintheunconsciousdrive,accordinglyproducesthespecificpatternofpractice,producing,amongotherthings,adistorted,evilpsyche.Baudrillardobserved:

“Nothingelsecanchangeanythinginthisworld.Knowledgealoneiscapableoftransformingtheworld,whileatthesametimeleavingitexactlyasitis.Whenyoulookattheworldwithknowledge,yourealizethatthingsareunchangeableandatthesametimeareconstantlybeingtransformed.Youmayaskwhatgooditdoesus.Let’sputitthisway–humanbeingspossesstheweaponofknowledgeinordertomakelifebearable.Foranimalssuchthingsaren’tneces-sary.Animalsdon’tneedknowledgeoranythingofthesorttomakelifebearable.Buthumanbeingsdoneedsomething,andwithknowledgetheycanmaketheveryintolerablenessoflifeaweapon,thoughatthesametimethatintolerablenessisnotreducedintheslightest.”19

Icanprovidetwoexamplesthatgiveoutlinestothistheory.Firstexample is thegeneralunderstandingofhumanbeingsasevil,whichfromHobbesonwardperpetuatesitselfasifitistrue,andservestoconstituteatypeofworld.InLeviathan,Hobbeswrote:“Fortheruleofmanners,withoutcivilgovernment,isthelawofnature;andinit,thelawcivil,thatdeterminethwhatishonest anddishonest; whatis just andunjust; andgenerallywhatisgood andevil.Whereastheymaketherulesofgood, andbad, bytheirownlikinganddisliking:bywhichmeans,insogreatdiversityoftastes,thereisnothinggenerallyagreedon;buteveryonedoth(asfarashedares)whatsoeverseemethgoodinhisowneyes,tothesubversionofcommonwealth.Theirlogic,whichshouldbethemethodofreasoning,isnothingelsebutcaptions[quibbles]ofwords,and inventionshowtopuzzlesuchasshouldgoabout toposethem.”20

Frommshowedhowthislogicperpetuateditselfallthewaytothe20thcen-tury,andheheavilycriticizedhowweadoptedthisapproachasifit’sinour

16

B12SimpliciusinPhys.164.24;156.13.SeeAnaxagoras ofClazomenae,Fragments and Testimonia,translatedbyPatriciaCurd,Uni-versity of Toronto Press, London 1992, pp.22–25.

17

Cf.MarkoTokić,Život, zdravlje i liječništvo u Platonovoj filozofiji [Life, Health, and Medicine in Philosophy of Plato], Pergamena,Zagreb2013,p.33.

18

Jean-JacquesRousseau,Emile or On Education,translatedbyAllanBloom,BasicBooks,USA1979,p.38.

19

J.Baudrillard,The Intelligence of Evil or the Lucidity Pact,p.175.

20

Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a CommonWealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil,OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford1998,p.445.



nature,showingindetailmanymethodologicalmistakeswhichledustobe-lieveso.21InTheodicy,LeibnizturnedfocustoastatementbyMaimonidesthatsupportsFromm’sanalysis:

“MaimonidesaddsthatthecauseoftheirextravaganterroristheirsuppositionthatNaturewasmadeforthemonly,andthattheyholdofnoaccountwhatisseparatefromtheirperson;whencetheyinferthatwhensomethingunpleasingtothemoccursallgoesillintheuniverse.”22

InanagreementwithFrommandMaimonides,Iconcludethatthemosaicofourbehaviourcannotbedeterminedbyarelativejudgmentunderlinedwithselfishtendenciescomingfromparticularmembersofanycommunity,rather,onlybytheirtendencytowardsco-bearing.Fakeimagesoftheworldweagreeaboutcomeintoexistencethroughcognitivedeficit in thesenseofdeviantpossessionofmatter,acauseofisolatorynarcissismofthe“wise”membersofcommunity,thosethatRousseauexposedasfraudspushingcommunityto“sign”thesocialcontract–foritiswise,itsecuresoursociety–turningtheentirefalsepretenceintoparadogma,adogmawhichbecomesembodiedintoaparadigmthroughpractice.Pascalnoted:

“Naturehasmadeallhertruthsindependentofoneanother.Ourartmakesonedependentontheother.Butthisisnotnatural.Eachkeepsitsownplace.”23

ConceptssuchasHobbes’shomo homini lupus thatgetpositedandpracti-ced as the truth trumping and replacingother possibilities andpractices isadirectenclosingof theharmonious relationalgridofAll-Oneness,of thebioticorganismicwhole,of itsshiningthroughthevilesimplicitywhichiscontainedinconceptssuchasHobbesianviewonhumannature,enwrappinghumanpsycheintoisolationfromtheevolutionaryprocessesimmortalizedasAll-Oneness.Fromsuchinterpretationsoftheworldcomeideassuchas“hu-manism”and“capitalism”,theothertwoexamplesformyinitialhypothesis.They represent thegeneral systemunderwhichwe live forcenturies,bothconnectedtoHobbesianperceptionofhumankind.We face “humanism”, an epochalmask representing divine idea of noble,empathic,aestheticallyperfectedhumanbeing,anideologypertainingtoitsfalseinterpretationof humanbeingsasthefinestcreationsincethedaysofCicero,24while in reality it projected a truth completely opposite: sadism,narcissism,andviolenceascharacteristicsofspecies:geopoliticalwars,ge-nocides,biocides,classsystems, racism, totalitarianism–allaresupportedby,andthrivingthankstoreligiousorganizations,institutionalizedclosenessoperatingforitsownmembersexclusively,whichonlypaintsanironicco-loursacross themaskofhumanism,with its idolatrypraisedon thealtars,it’ssellingofforgiveness,it’sinquisitionsandtortures,it’slistofforbiddenbooks and excommunicated philosophers, burned at stakes or beheaded infrontoftheirpeons,it’sreligiousbloodshedsacrosscontinents,andorganizedcollectingofalmsfromthepoorestandleastable–neversidingwiththepe-ople,alwayssidingwiththegoverningforce.Todaywestrivetowards“tran-shumanism”,andwehaven’tevenreachedhumanism!Itisaworryingtrendthathumanismisbeingturnedintoacultureofcertainprogress,asadoxa,anillusorymoralconstanteveryhumanbeingshouldfeedon,onlytoplungeintotheatomariumofnarcissisticsanctuary–capitalism.Contractbetweenreligi-ousstructuresandcapitalismisonly“natural”,bothareprojectingtheirdis-tortedbehaviourasanaturalorderofthings,bothimplythatwereachedourfinalstageofdevelopment,andthatwhatwehavetodayisperfectlyaccep-table, a systemofpseudodemocraticparticipationgovernedby the elite as



thepinnacleofhumanism–weneedtogobeyond,weneedtranshumanism!Infact,religiousandpoliticaleconomicstructuresareunitedintoacohesivepoliticalorganismwhoseatomsliveconjoinedinaforcedsociety,butsplitintopensanddrivenbyfearandhatred.Persistinacompetitionorvanish,obeythesystemorconsideryourselftobeafailure.Undertheinfluenceof“capitalistspirit”psychenessisbeingtransmutedintopurematter,intobody,creatingfalsedualism.Materializedpsychecanthenbetradedascommodity,canbequantified,whichleadstothecreationoffissuresinthemereologicalharmonyofsocietyasanelementofAll-Oneness,ultimatelycausingarudi-mentarynihilist approach to theunderstandingofAll-Oneness. Inorder tomaintaintherulingofcapitalist’sinteresttokeepthebuyersintellectuallyandcognitivelymeagre,deficient,scarce,theyinvestintothecontrolofeducati-on,creatinganunbreakablemagicalcircle.Wearenotmeanttothinkwithourownautonomousmind,rather,wearetofollowthemainstreamheteronomy,governedby,beforeanyandall,religiousinstitutionsandgovernment.ItisasifHobbesiannegativeanthropologybecametheprimemotiveoforganizati-on.Quiteexpected.Bothexamplessuggesttousthatbeingevilandbehavingevilis,infact,nor-malandrational.Thuswearedealingwithmereologicalcorruption,inwhichevil behaviour is perceived as the pinnacle of rationality!Consider Lütz’sobservation:

“Ifyouseetheeveningnewsasapsychiatristandpsychotherapist,youareregularlyirritated.It’s all aboutwarmongers, terrorists,murderers,white-collar criminals, ice-cold typesof ac-countants,andshamelessegomaniacs–andnobodytreatsthem.Indeed,suchfiguresarecon-sideredcompletelynormal.WhenIthinkofthepeoplewithwhomIspentmyday–touchingdementiapatients,thin-skinnedaddicts,highlysensitiveschizophrenics,staggeringdepressivesandrousingmanicists–sometimesadreadfulsuspicioncreepsintomyhead:Wetreatthewrongpeople!Ourproblemarenotthecrazy,ourproblemarethenormal!”25

Intentional unconscious is an ideal incubator for evil-doing, able to deve-lop intoan instinct forevil.Thus, theemphasis isonconsciousnessawareoftheAll-Oneness,onbeingpresentasit,butasmerelyapartofit,andassuch being able to identify and alter the “necessary”mechanisms of evil-doing,whichisnothingbutentropicdisturbanceofthecosmicharmonyoftheAll-Oneness,mereologicalfractionalization.Reparationisachievablebyself-birthbecause,beforeanyempiricalconfirmation,evildevelopsfirstandforemostinthoughts,inconsciousness,thusinpsyche,andweinstructour-selvestowardsdifferentendingbyunderstandingrootcauseofthisnegativedevelopment,the“fakenature”ofourkind.Kantobserved:

21

Cf. Erich Fromm, Anatomy of Human Destructiveness, Holt, Rinehart and Winston,NewYork1973.

22

GottfriedWilhelmLeibniz,Theodicy. Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man and the Origin of Evil,translatedbyE.M.Huggard,BiblioBazaar,Charleston2007,p.291.

23

Blaise Pascal, Pascal’s Pensées, translatedbyT.S.Eliot,TheProjectGutenbergEBook2006,p.12.

24

ItwasCicerowhodescribed it so inhisDe officis, ideas thatwere later adopted by theleading names ofRenaissance, only to con-firm the paralysis of its teleological reach.HowdidtheanthropocentricRenaissanceac-tuallyoccur,inits,infact,poorsocialreality,andtowhatdiditleadto?

25

Manfred Lütz, Irre! Wir behandeln die Falschen. Unser Problem sind die Normalen,Gütersloher Verlaghaus, Gütersloh 2009, p.10.



“Whenathoughtfulmanhasovercomeincentivestoviceandisawareofhavingdonehisoftenbitterduty,hefindshimselfinastatethatcouldwellbecalledhappiness,astateofcontentmentandpeaceofsoulinwhichvirtueisitsownreward.”26

Thus,thequestionisthefollowing:ifmostpowerfulinstitutions,suchasre-ligiousorganizationsandgovernment,aresoeffectiveatbiopoliticalcontrol,isitpossibletotailoranewtheestablishedselfishnatureintotheparadigmofAll-Oneness?Itiscertainthatthisisachievablebydeliberatingourselvesfromconceptualenframing,byopeningourselvestothedifferentandother.Itishowwelearnaboutgoodnessandbecomegoodnessourselves.Pheno-menonofconsciousnessiscrucialinperceivingeccentricallypositionedme-reologyoftheinterrelationsofbeings,awarenessofthesufferingofothers,andthepreventionofsufferingthroughtheenergyofopenness.WecanthinkofgoodnessasthelightofcognitionwhichunderstandsAll-Oneness,andbybeingamanifestationofopennessoneactualizesthepurposeofallbeings,wherebyevilisclosenessasthedarkeningofthemind,apsychewhichma-nifestsitselfasthefallingbackinprogress,embodimentofthanatos.Plotinusbelievedthat:

“Goodmustbecompletelysufficienttoitselfandwithoutneedofanythingelseatall,whatothernaturethanthiscouldanyonefind,whichwaswhatitwasbeforetheothers,whentherewasnotyetanybadness?Butiftheevilscomelater,inthingswhichdonotparticipateinthisGoodinanywayatall,andontheverylastandlowestlevel,andthereisnothingbeyondtheevilsontheworseside,theevilswouldbeopposedtoitwithoutanymiddletermfortheopposition.ThisthenwouldbetheGood;foreitherthereisnoGoodatall,or,ifitisnecessarythatthereis,itwouldbethisandnotsomethingelse.Butifsomeonesaysthatthereisnot,thentherewouldbenoevileither;sothingswouldbebynatureindifferentforourchoice;butthisisimpossible.Butwhatotherscallgoodsarereferredtothis,butititselfisreferredtonothing.Whatthendoesitmake,ifitislikethis?ItmadeIntellect,itmadelife,andfromIntellectthesoulsandallelsethathasashareinreasonorintellectorlife.(…)Andcertainlyeachoftheseeffectssomethingforthoseofwhichtheyarethegood,somearrangementandorderedbeauty,somealreadylife,andsomethoughtandlivingwell,butforIntellecttheGoodeffectssomething,theGoodwhichwemaintaincomesalsotothis,bothbecauseitsactiveactualitycomesfromitandbecausenowalsoitgivessomethingcalledlight:whatthisis,weshallseelater.”27

Lossofawareness regarding thestate inwhichareotherscreatesamentalinvolucreofclosenesswhichpreventstheagentfromconnectingwiththeAll-Oneness.Thisdevelopsanunhealthypsychewhichmanifestsitselfascorenarcissism.Baudrillardwrote:

“Tospeakevilistodescribethegrowinghegemonyofthepowersofgoodand,atthesametime,their inner faltering, their suicidalcrumbling, their reversion, theiroutgrowthandseparationintoparalleluniversesoncethedividinglineoftheUniversalhasbeencrossed.”28

In a sense,we can draw parallelwith theGreek–Heideggerian understan-ding of truth as “unconcealedness” and “unclosedness”, which is directlyoppositeofuntruthoralie,bothbeingmanifestationsofwrongness, ifnotevil.Connectionbetweenpurityandopennessisclear,psychicpurityimpliesharmonywiththerevealedAll-Onenesswhichguaranteestheorderedcom-municationbetweenmereologicalelements.Again,Baudrillardissharphere,quotinganinterestingexplanationofthegood–eviloppositionbyMishima:

“Goodwantsalwaystospeakitself,whereasevil isboundupwithsecrecy.(…)Thespecialqualityofhellistoseeeverythingclearlydowntothelastdetail.”29

Thus,healthypsychepresupposesharmonyofatomsthatcreatestabilepoli-ticalcommunitieswhicharenotdependingonstricthierarchyandcontrolleddistributionofpowerbecausetheironlyreferencetoharmoniousexistenceistheopenawarenessoftheunconcealedAll-Oneness.Itreflectsavalidmereo-



logyofpsyche,standinginoppositiontotheentropicdismembermentwhichforitsdirectcauseshas,ontheonehand,forexample,irreversiblepsychicbreakdowns,andontheotherhand,forexample,willingnesstocommitcri-me,30thuslackofempathy.Yetevilismostrebuffinglybredundertheinflu-enceofleadersofthepolitical(community)order,withthemicro-elementbe-ingthehousehold,thatis,family.Thestrongertheirinfluence,thefasteristhegrowthofevil-doing.Totalitarianregimesof20thcenturyareperhapsthebestexamples,andsoistheprosecutionof“witches”intheMiddleAge.Beingtaughttofollownaturallygrantstheinstitutionsthepowertoinfluencetheirfollowers,andthustheirmalicereflectsinthepeopleunderthem.Foucaultwroteextensivelyonthatmatter,thoughofcourseinthecontextofhisownunderstandingofpowerasrelational,ratherthanhierarchicalandcentralized,andwhatwecanconcludefromhisstudiesthatherelatestohowservantsofthesystemseetheorderwithin–asfinite,enclosed,andnecessary,thusnor-mal.Astheneedtoimitateandrepeatincreases,sodoesthepsychicentropyofevil.Inreturn,theabundanceofitisbeingconservedandcarriedfurtheras the part of unconscious drive, confirmingHobbesian hypothesis.Everysuchpresupposition,andtheprocessof“breastfeeding”beingswithvaluescontainedinthistypeofpresuppositionswhichareincontrastwithAll-One-ness,bythesheernecessityofbeingoppositetoAll-Onenessproducesfertilegroundforsystematization–normalization–ofevil.Theseconsequencesdonotapplytohumanbeingsstrictly,butpreciselybecauseofthemereologicalnetworkofenergy,itappliestoentirebiosphere.Climatechangecausedbyhumanbeingsisoneobviousexample.Buberobserved:

“WhenThouisspoken,thespeakerhasnothingforhisobject.Forwherethereisathingthereisanotherthing.EveryIt isboundedbyothers;It existsonlythroughbeingboundedbyothers.ButwhenThouisspoken,thereisnothing.Thouhasnobounds.”31

SerbianreleaseofBuber’sIch und DucontainsanadditionalepiloguethatBuberwrotein1957inJerusalem.Thefollowingquestionisinteresting:

“IfwecanbeinI–Thourelationship,aswassaidinthebook[I and Thou],notonlytowardsoth-erpeople,butalsotowardsbeingsandthingswemeetinnature,whatthenmakesacrucialdif-ferencebetweensomeandothers?Moreprecisely:iffactualencompassingmutualityconditionstheI–Thourelationshipofboth,IandThou,howcanarelationtowardsnaturebeunderstoodassuch?Tobeexact:ifwearetoacceptthatbothbeingsandthingsofnaturethatwemeetasourThouguaranteesomesortofmutuality,whatisthenthecharacterofthismutuality(…)?”32

Characterofthisboundnessbelongstothecategoryofintegrativity,whichisthecoremechanismofAll-Oneness.Itproducesthemereologicallystructured

26

ImmanuelKant,The Metaphysics of Morals,translatedbyMaryGregor,CambridgeUni-versityPress,Cambridge1991,p.183[377].

27

Plotinus,Enneads, translatedbyA.H.Arm-strong,HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge(MA)1989,VI.7.23.5–20;VI.7.25.25–30.

28

J.Baudrillard,The Intelligence of Evil or the Lucidity Pact,p.24.

29

Yukio Mishima, The Temple of the Golden Pavilion,translatedbyIvanMorris,Vintage,London2001,p.95,citedbyJ.Baudrillard,

The Intelligence of Evil or the Lucidity Pact,p.180.

30

Not in the sense of obeying law, but in thesenseofbeingviolentandoppressive.

31

MartinBuber,I and Thou, translatedbyRon-aldGregorSmith,T.&T.Clarke,Edinburgh1937,p.4.

32

MartinBuber,Ja i ti [I and Thou],translatedby JovicaAćin, Kultura, Beograd 1977, p.130.



morality as theparadigmof action.Every livingbeingcarries thepotencyfordeath,everybleedingbeingcarriesthepotencytosuffer,andthushumanbeingsasthe“crestofevolutionarygame”carrytheresponsibilityanddutytoreflectuponAll-Onenessandteachaboutit,toendorsesitthroughallthelivingandnon-living thatmakes thebiosphere forwhat it is.Hereare thegroundsforthecritiqueofoilexploitation,forestdestruction,speciesexter-mination,airintoxication,andseabedruination,forthepurposenootherbutcivilizationalpleasantries,whichagain in the latest formofcapitalismcanbetrulyobservedasthecontinuationof thealienationfromoursubstantial“beinghumane”.Treatmentofbeingswhichare“notnormal”hasahistoryquiteoppositetotheidealizedhumanism,andassuchisaperfectexampleforunderstandingtheintentionalunconsciousofevil-doing.HereIspecificallypointatdevelo-pmentofpsychiatrybecauseitismynarrowerfieldofinterestwithinbioet-hicalresearch.Methodologically,theapproachto“abnormal”wasmarkedbyremovalfromthepublicarea,apracticethatestablisheditselfforeverysocialmisfitruiningtheimageofpowerstructure.Foucaultnoticed:“Leprosydisappeared,thelepervanished,oralmost,frommemory;thesestructuresremained.Often,inthesesameplaces,theformulasofexclusionwouldberepeated,strangelysimilartwoorthreecenturieslater.Poorvagabonds,criminals,and‘derangedminds’wouldtakethepartplayedbytheleper,andweshallseewhatsalvationwasexpectedfromthisexclusion,forthemandforthosewhoexcludedthemaswell.Withanaltogethernewmeaningandinaverydiffer-entculture,theformswouldremainessentiallythatmajorformofarigorousdivisionwhichissocialexclusionbutspiritualreintegration.”33

Moreso, it has the same behavioural formula as banishing demons. Lützreportsabout theattitudetowardsmentally illprior to theestablishmentofpsychiatricinstitutions:“Certainly,therewereclearlymentallyillpersonsinthosetimesaswell.Buttheywerenotper-ceivedassuch.Forpsychiatrywasnoteveninventedyet.Andsomentallyillpeoplewerepos-sessedbyevilspiritsorweresimplyconsideredcriminal,andtreatedaccordingly.Someweredisplayedonfairs.MentallyillpoetHölderlinwas,sincetheyear1807untilhisdeathin1843inTübingen,inspiteofthefriendlinessoftheinnkeepers,basicallykeptasananimal.”34

TheironyofhumanismreacheditspeakwhenAntónioEgasMonizwasawar-dedaNobelprizein1949forhis“discovery”andapplicationoflobotomy,35whichwasatthetimeaccompaniedbythepracticeofexcessiveelectroshocktherapy,andinsulinshocktherapy(insulincoma).36Yettheprocessof“hu-manization”ofpsychotherapyreacheditspinnacleinthelastseveraldecades,withtheexpansionoftheuseofpsychopharmacs,representedasthescientifictriumphoverpsychic illness.CroatianpsychiatristRobertTorre,who star-tedatypeofanti-psychiatrymovementinCroatia,wroteextensivelyonthisissue.Heexplainedhowtreatmentwithpsychopharmacswaspromoted:“Thus,withthebirthofthefirstgenerationofantipsychoticsbeginsthefirst‘psychopharmacalrevolution’,whichbringsnearlyacenturyofasylumpsychiatrytoanend,andthedeinstitu-tionalizationofnumerouspsychiatricpatientsstarted.Massivestatementalhospitalsbegintounloadandentertheadaptationprocess.Year1955isconsideredthebirthdayofcontemporarypsychiatry, a year duringwhich the first antipsychotic chlorpromazine (in theUnitedStatesunderfactorynameThorazine,inEuropeasLagractil)wasintroduced,marketedas‘miraculouscureforschizophrenia’.”37

However,Torredescribeslaterinthechapter,thepracticewasagainfarfromhonest:

“Theverytitle‘antipsychotic’isintentionallytendentious,wrong,theresultofpoignantmarketbranding,becauseitsuggeststhatitisaboutapharmacthatisanantidoteforpsychicdisorders.



Thenotionofpsychoticcreatesanimpressionthatitisaboutapsychpharmaceuticalantibioticforapsychoticbacillusschizophrenococcus,thatis,thatiteffectivelycuresadisease.”38

Inallmentionedinstances,thesepracticesultimatelydemonstrateanattempttofullycontrolthepresupposednormofourbehaviour,twistingthetelosofknowledge.ConsiderLaing’sobservation:

“AmanwhopreferstobedeadratherthanRedisnormal.Amanwhosayshehaslosthissoulismad.Amanwhosaysthatmenaremachinesmaybeagreatscientist.Amanwhosaysheis amachine is ‘depersonalized’ inpsychiatric jargon.Amanwho says thatNegroes are aninferiorracemaybewidelyrespected.Amanwhosayshiswhiteness isaformofcancer iscertifiable.”39

Thusly,wearedealingwiththewrongbaseofthesysteminuse.Weoughttoreformthe“radix”ofoursystemofthought.Inordertoreverttheprocessof thefertilizationofevil-doing, toreducethepsychicentropyofevil,oneneeds to invest theirenergyintonothingbuteducatingchildrenandyouth,whichalsomeansfightingfortheeducationalinstitutionstoremainfreeofmarket trading, and protected from the techno-scientific lobbyists becauseprecisely these twospheresofcontemporaryactivityareantagonists in thegameofcivilizationalenframingthatsecludesitselfawayfromAll-Oneness,andinitliesthesimplemotiveofexploitation,theadaptionofthegenerallawofcommunicationtoprivate,particularizedpreferences.ItistheprocessofnegatingpluriperspectivitywhichshinesfromthemereologicalstructureofAll-Oneness.Instead,inordertoproperlyreformtheeducationalprocesses,oneneedstofindanorientationintheabsolutewhichholdsitselftrue,whichis, ina sense, corresponding toallbeingsaltogether. I claim that it isAll-Onenessthatcanserveusassuchorientationalconcept,andthatitgrantsusstronger footholdformorallycorrect relationsbetween livingbeings.Kantconcluded:

“Ethicaldutiesmustnotbedeterminedinaccordancewiththecapacitytofulfilthelawthatisascribedtoman;onthecontrary,man’smoralcapacitymustbeestimatedbythelaw,whichcommandscategorically,andsoinaccordancewithourrationalknowledgeofwhatmenoughttobeinkeepingwiththeIdeaofhumanity,notinaccordancewiththeempiricalknowledgewehaveofmenastheyare.Thesethreemaximsforscientifictreatmentofadoctrineofvirtueareopposedtothefollowingancientdicta:1)Thereisonlyonevirtueandonevice.2)Virtueis

33

Michel Foucault,Madness and Civilization. A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason,translated by Richard Howard, Routledge,NewYork2001,p.6.

34

M. Lütz,Irre!,p.54.

35

For more detail on the zombie effects oflobotomy see: Jay L. Hoffman, “Clinicalobservations concerning schizophrenic pa-tientstreatedbyprefrontalleukotomy”,New England Journal of Medicine 241 (6/1949),pp. 233–236. doi: https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm194908112410604.

36

Formoredetailson theuseofpsychosurgi-calproceduresbeforetheuseofpsychophar-macs, such as electroshock therapy – todaystill lacking the complete understanding of

what it does to the psyche – see:VictorW.Swayze, “Frontal leukotomy and relatedpsychosurgical procedures in the era beforeantipsychotics (1935–1954): a historicaloverview”,American Journal of Psychiatry152 (4/1995), pp. 505–515. doi: https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.152.4.505.

37

RobertTorre,Prava istina o psihijatriji: kako zaustaviti planetarnu epidemiju uzimanja psihofarmaka [Real Truth about Psychiatry: How to End the Planetary Epidemics of Taking Psychopharmacs],Profil,Zagreb2014,p.28.

38

Ibid.,p.36.

39

Ronald David Laing,Divided Self, PenguinBooks,London1969,pp.11–12.

https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.152.4.505

https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm194908112410604



theobservanceofthemiddlewaybetweenopposingvices.3)Virtue(likeprudence)mustbelearnedfromexperience.”40

IclaimthatthedangerofmonoperspectivedominationofanindividualideaistrumpedbytheconceptofAll-Oneness,andthatitbattlesthenihilismofpluralitywhichinfectsprogressandevolution,creatingthedestrolution41ofmeaningfulbeingintheworld.Butsuchturnoverrequiresanappropriateplat-form. In theconcludingchapter, Iwould like toemphasize the importanceoftheapproachdevelopedwithintheprojectofintegrativebioethics,whichstarted as a reaction to themereological distortion of the core knowledgeenterprise:science.

3. Palingenesis of All-Oneness and the luminance of integrative bioethics

Eventually,itwastheepistemicseparationfromAll-Onenessthatproducedtheterrorsof20thcenturysociety,thecollaborationbetweenuncriticallysu-pportedtechno-scientificdevelopment,boundlesspoliticalpower,andfinan-cialexploitation.AfterCartesianinfluencethatlookedattheworldthroughmathematical lenses,furtherlyfuelledbycapitalism,especially itsnegativeinfluenceontheperceptionofanimals,itwasBaconwhoinstitutionalizedthe“knowledgeispower”mantra.Discussingthenatureofcontemporaryscien-ce,Čovićofferedasolidexplanationforwhathappenedwiththeperceptionoftheroleofscience:

“WithinthehorizonofSocraticandAristotelianthoughtweestablishedaconnectionbetweenknowledgeandgoodness.Incontrast,theanalysisofBacon’sinstauratio magnaprojectdem-onstratedhownewscienceis,fromitsverybeginning,constitutedfromtheothersideofgoodandevil,whichwaslaterfullyconfirmedthroughtheestablishmentofmodernscience.Inotherwords,fromscience,whichrepresentsthedominantformofknowledgeinourage,moraldi-mensionisexcluded,aconsiderationforgood.Butitwasnotjustmoraldimensionthatwasexcluded,sowereotherintegrativedimensionsofknowledge,whicheventuallyresultedintheirdwindlingawayfromthecontemporaryworldgroundedinsuchknowledge,andbythatbeingreducedtoitstechno-scientificimage.”42

Itisobviousthatthementionedtechno-scientificimagedoesnotcontainthemereologyofAll-Oneness,whichmakessenseaslongaswedonotforgetthatweareoperatingintheframeworkofcapitalisticmaterialism,andsuchideascanonlyshaketheiroperationalstructures.DiscussingtheseissuesinthecontextofHansJonas’philosophy,Jurićconcluded:

“Inanycase,onthebasisofJonas’‘choicefromthehistoryofmodernscienceandtechnics’canbeconcludedthattheirdifferentia specifica,incontrastwithpre-modernscienceandtechnics,primarily consists of, firstly, the role of science in constructing technical devices (scientificresearch,solutions,planningandrequests)increases,andsecondly,that,in spite ofpreviouslystated,butprecisely because it–technicsdictatethedevelopmentofsciences,scientificreason-ing,andfinallytheveryscientificknowledge.”43

Withinhumanities,itwastheprojectofbioethicsthatbegantoprovideresi-stance,andsuggestorientationforovercomingthesituation.Perušićelabo-rated:

“Newepochrevealsitselfinasimple,direneedtochangethewayofthinking,consideringthefacticityintowhichhumankindleditself,butwhicheludesitinnumerousways.Inthenewareaof civilizational advancement twoprocesses developed– globalization and heterogenization–resultinginfurtherfragmentationofsocialrealitycompletelyridofadequatethinking,andthusproducingfactualimpossibilitytofindvalidapproachestoissues:findingappropriatewaytoaskaquestion,appropriatewayofconsideringresponses,and,finally,carryingoutappropri-



atesolutions.Bioethics,originatingintheheatofthesechangesinspiteofthem,forthatveryreasonbecamerecognizedandinstitutionalizedbytheendof20thcenturyasaleadingscientificdisciplineinthefieldofhumanities.”44

Inthefirstdecadeof21stcenturytheprojectofintegrativebioethicsstarted.Oneofthefundamentalcritiquescomingfromintegrativebioethicswasfocu-sedontechno-maniawhichresultsintherobotizingandalienationofbeingsfromtheirbeing.IntegrativebioethicsattackedwhatOswaldSpenglerconfir-medasthedominantpractice:

“Withthegrowthof the towns, technicsbecamebourgeois. (…)Finally,with thecomingofrationalism,thebeliefintechnicsalmostbecomesamaterialisticreligion.TechnicsiseternalandimmortallikeGodtheFather,itdeliversmankindlikeGodtheSon,anditilluminesuslikeGodtheHolyGhost.Anditsworshipperistheprogress-philistineofthemodemagewhichrunsfromLamettrietoLenin.”45

FromLamettrieandLeninaporiacontinuesall thewaytogreedyhandsofpharmaceutsandtheirpatientswhoseetheirtechnologicalgodinpsychop-harmacs,savingthembychemicallyinducedtranscendencefromthestateofpainintothestateoffloralhedonyandataraxy,insteadofachievingpersonalcatharsis.Torreexplainshowtheirapproachtohealingpsycheisatrap,ma-inlythattheyuse

“…techno-pharmaceuticalsubstanceswhichmainlydonotcure,butrathertheyinduceartifi-cialpsychicstatesthatsupressormaskunwantedstates,furthercreatingphysicalandpsychicaddition,preventpatient’sspiritualinitiative,andcauseheartdiseases,brainatrophyanddia-betes.”46

Technicswhichisadvancedbysciencewithoutbeingorchestratedbymoralreasoningbysheernecessityleadstodestruction.Inthecontextofpsychiatrycare,thereisn’tmuchthatcomesouttechnologicallyaugmentedtreatment,otherthanturninglivingbeingsintomachines.Here,bioethics,mostespeci-allyintegrativebioethicswithitsconsiderationofthegeneralvalueofEarth’splurality, comeasacertain“post-technologicalPrometheus”whoought tobanishencloseddarknessof technicizedsciencewith theburning flameofmoralitygovernedby theprincipleofAll-Oneness. Itprovidesuswith thetruemeaningoftheword“Us”,underwhichIthinkofhumanbeings,plants,animals,andtherestofthebiosphere.ItistheethosofintegrativebioethicsthatprovidesgroundforthepalingenesisofAll-Oneness,it’ssensibilityfor

40

I.Kant,The Metaphysics of Morals,pp.205–206[404–405].

41

Destrolution is the term thatwas coined byAnte Čović in 2017. It means “systematicdestruction”, and it implies that any destro-lutive process is motive-driven, and thus itis a project. SeeAnteČović, “Destrolucija”[“Destrolution”], Universitas (April 2017),p.11.

42

Ante Čović, Etika i bioetika [Ethics and Bioethics],Pergamena,Zagreb2004,p.63.

43

Hrvoje Jurić,Etika odgovornosti Hansa Jonasa [Hans Jonas’ Ethics of Responsibility],Pergamena,Zagreb2010,p.123.

44

Luka Perušić, IvanBauernfreund, “Na putuStudentskebioetičkeradionice,osvrtnaraz-voj, ulogu i značaj Bioetičkog inkubatora”[“On the Path of Student Bioethics Work-shop:ReviewofDevelopment,Role,andIm-portance ofBioethical Incubator”],Holon 5(1/2015),pp.164–202,p.169.

45

OswaldSpengler,Man and Technics. A Contribution to a Philosophy of Life,translatedbyCharlesFrancisAtkinson,GreenwoodPress,London1932,p.43.

46

R. Torre, Prava istina o psihijatriji [Real Truth about Psychiatry], p.22.


L.Janeš,ParadogmaofthePsychicEntropyofEvilandthePalingenesisofAll-Oneness4�

openness.Rudimentary, I dare to say that humanbeings are, in fact, zoon bioethikon,bioethicalanimalwithitsteleologicalstrivetowardslifeaslife,notjustone’sown.SpeakinginthecontextofthefundamentalnatureofAll-Oneness,integrativebioethicscarriesthepowerofpullingthepsycheoutofsolipsisticnarcissismtowardsthedomainofdeonticobjectivity,andallowingforthesufferingpsychetorecoverandachieveautonomousself-productiveexistenceguidedbytheneedtocontributetothewell-beingofentireplanet.Separationfromthebeingoflogos–closeness–belongingtoeachparticu-larsituation,governedbyAll-Oneness,createstheschizophreniccollisionofperceptiveatomary,knownonlytohumanbeings.Thecurrentisveryclear:pollutedandravagedplanetimpliespollutedandravagedpsyche.Inconclusion,toconfirm:evilistheproductofpsychicentropy,butsoitisitscause.Itisoperatingintermsoftheenergyofcloseness,defiedbythepalin-genesisoftheoriginaryharmoniousstructureofAll-Oneness.Forlife,ifitis,bysheernecessityleanstowardscentripetalforceofopenness,regardlessofthenumberofthanatologicalepochs,ringsthatroseinthemereologyoftime.ItisimportanttounderlinethatsofaronlyhumanbeingscarrythepotencytoconsciouslysumupthemereologyofAll-Oneness,andthatforthisreasononlyitisourdutytogivebirthtoandtransfertheknowledgetootheratomsofAll-Oneness,betweenthemultimatelysecuringgoodness.



Luka Janeš

Paradogma psihičke entropije zla i palingeneza Svejednote

SažetakCilj je rada ukazati na neadekvatan opći teorijski pristup percepciji zla, čime se doprinosi permanenciji »zla u svijetu«. Analiza će se provesti usmjeravanjem na logijski neprecizno usvajani i razmatrani antropocentrički i romantičarski odnos dobra i zla kroz diskusijski uvriježene parove poput vrlina–grijeh, raj–pakao i bijelo–crno. Iznosi se koncept koji tumači zlo kao apriorno psihički i epistemički fenomen kakav transmutacijom kroz navedene kategorije prerasta u problem morala. Javlja se u okviru društvene (političke) zajednice kao omjer energije »otvorenosti« i »zatvorenosti«. Parnjakom otvorenost–zatvorenost zamjenjujem sve tradicionalne parnjake i oprimjerujem ga na temelju analize narcizma. Narcizam poimam kao rezultat manjkavosti znanja bivstvujućih koji se potencira srdžbom i strahom u odnosu na sebstvo i onemogućuje spoznavanje Svejednote, mereološkog principa koji pod sobom podrazumijeva cjelinu biotičke zajednice. Doprinos rada sastoji se od ukazivanja na postupke umanjivanja zla u svijetu.

Ključne riječipsihičkaentropija,Svejednota,narcizam,zlo,integrativnabioetika,mereologija,otvorenost,zatvore-nost,svjetlost,integrativnabioetika

Luka Janeš

Das Paradogma der psychischen Entropie des Bösen und die Palingenese der Alleinheit

ZusammenfassungDas Ziel der Arbeit ist es, auf eine inadäquate allgemeine theoriehafte Herangehensweise an die Wahrnehmung des Bösen hinzuweisen, wodurch der Permanenz des „Bösen in der Welt“ beigetragen wird. Die Analyse wird durchgeführt, indem der Schwerpunkt auf die durch Logie unpräzise angeeignete und betrachtete anthropozentrische und romantisierende Beziehung zwischen Gut und Böse gelenkt wird, und zwar durch diskussionsbezogen eingewurzelte Paare wie TugendSünde, ParadiesHölle und WeißSchwarz. Es wird ein Konzept dargelegt, welches das Böse als ein apriorisch psychisches und epistemisches Phänomen deutet, das infolge der Transmutation durch die angeführten Kategorien in ein Problem der Moral hinüberwächst. Es erscheint im Rahmen einer sozialen (politischen) Gemeinschaft als Verhältnis der Energie der „Offenheit“ und „Geschlossenheit“. Durch die Paarbildung Offenheit-Geschlossenheit ersetze ich sämtliche traditionellen Paarbildungen und exemplifiziere die angebrachte Paarbildung aufgrund der Analyse des Narzissmus. Den Narzissmus begreife ich als Ergebnis des Wissensmangels bei Seienden, das durch Zorn und Angst in Bezug auf das Selbst potenziert wird und die Erkenntnis der Alleinheit unterbindet, eines mereologischen Prinzips, welches unter sich die Gesamtheit der biotischen Gemeinschaft mit einbegreift. Der Beitrag der Arbeit besteht darin, auf die Vorgehensweisen zu verweisen, welche das Böse in der Welt reduzieren.

SchlüsselwörterBöses,Narzissmus,Offenheit,Geschlossenheit,psychischeEntropie,Alleinheit,Mereologie,Licht,IntegrativeBioethik

Luka Janeš

Le paradogme de l’entropie psychique du mal et la palingénésie du Tout-Un

RésuméLe but de ce travail est de montrer que l’approche théorique et générale de la perception du mal, par laquelle on contribue à la constance du « mal dans le monde », est inadéquate. Ce travail procédera à l’analyse de la relation du bien et du mal anthropocentrique et romantique, que l’on s’est approprié et qui a été analysée de manière imprécise d’un point de vue logique,



à travers des couples de discussion ancrés tels que valeurpéché, paradisenfer et blancnoir. Le concept qui interprète le mal en tant que phénomène psychique et épistémique apriorique comme la transmutation est exposé à travers les catégories mentionnées dans le problème de la morale. Il apparaît dans le cadre de la communauté sociale (politique) comme un rapport de l’énergie d’« ouverture » et d’« fermeture ». Je remplace, par le couple ouverture-fermeture, tous les couples traditionnels et j’applique ce couple à l’analyse du narcissisme. Je conçois le narcissisme comme le résultat d’un défaut de connaissances des étants, qui s’élève à la puissance par la colère et la peur sur le soi et ne permet pas la connaissance du Tout-Un, principe méréologique qui suppose l’ensemble de la communauté biotique. Ce travail contribue à montrer les procédés qui réduisent le mal dans le monde.

Mots-clésmal,narcissisme,ouverture,fermeture,entropiepsychique,Tout-Un,méréologie,lumière,bioéthiqueintégrative

paradogma of the psychic entropy of evil and the … · 2017-12-27 · of ironically carrying the...

Documents