{"id":681,"date":"2014-10-31T14:21:06","date_gmt":"2014-10-31T14:21:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.kant-online.ru\/en\/?p=681"},"modified":"2014-10-31T14:21:06","modified_gmt":"2014-10-31T14:21:06","slug":"s-chernov-zero-philosophy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kant-online.ru\/en\/s-chernov-zero-philosophy\/","title":{"rendered":"S. Chernov. Zero Philosophy"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

\u2026 Gives itself a senseless possibility of an extrasensory experience<\/i>, directly contradicting itself (to represent the transcendent as immanent) and is\u00a0 based \u00a0 on \u00a0 the \u00a0 well-known\u00a0 secret \u00a0 school of thought called\u00a0 mysticism, which\u00a0 is the direct\u00a0 opposite\u00a0 to all philosophy…<\/p>\n

[AA, VIII, S. 441]<\/i>\u00a0<\/i><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\"S.<\/a>

S. Chernov<\/p><\/div>\n

In\u00a0 the\u00a0 past\u00a0 two\u00a0 decades, the\u00a0 mystical mood \u00a0 in\u00a0 Russia \u00a0 has\u00a0 spread\u00a0 virtually unchecked,\u00a0 leading people away\u00a0 from\u00a0 reality: people would see\u00a0 what\u00a0 is not\u00a0 there\u00a0 rather than\u00a0 what\u00a0 really\u00a0 is. The state\u00a0 of society,\u00a0 the spiritual atmosphere is such\u00a0 that\u00a0 these\u00a0 sentiments do not only master the “masses”, but scientists \u2014\u00a0 those \u00a0 who\u00a0 seek\u00a0 to\u00a0 know \u00a0 the truth of being and\u00a0 should help others\u00a0 to dis- tinguish reality\u00a0 from fantasy and\u00a0 deception.<\/p>\n

What \u00a0 constitutes\u00a0 the \u00a0 problem\u00a0 <\/i>that \u00a0 is most \u00a0 interesting\u00a0 philosophically<\/i>? Where would we like to achieve\u00a0 clarity? First of all, let\u2019s\u00a0 come\u00a0 to\u00a0 the\u00a0 very\u00a0 concept \u00a0 of\u00a0 “mysticism.” Mystic usually denotes something mysterious, incomprehensible, yet vital<\/i>, therefore causing feelings\u00a0 of reverence, awe or fear \u2014 in short,\u00a0 something mysterious and significant<\/i>. We are\u00a0 talking about\u00a0 something incomprehensible associated with\u00a0 the\u00a0 mystery of human\u00a0 life<\/i>. All\u00a0 of us\u00a0 in\u00a0 varying de- grees, are aware that\u00a0 the basis of our lives is a mystery. A vague idea\u00a0 about\u00a0 it\u00a0 is either cast in mythological images\u00a0 of supernatural beings,\u00a0 or \u2014 at best\u00a0 \u2014 leads\u00a0 to the\u00a0 idea\u00a0 of the\u00a0 immediate detection <\/i>of the\u00a0 will\u00a0 of the\u00a0 almighty and\u00a0 incomprehensible God in a particular\u00a0 \u00a0 situation\u00a0 of \u00a0 everyday\u00a0 experience.<\/p>\n

Man\u00a0 wants to believe:\u00a0 a mysterious and\u00a0 powerful one is watching me, cares\u00a0 for me,\u00a0 takes\u00a0 care\u00a0 of me,\u00a0 and\u00a0 my\u00a0 person is not\u00a0 ignored. Ordinary mind\u00a0 goes\u00a0 far away\u00a0 from\u00a0 the\u00a0 paradox of Kant’s\u00a0 thought: faith\u00a0 in God\u00a0 should be so absolute, that\u00a0 we never <\/i>make\u00a0 him bothered with\u00a0 our\u00a0 affairs. Moments of immediate contact <\/i>with\u00a0 the\u00a0 mysterious power, of the\u00a0 vivid\u00a0 perception of its presence are defined, first of all, as mystic<\/i>. From a philosophical point\u00a0 of view,\u00a0 these types\u00a0 of “mystical experience” are not of a big interest. In this respect Kant made fairly\u00a0 rough, but generally true\u00a0 remark addressed to Swedenborg and\u00a0 other\u00a0 “visionaries”: \u201cif hypochondriacal wind\u00a0 should rage\u00a0 in the\u00a0 guts,\u00a0 what\u00a0 matters is what\u00a0 direction it takes:\u00a0 if downwards, then\u00a0 the\u00a0 result\u00a0 is a f—, if upwards, an\u00a0 apparition or\u00a0 an heavenly inspiration\u201c [3, p. 328]. This popular form\u00a0 of mysticism, probably will always exist\u00a0 \u2014 not\u00a0 only\u00a0 because\u00a0 we\u00a0 will\u00a0 always maintain a childish thirst\u00a0 for protection and\u00a0 care,\u00a0 not\u00a0 only\u00a0 because \u00a0 our\u00a0 knowledge is\u00a0 always limited (and imagination is boundless) and\u00a0 we\u00a0 are\u00a0 always and\u00a0 will\u00a0 always be dependent <\/i>on the\u00a0 forces\u00a0 unknown\u00a0 <\/i>to us, and\u00a0 therefore have\u00a0 to have\u00a0 a lot of trust\u00a0 and\u00a0 a lot of hope,\u00a0 but\u00a0 also for the important reason\u00a0 that\u00a0 the “invisible\u00a0 world” \u2014 as a matter of vital hopes,\u00a0 as a matter of life and\u00a0 death for many\u00a0 people \u2014 has always been and\u00a0 will remain the province of the revenue for those chosen\u00a0 by “higher\u00a0 powers” as their intermediaries between themselves and\u00a0 ordinary people \u2014 for traders of exotic “occult”, “magical” or “esoteric” goods.<\/p>\n

This regular mysticism is interesting philosophically, perhaps only\u00a0 as a domestic form <\/i>of manifestation of metaphysical inclinations <\/i>of man,\u00a0 his thirst\u00a0 for the absolute. The world cultural history recognizes a mystic <\/i>as an\u00a0 ultimate human desire\u00a0 for unity\u00a0 <\/i>\u2014 or rather merging <\/i>with\u00a0 God, to a complete “dissolution” of the soul\u00a0 in the\u00a0 Absolute, to the\u00a0 disappearance of the distinction <\/i>between “I” and\u00a0 God. “But if I learn\u00a0 Him\u00a0 without mediation, I will become\u00a0 Him\u00a0 and\u00a0 He will become me! This\u00a0 is exactly\u00a0 what\u00a0 I understand. God\u00a0 must\u00a0 become\u00a0 “I” and\u00a0 “I” must\u00a0 become God, so completely one, so that\u00a0 He is the “I” become\u00a0 one and\u00a0 so would remain…\u00a0 ” [5, p. 149\u2014149]. This is the principle of true mysticism<\/i>, mystery and\u00a0 ordinary everyday mystique as well\u00a0 as\u00a0 religious one.\u00a0 Let alone\u00a0 and\u00a0 developing freely,\u00a0 it\u00a0 leads\u00a0 to\u00a0 the\u00a0 conclusion stated in\u00a0 Upanishads: “Me and\u00a0 God\u00a0 \u2014 one unity\u00bb,\u00a0 tat\u00a0 twam asi \u2014 \u00abThou\u00a0 art\u00a0 That!” It is based\u00a0 on\u00a0 the\u00a0 total\u00a0 negation of the world <\/i>(as well as of any\u00a0 multiplicity\u00a0 <\/i>in general, of fragmentation, materiality, the overall\u00a0 shape\u00a0 of which\u00a0 is space\u00a0 and\u00a0 time)\u00a0 as untrue <\/i>and\u00a0 evil<\/i>. The essence\u00a0 of the mystical\u00a0 aspirations is an attempt to transcend <\/i>all specific, finite and\u00a0 concrete.\u00a0 “To transcend” not\u00a0 in the sense\u00a0 of aspiration to a higher, or the last limit<\/i>, but\u00a0 in the sense\u00a0 of going\u00a0 beyond all limits <\/i>\u2014 towards nothing\u00a0 and nowhere<\/i><\/b>.\u00a0 Hence\u00a0 \u2014 the desire\u00a0 to get\u00a0 away\u00a0 from\u00a0 the\u00a0 evil of worldly existence,\u00a0 asceticism, austerity,\u00a0 actions\u00a0 to\u00a0 put\u00a0 out <\/i>the\u00a0 ordinary consciousness<\/i>, burdened with\u00a0 unreal world. Even one\u2019s own\u00a0 consciousness <\/i>is a product of untrue finitude, is in essence\u00a0 \u2014 evil! Indian\u00a0 mystical tradition quite\u00a0 consistently grades sleep\u00a0 higher than\u00a0 being\u00a0 awake and\u00a0 sleep\u00a0 without dreams higher than\u00a0 the\u00a0 one\u00a0 with\u00a0 dreams. Hence,\u00a0 the\u00a0 high evaluation of unusual states of consciousness<\/i>, their\u00a0 interpretation as detecting falsity of everyday reality\u00a0 and\u00a0 manifestation of the other world<\/i>, the pursuit of super- consciousness, ecstasy\u00a0 \u2014 “going\u00a0 out”\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 self\u00a0 (“I”, finitude\u00a0 <\/i>in\u00a0 general) and “opening up”\u00a0 to infinity.\u00a0 All cultures can\u00a0 witness this\u00a0 desire\u00a0 to deny <\/i>the\u00a0 world (split into the “I” and\u00a0 the “world”)\u00a0 and\u00a0 to empty the consciousness<\/i>, the desire\u00a0 to get rid\u00a0 of one\u2019s\u00a0 own\u00a0 separation from\u00a0 the\u00a0 absolute, desire\u00a0 to\u00a0 “return”\u00a0 back\u00a0 into\u00a0 it, “drown” one\u2019s own\u00a0 individuality (along\u00a0 with\u00a0 all the problems and\u00a0 suffering) in it. Mysticism conceals radical nihilism<\/i>.<\/p>\n

Mystics\u00a0 of different times\u00a0 and\u00a0 peoples, choosing this\u00a0 path,\u00a0 took\u00a0 on, according\u00a0 to their\u00a0 accounts (while\u00a0 they\u00a0 still retained consciousness and\u00a0 a link\u00a0 to this sinful\u00a0 world), a special\u00a0 kind\u00a0 of experience, which,\u00a0 in their\u00a0 opinion, reveals\u00a0 the true reality <\/i>and\u00a0 leads\u00a0 to higher knowledge<\/i>, far superior to anything that\u00a0 we could gain from everyday life experience, science and\u00a0 philosophy. How\u00a0 can a scientist, a philosopher treat\u00a0 such aspirations, statements and\u00a0 claims? What\u00a0 is the relation between this <\/i>mystery and\u00a0 philosophy or science?<\/p>\n

What is important in philosophy and in a philosopher \u2014 the soul focused on\u00a0the absolute<\/i>, universal, divine,\u00a0 or a passion aimed at thinking<\/i>, reasoning, discus- sion, achieving clarity <\/i>\u2014 including metaphysical aspirations of his own\u00a0 soul? In its interest towards the\u00a0 absolute, philosophy is akin\u00a0 to religion, in its quest\u00a0 for understanding,\u00a0 reflection, explanation and\u00a0 research it reminds science.\u00a0 Philosophy\u00a0 is the expansion of scientific <\/i>passion for studying and\u00a0 knowing into the area of the highest religious <\/i>interest. Kant\u00a0 here,\u00a0 as always, recognized the core issue. There\u00a0 is an ineradicable metaphysical bent <\/i>in a man,\u00a0 the one constituting the very being\u00a0 of the\u00a0 person, and\u00a0 crucial\u00a0 question for\u00a0 the\u00a0 future of the\u00a0 philosophy\u00a0 is whether the subject matter <\/i>of this metaphysical passion can be known <\/i>by the same experience,\u00a0 reasoning,\u00a0 reflection,\u00a0 research\u00a0 and \u00a0 collaborative\u00a0 discussion,\u00a0 etc. which\u00a0 gives\u00a0 us the most\u00a0 perfect,\u00a0 reliable,\u00a0 evidence-based, universally valid,\u00a0 objective knowledge in science<\/i>?<\/p>\n

The problem of the mystical experience is seen as the most interesting in this context.\u00a0 What\u00a0 is the value\u00a0 it has for philosophy? How\u00a0 to treat\u00a0 the words of mystics and\u00a0 their\u00a0 claims\u00a0 to possess\u00a0 higher <\/i>knowledge? How\u00a0 to assess\u00a0 the position of physiologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, who\u00a0 see\u00a0 in\u00a0 this\u00a0 kind\u00a0 of experience mainly pathological <\/i>mental state, in the best case \u2014 the socalled\u00a0 “altered states\u00a0 of consciousness,” which,\u00a0 in principle, do not differ\u00a0 in cognitive <\/i>value\u00a0 from\u00a0 dreams and\u00a0 hallucinations? It is well known that\u00a0 prominent manifestations of religiousness and\u00a0 mystical visions\u00a0 are often associated with\u00a0 increased nervous irritability and\u00a0 high\u00a0 emotional state,\u00a0 exaltation, imbalance, decreased intelligence. Among mystics\u00a0 there\u00a0 were\u00a0 a lot\u00a0 of people of psychopathic disposition: “St. Paul\u00a0 was probably prone to epileptic seizures, George\u00a0 Fox, without a doubt, was\u00a0 the\u00a0 hereditary degenerate; Carlyle\u00a0 suffered from\u00a0 self-poisoning of the body\u00a0 caused by digestion disease, and\u00a0 so it was with\u00a0 many\u00a0 other” [2, p. 27\u201428]. So does a different reality <\/i>get open\u00a0 in such a mystical\u00a0 experience, or are we dealing here with\u00a0 the same\u00a0 “reality” that\u00a0 we constantly “visit” in dreams or imagination? And\u00a0 how\u00a0 can a philosopher or scientist\u00a0 discuss this issue\u00a0 if he does\u00a0 not have\u00a0 such\u00a0 experience, and\u00a0 has to rely on a mystic\u00a0 having his mysticism as a totally inner experience<\/i>. So the\u00a0 scientist\u00a0 has\u00a0 trust\u00a0 a word <\/i>which,\u00a0 as a rule,\u00a0 is incomprehensible: the\u00a0 mystic himself\u00a0 primarily emphasizes inexpressibleness <\/i>of his visions.<\/p>\n

I\u00a0 got\u00a0 “hooked” \u00a0 by\u00a0 the\u00a0 title\u00a0 (and\u00a0 content) of\u00a0 recently published\u00a0 books\u00a0 of E. Torchinov, a famous St. Petersburg orientalist and\u00a0 religious researcher: “transcendent experience”, “knowledge of the beyond” [8; 9]. Both word combinations make\u00a0 little\u00a0 sense.\u00a0 “The experience of the\u00a0 beyond” \u2014 it is either\u00a0 something else but\u00a0 experience, or\u00a0 it is not\u00a0 \u201cof the\u00a0 beyond\u201d, since\u00a0 it is given\u00a0 in\u00a0 experience or knowledge is available.<\/p>\n

In fact, what\u00a0 is a mystical <\/i>experience? How\u00a0 is it different from other\u00a0 kinds\u00a0 of experience?\u00a0 What\u00a0 \u00a0 kind\u00a0 \u00a0 of \u00a0 experience\u00a0 deserves \u00a0 to \u00a0 be \u00a0 called\u00a0 \u00a0 “mystical”? E. Torchinov explains that\u00a0 in the\u00a0 course\u00a0 of psychopractice yogi\u00a0 gradually eliminates <\/i>his\u00a0 consciousness, “replacing consciousness (necessarily requiring\u00a0 a subject-object\u00a0 dichotomy and\u00a0 shaping it) with\u00a0 non-dual, non-dichotomy (advaya)\u00a0gnosis-knowledge (jnana)” [9, p. 39]. This is the core of the matter: the vast mystical literature of different cultures talks\u00a0 about\u00a0 one and\u00a0 the same\u00a0 issue,\u00a0 of overcoming,\u00a0 or\u00a0 removing, the\u00a0 subject-object relationship<\/i>. In the\u00a0 state\u00a0 of mystical experience the\u00a0 consciousness, actually, does\u00a0 not\u00a0 reveal\u00a0 itself, because\u00a0 it is fundamentally intentional<\/i>,\u00a0 and\u00a0 its\u00a0 essence\u00a0 is contained in\u00a0 a particular duality<\/i>: being outside itself \u2014 it is always perceiving something, something that\u00a0 is not consciousness <\/i>itself,\u00a0 but\u00a0 something different <\/i>to consciousness, being<\/i>, or an\u00a0 object<\/i>. As the\u00a0 mystical experience is non-dual, the\u00a0 “higher\u00a0 forms\u00a0 of mystical experience (peak\u00a0 ASC) are not the states\u00a0 of consciousness in general”\u00a0 [9, p. 353]! The abbreviation blurs\u00a0 the\u00a0 utter\u00a0 nonsense: an\u00a0 altered state of consciousness <\/i>is not\u00a0 a state of consciousness<\/i>. And\u00a0 why\u00a0 is a state\u00a0 \u2014 non-state of consciousness-unconsciousness is called\u00a0 an\u00a0 experience if the\u00a0 experience <\/i>as the\u00a0 author says,\u00a0 \u2014 that’s\u00a0 all, “which has\u00a0 become\u00a0 appropriated by\u00a0 consciousness” [9, p.\u00a0 352]? It turns out\u00a0 that\u00a0 consciousness does not exist, but the experience does, though it is a zero <\/i><\/b>experience! It may not hold something given<\/i>. Pure experience. Experience as an experience and not\u00a0 an experience of anything that\u00a0 has\u00a0 any\u00a0 content. Empty\u00a0 experience. Experience\u00a0 of nothing<\/i>. No\u00a0 one’s\u00a0 experience. Moreover, it appears that\u00a0 in this\u00a0 “experience” some\u00a0 consciousness still holds,\u00a0 but it is the consciousness without any intentionality<\/i>, that\u00a0 is, some\u00a0 consciousness, but\u00a0 consciousness without perceiving anything<\/i>. Pure\u00a0 consciousness. Consciousness as such\u00a0 in general, which\u00a0 does not process anything<\/i>.\u00a0 “The silent\u00a0 consciousness,” according to\u00a0 the\u00a0 respected professor, “beyond perceptions and\u00a0 processing.” No\u00a0 representations, no\u00a0 perceptions, no emotions, no thoughts, no conscious of any\u00a0 object, though the consciousness itself is there.<\/p>\n

It is not\u00a0 surprising that\u00a0 this\u00a0 kind\u00a0 of “experience” cannot\u00a0 be\u00a0 expressed <\/i>and communicated <\/i>to others,\u00a0 has no objective <\/i>meaning, is not intended for any\u00a0 critical group\u00a0 discussion, as\u00a0 there \u00a0 is\u00a0 no\u00a0 point \u00a0 in\u00a0 even\u00a0 talking about \u00a0 what\u00a0 <\/i>exactly\u00a0 is known and\u00a0 what\u00a0 is learnt\u00a0 in this experience.<\/p>\n

Why\u00a0 does\u00a0 the\u00a0 well-known researcher of religion nevertheless give\u00a0 mystical testimonies quite\u00a0 a high\u00a0 significance? He thinks\u00a0 it’s time\u00a0 to find\u00a0 a “new intellectual courage”\u00a0 and\u00a0 find a way to “return to the philosophy its dignity.” The call is attractive to follow, but in what\u00a0 way? We should “try to find workarounds leading philosopher-smuggler beyond these\u00a0 intellectual cordons” [9, p. 24\u201425]. This are the “cordons”\u00a0 set by the philosophers themselves, the notorious “boundaries of knowledge.” Philosophers and\u00a0 scientists distinguish between subjective and objective,\u00a0 the\u00a0 mind\u00a0 and\u00a0 the\u00a0 object.\u00a0 But\u00a0 it’s\u00a0 all\u00a0 in\u00a0 unity<\/i>,\u00a0 all\u00a0 the\u00a0 same,\u00a0 in\u00a0 other words, there\u00a0 is something that\u00a0 lies at the basis of subject\u00a0 and\u00a0 object, and\u00a0 matter, and\u00a0 spirit\u00a0 \u2014 and\u00a0 the\u00a0 diversity and\u00a0 all the\u00a0 differences, therefore \u2014 it is simple, “non-dual”. The only\u00a0 way\u00a0 to it, the unity,\u00a0 hidden behind all the diversity of the phenomena of\u00a0 the\u00a0 external world\u2014 the\u00a0 way \u00a0 “inside”\u00a0 oneself \u00a0 “from\u00a0 within” through a “tunnel”\u00a0 of self-consciousness \u2014 the inner <\/i>essence\u00a0 of the outside <\/i>world, as Schopenhauer suggested, interpreting Kant’s\u00a0 idea of the “thing in itself”. After all, my\u00a0 essence\u00a0 and\u00a0 the\u00a0 essence\u00a0 of the\u00a0 whole\u00a0 world are\u00a0 one\u00a0 and\u00a0 the\u00a0 same,\u00a0 and only in myself <\/i>it is given\u00a0 to me immediately<\/i>. This means that\u00a0 it is possible\u00a0 “to perceive the\u00a0 very\u00a0 reality\u00a0 that…\u00a0 constitutes the\u00a0 very\u00a0 nature of pure\u00a0 experience, just like the water forms\u00a0 the nature of any wave…\u00a0 And\u00a0 I think\u00a0 that\u00a0 transpersonal\u00a0 experience is the form\u00a0 for such\u00a0 knowledge” [9, p. 361], which\u00a0 was\u00a0 “pioneered” by the\u00a0 ancient\u00a0 Hindu mystics-yogis. This\u00a0 knowledge can\u00a0 be\u00a0 defined as a “movement\u00a0 from\u00a0 a conceptualized (mentally constructed) world of phenomena to\u00a0 a non-conceptualized knowledge of reality\u00a0 as it is (tathata…) … what\u00a0 it IS without\u00a0the\u00a0 distorting effects\u00a0 of power of a conceptualizing mind”\u00a0 [9, p.\u00a0 364]. Anyone who\u00a0 wants to know\u00a0 the\u00a0 true\u00a0 reality\u00a0 and\u00a0 merge\u00a0 with\u00a0 the\u00a0 unity\u00a0 \u2014 “let him\u00a0 stay deprived of concepts…”,\u00a0 “hold\u00a0 your\u00a0 breath”\u00a0 and\u00a0 cease\u00a0 the\u00a0 “representative function of consciousness” [9, p. 364\u2014365]! I knew\u00a0 Eugeny Alexandrovich personally and\u00a0 I always treated him\u00a0 with\u00a0 great\u00a0 respect,\u00a0 but\u00a0 it is difficult\u00a0 to\u00a0 assess\u00a0 these words differently rather than\u00a0 as betrayal of science and\u00a0 philosophy. The scientist <\/i>writes\u00a0 about\u00a0 the\u00a0 distorting power <\/i>of the\u00a0 mind!\u00a0 Kant\u00a0 was\u00a0 aware of such\u00a0 moods: “Sometimes the\u00a0 error\u00a0 of misology catches\u00a0 the\u00a0 ones\u00a0 who\u00a0 at first\u00a0 devoted themselves\u00a0 to sciences\u00a0 with\u00a0 great\u00a0 diligence and\u00a0 success,\u00a0 but\u00a0 finally\u00a0 did\u00a0 not\u00a0 find\u00a0 any satisfaction in its knowledge” [4, p. 334].<\/p>\n

This path\u00a0 does not return to the philosophy its dignity, but rather negates it; in the\u00a0 best\u00a0 case it brings\u00a0 philosophy to its starting point.\u00a0 People\u00a0 who\u00a0 have\u00a0 not flirted\u00a0 with\u00a0 mysticism, but\u00a0 stayed true\u00a0 believers themselves and\u00a0 underwent the path\u00a0 of an ascetic practice,\u00a0 understood it very\u00a0 well. I call for St. Gregory Palama as a witness. Science for him\u00a0 is the “external”\u00a0 wisdom, barren and\u00a0 vain,\u00a0 neither knowledge nor\u00a0 truth. It cheats\u00a0 and\u00a0 robs\u00a0 the\u00a0 soul,\u00a0 gives\u00a0 no knowledge of God, and\u00a0 does\u00a0 not\u00a0 lead\u00a0 to it, and\u00a0 is therefore empty and\u00a0 meaningless. It brings\u00a0 the “greatest harm”\u00a0 as the\u00a0 “crown\u00a0 of evil,\u00a0 the\u00a0 devil’s\u00a0 cardinal sin,\u00a0 pride \u2014 comes from\u00a0 the\u00a0 knowledge!” [7, p. 18]. To obtain\u00a0 the\u00a0 knowledge of proper truth, it is necessary to leave\u00a0 the\u00a0 abundant reading, to stop\u00a0 “wandering mind”\u00a0 and\u00a0 take\u00a0 a “monosyllabic\u00a0 prayer”\u00a0 to\u00a0 ascend \u00a0 to\u00a0 God.\u00a0 We\u00a0 must \u00a0 leave\u00a0 any\u00a0 arguments\u00a0 <\/i>and “make\u00a0 the plank\u00a0 of the soul smooth”,\u00a0 so that\u00a0 it may\u00a0 become\u00a0 suitable for imprin- ting\u00a0 gifts of the Spirit.\u00a0 Palama understands these\u00a0 “gifts” as ineffable\u00a0 mystical experience<\/i>, contrasting it to the entire\u00a0 scientific vanity. If you acknowledge the mystical experience as actual\u00a0 experience<\/i>, if you acknowledge that\u00a0 it opens\u00a0 the true\u00a0 reality<\/i>, if you\u00a0 acknowledge that\u00a0 it gives\u00a0 superior knowledge<\/i>, superior science\u00a0 and logic then have the courage to take the conclusions it entails.\u00a0 Go to the desert.<\/p>\n

Let’s try to take the words of the mysterious energies and\u00a0 blue mandala seri-<\/p>\n

ously.\u00a0 Can\u00a0 we\u00a0 even\u00a0 talk\u00a0 about\u00a0 something that\u00a0 is “higher\u00a0 intelligence” and\u00a0 “beyond\u00a0 reason”?\u00a0 After all, something that is “beyond reason”\u00a0 uses the concept of reason<\/i>! If there\u00a0 is a mystical\u00a0 experience, then,\u00a0 like any\u00a0 experience it is the result\u00a0 of judgment, thinking<\/i>. No\u00a0 feeling,\u00a0 perception, experience becomes\u00a0 experience <\/i>if it is not\u00a0 understood<\/i>, not\u00a0 memorized<\/i>, not\u00a0 played <\/i>back\u00a0 again\u00a0 by\u00a0 imagination, if its moments\u00a0 and\u00a0 my conditions, replacing each other,\u00a0 do not get connected by the activity\u00a0 of mind <\/i>and\u00a0 the identity of the person in one. There\u00a0 is no experience without\u00a0 diversity <\/i>of views.\u00a0 There\u00a0 is no experience without the unity\u00a0 <\/i>of the diversity. There is no unity\u00a0 without identity of personality and\u00a0 synthesis of reason. The socalled “mystical\u00a0 experience” differs from other\u00a0 kinds\u00a0 of experience but not by the fact that\u00a0 it goes “beyond the bounds of reason”\u00a0 and\u00a0 refers to what\u00a0 reason\u00a0 cannot have any idea <\/i>about.\u00a0 It may differ only in a way <\/i>the mind\u00a0 is used\u00a0 or acts in an experiment. What\u00a0 is the\u00a0 relative\u00a0 “proportion”, the\u00a0 proportion of the\u00a0 components which\u00a0 necessarily make\u00a0 up\u00a0 any\u00a0 human\u00a0 experience? Should we\u00a0 recognize the “mystical\u00a0 state”\u00a0 of consciousness as the\u00a0 unit\u00a0 of measure for assessing the\u00a0 ordinary\u00a0 and\u00a0 scientific\u00a0 experience, data\u00a0 of sensory perception and\u00a0 thoughts derived from “solid mind and\u00a0 clear memory” \u2014 or consider everyday life experience and the experience of science the unit\u00a0 of measure for evaluation of “mystical\u00a0 experience”?<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s emphasize that\u00a0 we\u00a0 put\u00a0 the\u00a0 question in a state\u00a0 of “normal\u00a0 consciousness”, though for the\u00a0 mystical experience the question itself does not exist<\/i>. Such a condition bears\u00a0 no questions. If we want\u00a0 to solve this problem and\u00a0 do it having\u00a0some grounds, weighing the arguments, seeking\u00a0 the truth, choosing from a variety of options, analyzing them\u00a0 \u2014 we are already on the\u00a0 basis\u00a0 of a sober\u00a0 mind, “normal\u00a0 consciousness,” the\u00a0 best\u00a0 and\u00a0 most\u00a0 advanced form\u00a0 of which\u00a0 is represented by science. The question itself and\u00a0 the intention already include the answer<\/i>. Mystical\u00a0 state\u00a0 is not\u00a0 looking\u00a0 for\u00a0 “reasons”;\u00a0 it does\u00a0 not\u00a0 know\u00a0 “arguments” and “considerations”. So if we ask the question, and\u00a0 we want\u00a0 an answer, we have already chosen <\/i>a “normal”\u00a0 consciousness and\u00a0 scientific\u00a0 research. It is a measure and criterion, and\u00a0 mystical experience, or other\u00a0 “altered states\u00a0 of consciousness” become the object <\/i>under study. This means that the ‘mystical experience’ exists only for the mind<\/i>. It does\u00a0 not exist for itself or on its own.\u00a0 Altered <\/i>states\u00a0 of consciousness exist only for the normal <\/i>state\u00a0 of consciousness \u2014 the one in which\u00a0 Socrates was\u00a0 arguing about\u00a0 Eros and\u00a0 poetic\u00a0 frenzy,\u00a0 in which\u00a0 Freud\u00a0 was\u00a0 thinking about the causes\u00a0 of female hysteria and\u00a0 subconscious instincts. The subconscious mind exists\u00a0 only\u00a0 for the mind<\/i>. Spinoza\u00a0 was\u00a0 right\u00a0 about\u00a0 that:\u00a0 the\u00a0 truth is the\u00a0 measure both for itself and\u00a0 for the delusion. Mind is the measure both for itself and\u00a0 mindlessness.\u00a0 Mindlessness can not be the judge\u00a0 of reason\u00a0 for the simple\u00a0 reason\u00a0 that it does not judge at all.<\/p>\n

Any criticism\u00a0 of reason\u00a0 is a matter of the mind\u00a0 itself. A being\u00a0 without judgment,\u00a0 does\u00a0 not criticize.\u00a0 Limitations of man\u00a0 are manifested in the lack of understanding of one\u2019s own\u00a0 limitations. Recognition of the limitations of the mind\u00a0 is a manifestation of the\u00a0 mind<\/i>, rather than\u00a0 feelings\u00a0 or a “superlogical” wisdom. The mind\u00a0 itself\u00a0 restricts itself\u00a0 from\u00a0 the\u00a0 “inside”.\u00a0 Its limitation from\u00a0 “outside”\u00a0 is not possible, because\u00a0 the very\u00a0 “outside”\u00a0 is the concept <\/i>of reason. In all \u201coutside\u201d aspects it stays within. How\u00a0 can we detect\u00a0 in our experience the presence of a being infinitely\u00a0 <\/i>superior to\u00a0 us\u00a0 in\u00a0 its mind?\u00a0 “Higher\u00a0 intelligence” is the\u00a0 notion of our own mind.\u00a0 The mystical experience cannot\u00a0 “undermine the credibility of rational consciousness, based\u00a0 only on reason\u00a0 and\u00a0 feelings” [2, p. 336], because\u00a0 “authority” and\u00a0 its “undermining” are\u00a0 concepts <\/i>of reason, as well\u00a0 as “other\u00a0 consciousness”, “possibility of truths of a different order”,\u00a0 as\u00a0 well\u00a0 as\u00a0 the\u00a0 “world”\u00a0 or\u00a0 “another world” or “alternate reality”\u00a0 etc. One can only wonder how\u00a0 people with\u00a0 enthusiasm\u00a0 and\u00a0 passion overwhelm the\u00a0 mind\u00a0 and\u00a0 the\u00a0 reason,\u00a0 not\u00a0 knowing that\u00a0 all of their\u00a0 destructive activities are\u00a0 the\u00a0 work\u00a0 of this\u00a0 very\u00a0 mind.\u00a0 It reminds me\u00a0 of a fighting fish that\u00a0 violently throws itself\u00a0 at its own\u00a0 reflection in the\u00a0 glass\u00a0 aqua- rium\u00a0 as if it were\u00a0 its opponent. Therefore, there\u00a0 is no non-conceptualized experience. There\u00a0 is only the experience which\u00a0 is poorly conceptualized or conceptualized unconsciously and\u00a0 implicitly, etc. If the experience remains in the memory, it is already “captured” by reason,\u00a0 even\u00a0 if it is difficult\u00a0 for a person to express\u00a0 it. The contradiction between the\u00a0 non-descript and\u00a0 the\u00a0 desire\u00a0 to tell others\u00a0 is still somehow “solved” sometimes through an indication that the mystical experience is non-conceptualized, so to speak,\u00a0 “in the process”,\u00a0 but lends\u00a0 itself to the expression\u00a0 of hindsight, after\u00a0 regaining normal consciousness. And\u00a0 this\u00a0 experience is conceptualized, mostly\u00a0 through pointing at its non-conceptualized nature. Unfa- thomable gets\u00a0 comprehension through its\u00a0 incomprehensibility. Consequently, non-conceptualized nature of mystical experience all the same\u00a0 “is not absolute,” as theorists slyly\u00a0 admit, but\u00a0 only\u00a0 “to a certain\u00a0 degree.”\u00a0 It can be described, but through gradual “semantic destruction of language,” as D. Zilberman said.\u00a0 To put\u00a0 simply,\u00a0 the way\u00a0 to finding a new\u00a0 intellectual courage and\u00a0 returning to philosophy its dignity means to destroy the\u00a0 language step\u00a0 by step,\u00a0 until\u00a0 the\u00a0 words <\/i>become sounds <\/i>that have no meaning<\/i>, and\u00a0 thus\u00a0 disappear as unnecessary.<\/p>\n

Everything said\u00a0 above,\u00a0 apparently, shows\u00a0 one thing:\u00a0 a mystical\u00a0 experience, in its highest and\u00a0 the\u00a0 strictest sense,\u00a0 is in cognitive <\/i>respect a point of contact <\/i>between\u00a0 religion and\u00a0 philosophy, the point\u00a0 of transition from\u00a0 religion to philosophy\u00a0 (or philosophy to religion in the reverse movement of the semantic deconstruction). Pure\u00a0 mysticism finishes <\/i>religious development and\u00a0 begins <\/i>philosophical one (if, of course,\u00a0 it ever begins).\u00a0 It is a kind\u00a0 of premonition <\/i>of universal, absolute,\u00a0 sensual and\u00a0 emotional manifestation of mind,\u00a0 philosophical <\/i>interest in\u00a0 the man.\u00a0 Therefore, philosophy treats\u00a0 mystical experience as only the first start,\u00a0 motivation, which\u00a0 must\u00a0 find its own\u00a0 development <\/i>in the philosophical study. Thales\u2019 simple\u00a0 thesis\u00a0 is superior in its cognitive<\/i>, theoretical value\u00a0 to the\u00a0 whole\u00a0 mystical tradition. The reality\u00a0 is revealed only\u00a0 in the\u00a0 long\u00a0 and\u00a0 difficult\u00a0 development\u00a0 of science and\u00a0 philosophy through joint, cooperative <\/i>efforts.\u00a0 And\u00a0 the best thing\u00a0 that everyone can do is to take part\u00a0 in this work,\u00a0 and\u00a0 contribute to it.<\/p>\n

To find\u00a0 out\u00a0 and\u00a0 save\u00a0 the\u00a0 mystic\u00a0 truth was\u00a0 an intention of super-rationalist Hegel\u00a0 who\u00a0 built\u00a0 his philosophy as an academic system<\/i>. Truly\u00a0 philosophical<\/i>, that\u00a0 is speculative <\/i>(or “positive-wise”), thinking, he argued, was the same\u00a0 as that\u00a0 the one which\u00a0 used\u00a0 to be called\u00a0 “mystical”\u00a0 [1, p. 210\u2014213]. Mystical\u00a0 is really\u00a0 “mysterious”, but only for the understanding, the higher principles of which\u00a0 are the laws of formal\u00a0 logic,\u00a0 the\u00a0 principle of contradiction, the\u00a0 separation of opposites, the lack of understanding of their\u00a0 unity\u00a0 without seeing\u00a0 the\u00a0 difference in their\u00a0 relationship. The principle of reason<\/i>, or speculative-dialectical thinking is the concrete unity\u00a0 of opposing definitions<\/i>. Therefore, speculative thought “removes”\u00a0 the\u00a0 opposites of finite and infinite<\/i>, “I” and\u00a0 God, subjective and objective<\/i>, “consciousness” and its “subject”. For a man\u00a0 of common sense\u00a0 speculative coincidence of opposites is either\u00a0 meaningless or incomprehensible<\/i>. And\u00a0 if he is inclined to accept\u00a0 the reality of the\u00a0 mysterious and\u00a0 does\u00a0 not\u00a0 consider mystical description of blinding darkness\u00a0 a meaningless jumble\u00a0 of words, he\u00a0 calls\u00a0 for\u00a0 the\u00a0 sake\u00a0 of knowledge of a “higher”\u00a0 truth to give\u00a0 up\u00a0 thinking, logic, science,\u00a0 to limit\u00a0 the\u00a0 mind,\u00a0 etc. Hegel, however, leaves\u00a0 the mystical within science and\u00a0 philosophy, expanding the concept of “thinking” and\u00a0 “logic” and\u00a0 differentiating between the understanding and reason,\u00a0 which\u00a0 is able to keep\u00a0 opposites as “moments” of the absolute. Therefore, we should call all reasonable mystical <\/i>because\u00a0 it goes\u00a0 beyond reason.\u00a0 But it does not\u00a0 go\u00a0 beyond cognition, which\u00a0 is always “in us”\u00a0 and\u00a0 makes\u00a0 our own essence<\/i>. “Usually\u00a0 people think\u00a0 that\u00a0 an absolute must\u00a0 be away\u00a0 on the\u00a0 other\u00a0 side,\u00a0 but\u00a0 it’s just\u00a0 absolutely tangible that\u00a0 we\u00a0 as thinking beings\u00a0 always carry\u00a0 it with\u00a0 us” [1, p. 124\u2014125]. Tat twam asi \u2014 \u00abThou art That!” Correcting and\u00a0 cleansing the mystical tradition, Hegel\u00a0 observes: “Since language <\/i>is the product of thought<\/i>, we cannot express\u00a0 it through anything that\u00a0 would not be universal<\/i>\u2026 And\u00a0 ineffable\u00a0 feeling,\u00a0 a sense\u00a0 are\u00a0 not\u00a0 the\u00a0 best,\u00a0 the\u00a0 true,\u00a0 but\u00a0 the least significant<\/i>, most\u00a0 untrue… ” (italics are mine.\u00a0 \u2014 S. Ch.<\/i>) [1, p. 114]. Untold mystical intuition is the initial <\/i>ma- nifestation of philosophical ideas,\u00a0 which\u00a0 should expand the\u00a0 free\u00a0 movement\u00a0 of thought <\/i>through its rich and quite specific <\/i>content in the philosophy of science.<\/p>\n

Implacable foe of German speculative idealism, Friedrich Jacobi also saw the core\u00a0 of true\u00a0 philosophy and\u00a0 true\u00a0 religion in the\u00a0 mystical experience of the mind<\/i>. Where\u00a0 is the\u00a0 cause\u00a0 for this\u00a0 strange coincidence of opposites? It is in the\u00a0 same frustration with\u00a0 the\u00a0 “intellect”,\u00a0 with\u00a0 its “abstract”\u00a0 nature. Hegel\u00a0 recognized the merit\u00a0 of Jacobi in putting together with\u00a0 Kant an end\u00a0 to rational metaphysics <\/i>\u2014 he showed that\u00a0 it was\u00a0 impossible to apply the reason\u00a0 to learn\u00a0 the universal, absolute, infinite.\u00a0 The real “treasure” of the humanity Jacobi saw in the manifestation of reason <\/i>in man,\u00a0 that\u00a0 is… in the\u00a0 belief\u00a0 in God,\u00a0 freedom, and\u00a0 virtue, which\u00a0 the\u00a0reason knows nothing about <\/i>[10, p. 55]. This belief towers over\u00a0 science\u00a0 and\u00a0 limits the notion of nature with\u00a0 the concept\u00a0 of freedom<\/i>, sensory-perceptual with\u00a0 extrasensory and\u00a0 thus\u00a0 makes up <\/i>for what\u00a0 the understanding alone,\u00a0 i. e. science, fails to give [10, p. 57]. For such\u00a0 a necessary fulfillment a person needs\u00a0 to get out of the trail of understanding <\/i>[11, S. 40]. To achieve\u00a0 the ultimate and\u00a0 primary goal sought by the soul\u00a0 in the cognitive process,\u00a0 it is vital\u00a0 to make\u00a0 a salto mortale <\/i>\u2014 to leap over the endless chains\u00a0 of cause\u00a0 and\u00a0 effect, and\u00a0 touch\u00a0 the unconditional, eternal, and\u00a0 infinite\u00a0 in the direct perception of reason <\/i>in the depths of one’s\u00a0 own\u00a0 subjectivity.\u00a0 Jacoby\u00a0 saw\u00a0 the\u00a0 necessary addition to the\u00a0 “abstractions” of understanding not in Hegel’s\u00a0 speculative mind,\u00a0 but in the ultimate truth of life<\/i>, in the immediate perception of freedom <\/i>and\u00a0 the same\u00a0 immediate perception <\/i>of God. Beyond\u00a0 the scope of\u00a0 understanding lie\u00a0 the\u00a0 most\u00a0 important things, \u00a0 which\u00a0 keep\u00a0 this\u00a0 paradoxical sense of transcendental<\/i>. It is actually what\u00a0 we call the reason<\/i>. Thus,\u00a0 Jacoby agrees with\u00a0 his opponent, Hegel,\u00a0 on the main\u00a0 point:\u00a0 the mystical <\/i><\/b>knowledge is a mani- festation of the\u00a0 reason <\/i><\/b>of man.\u00a0 One\u00a0 finds\u00a0 its fullest\u00a0 realization in the\u00a0 system of science<\/i>, the other,\u00a0 like Kant, in morality<\/i>.<\/p>\n

Mystics\u00a0 \u201ccan\u00a0 see\u00a0 what\u00a0 is\u00a0 not\u00a0 seen\u00a0 by\u00a0 any\u00a0 other\u00a0 healthy person, and\u00a0 can communicate to creatures which\u00a0 would not reveal\u00a0 themselves to anyone else\u2026\u201d When\u00a0 they\u00a0 finally\u00a0 wake\u00a0 up\u00a0 with\u00a0 God’s\u00a0 help,\u00a0 that\u00a0 is when they\u00a0 open\u00a0 their\u00a0 eyes and\u00a0 their\u00a0 look\u00a0 shows\u00a0 that\u00a0 they\u00a0 can\u00a0 already understand other\u00a0 people, none\u00a0 of them\u00a0 will\u00a0 see\u00a0 clearly\u00a0 anything that\u00a0 convincingly and\u00a0 in\u00a0 the\u00a0 light\u00a0 of their\u00a0 evidence\u00a0 can become\u00a0 evident to someone else” [3, p. 321]. The fact that\u00a0 a mystic\u00a0 in his passionate quest\u00a0 for unity <\/i>with\u00a0 the absolute (or transcendental) retires<\/i>, moves away\u00a0 from\u00a0 the\u00a0 world and\u00a0 other\u00a0 people into\u00a0 a secluded and\u00a0 hidden from\u00a0 other people space, into his own <\/i>world is a sure sign of an illusory, subjective, personal nature of his visions.\u00a0 Having summarized the large\u00a0 amount of evidence, James pointed to the characteristics of mystical experience: 1) it is ineffable,\u00a0 2) it is in- tuitive, 3) it has short\u00a0 duration, 4) it is marked by inactive will [2, p. 303\u2014304]. All these\u00a0 features directly oppose <\/i>the properties of academic excellence\u00a0 and\u00a0 scientific and\u00a0 philosophical knowledge, which\u00a0 are\u00a0 based\u00a0 on\u00a0 the\u00a0 purposeful activity<\/i>, the\u00a0 possibility of\u00a0 multiple\u00a0 <\/i>objective\u00a0 observations, testing \u00a0 by\u00a0 other\u00a0 people, the primacy of thought\u00a0 <\/i>over\u00a0 the\u00a0 sensory perception (intuition), the\u00a0 desire\u00a0 for\u00a0 certainty<\/i>, accuracy, consistency, clear expression in the language, etc. Therefore, scientific\u00a0 knowledge is initially\u00a0 produced by\u00a0 joint\u00a0 efforts,\u00a0 it becomes\u00a0 public\u00a0 domain,\u00a0 gets\u00a0 a versatile, universal value.\u00a0 Thinking <\/i>brings\u00a0 people together (as well as bringing sensory variety into\u00a0 holistic\u00a0 image\u00a0 of an object). Nothing separates us more\u00a0 than\u00a0 a mystical\u00a0 desire\u00a0 to dive\u00a0 into\u00a0 an infinite\u00a0 point\u00a0 inside\u00a0 oneself.\u00a0 The fact that\u00a0 such a separation brings\u00a0 the ultimate unity\u00a0 is an illusion.\u00a0 Only through thinking and\u00a0 language, we live in one <\/i>world. “Unspeakable” and\u00a0 “unthinkable” is just sensual, inferior,\u00a0 not\u00a0 superior. Science is the most\u00a0 perfect\u00a0 expression of the ability to think\u00a0 and\u00a0 learn, to communicate, to comprehend the reality\u00a0 that no one is given\u00a0 “suddenly” and\u00a0 “as a whole,”\u00a0 as if by magic,\u00a0 but which\u00a0 image\u00a0 is becoming deeper, more\u00a0 precise,\u00a0 more\u00a0 perfect,\u00a0 more\u00a0 interesting thanks to centuries-old works\u00a0 of the worldwide republic of philosophers and\u00a0 scientists.<\/p>\n

Bibliography<\/b><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Gegel’ G. V. F. <\/i>Jenciklopedija filosofskih nauk. T. 1 : Nauka logiki. M., 1974.<\/li>\n
  2. Dzhems V. <\/i>Mnogoobrazie religioznogo opyta. SPb., 1992.<\/li>\n
  3. Kant I. <\/i>Grezy\u00a0 duhovidca, pojasnennye grezami metafiziki \/\/ Kant\u00a0 I. Soch. : v 6 t. M., 1964. T. 2.<\/li>\n
  4. Kant I. <\/i>Logika. Posobie\u00a0 k lekcijam \/\/ Kant I. Traktaty i pis’ma. M., 1980.<\/li>\n
  5. Mejster <\/i>Jekhart.\u00a0 Duhovnye propovedi i rassuzhdenija. M., 1991.<\/li>\n
  6. Nicshe F. <\/i>Rozhdenie tragedii, ili Jellinstvo\u00a0 i pessimizm \/\/ Nicshe\u00a0 F. Soch : v 2 t. M.,\u00a01990. T. 1.<\/li>\n
  7. Grigorij <\/i>Palama. Triady\u00a0 v zashhitu svjashhenno-bezmolvstvujushhih. SPb., 2004.<\/li>\n
  8. Torchinov E. A. <\/i>Religii mira: opyt zapredel’nogo. SPb., 2005.<\/li>\n
  9. Torchinov E. A. <\/i>Puti filosofii Vostoka\u00a0 i Zapada: poznanie zapredel’nogo. SPb., 2005.<\/li>\n
  10. Jacobi F. H. <\/i>David\u00a0 Hume \u00fcber\u00a0 den\u00a0 Glauben, oder\u00a0 Idealismus und\u00a0 Realismus. Ein\u00a0Gespr\u00e4ch \/\/ Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi\u2019s Werke. Bd 2. Leipzig,\u00a0 1815.<\/li>\n
  11. Jacobi F.H. <\/i>\u00dcber die Lehre\u00a0 des Spinoza, in Briefen an Herrn Moses\u00a0 Mendelssohn \/\/ Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi\u2019s Werke.\u00a0 Bd 4\/1. Leipzig,\u00a0 1819.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
    \n

    This article was firstly published in collected articles \u201c<\/strong>Kantovsky Sbornik<\/strong>\u201d (2013):
    \n<\/strong>Chernov S. Zero philosophy\/\/ Kantovsky Sbornik. Selected articles. 2012: academic journal. 2013. P. 24 \u2013 32 .<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    \u2026 Gives itself a senseless possibility of an extrasensory experience, directly contradicting itself (to represent the transcendent as immanent) and is\u00a0 based \u00a0 on \u00a0 the \u00a0 well-known\u00a0 secret \u00a0 school of thought called\u00a0 mysticism, which\u00a0 is the direct\u00a0 opposite\u00a0 to all philosophy… [AA, VIII, S. 441]\u00a0 In\u00a0 the\u00a0 past\u00a0 two\u00a0 decades, the\u00a0 mystical mood […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":684,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[2],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kant-online.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/681"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kant-online.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kant-online.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kant-online.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kant-online.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=681"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/kant-online.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/681\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":685,"href":"https:\/\/kant-online.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/681\/revisions\/685"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kant-online.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/684"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kant-online.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=681"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kant-online.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=681"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kant-online.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=681"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}