| abstract
| - The "Le Chaim" - Aesthetic Party sees itself as the main protagonist of the Aesthetic Democratic Movement, a political movement in it's form comparable to other political ideologies like conservatism or socialism. The ideology of the Aesthetic Democratic Movement is based on elements like human being as absolute and inviolable, beauty and art as salvation and ransom of all misery, the state as essential bearer of culture, all forms of belief (including agnosticism and atheism) as matters of personal decision and creative freedom of the individual. The main written work of the Aesthetic Democratic Movement is the book "Aesthetics and politics" by the philosopher Dr. Jossel Schmoychel Edelstein, who was also founder of the "Le Chaim" - Aesthetic Party and therefore theoretically and practically the founder of the whole movement. In "Aesthetics and politics" Edelstein sketches what he calls the "perfectly aesthetic state" based on earnest political and existential considerations. The center of Edelstein's thesis is human being with all it's details and existentials. Human being sets it's priorities itself and therefore determines it's truths and immovable assumptions, emotional and pre-lingual verities that because they stand higher than the world of usurping terms have to be accepted. Every human being is as the room of possibilities it is a fundamental restart and not only but also because of that absolute and a self-evident bearer of intellectual, emotional and religious freedom and gift of creation. This gift of creation above other abilites and powers (intellectual, emotional, matters of belief, social and modifying ablilties, relationships, ...) constitutes human being as such. Where humans gather into communities (Edelstein has three theories why they do that, but he himself doesn't discuss them in detail) they create joint aspects that link the individuals, namely social realtions between each other (above all erotic love, an aspect Edelstein underlines) joint belief, joint culture and joint language. Social relationship and belief do not need linguistic authority, but culture does, because culture is an intrinsic result of individual efforts (according to Edelstein belief is completely private and love in it's ideal form doesn't need more than two, so belief and love do not need a collective linguistic code that is understood by all members of a society). So, following Edelstein's considerations, culture is the main aspect that unites a society, a society is a community of individuals united under one linguistic, artistic or political code (Edelstein factors out how such a code develops) and as such essentially a bearer of culture. Culture is mainly created by art and therefore the aesthetic state Edelstein tries to sketch is based on art and on the advancement of every form of art. The state that knows it's base in the culture as mainly social aspect of community will also appreciate aesthetic perception. According to Edelstein aesthetic perception is every perception that is pre-lingual, that does not mean that it cannot be verbalized afterwards. Aesthetic perception includes not only beauty but also ugliness, grace, loveliness, boredom, in short every perception that, following Edelstein, "is emotional, religious or in other forms pre-lingual and has to be forced into language to become understandable". The aesthetic man is the man who actively and consciously percepts himself and the world around him pre-lingual, the man who only uses his and every other language (Edelstein includes memory and psychological impacts) consideredly and only when necessary. "The consciousness of pre-linguality" is an own chapter in "Aesthetics and Politics". Finally, the aesthetic state is the state that by all measures enables and develops aesthetic perception. This state eliminates the trivial and evil. That doesn't mean that the very individual is excused from his or her individual moral responsibility (in fact as the culture and therefore also the state is based on a community of individuals the aesthetic perfection of the state has to base on individual aesthetic and moral consciousness). It means that the governance clearly sees this aim and supports every effort towards it. Therefore the aesthetic state claims individual freedom and collective beauty... After the party's great ideological crisis under DeBeauforêt's leadership during the civil war many party members and sympathizers began to consequently re-read, question and update the original ideas and intellectual models of Edelstein. It was necessary to rebuild the party ideology and to distinguish it from the "Aesthetic Revolution" the FAAR was sermonizing. (For historical details see below.) Many intelligent and less intelligent reinterpretations, continuations and modernizations of the 160-year old book "Aesthetics and politics" were published. The most influencing was "Infinite Architecture Of Multiplicity. A New Theory Of An Aesthetic Democatic Policy" by Ephraim Chajm Dichter, who followed DeBeauforêt as party leader in 2465. The supporters of Dichter's re-reading and continuation won the struggle for the succession of DeBeauforêt and his failed policy and therefore Dichter's book was declared new party's ideologic fundament. Dichter criticizes Edelstein already for his introduction. It is praiseworthy that Edelstein sets human being as absolute, so Dichter, but Edelstein constricts human being and action, seeing only his own intellectual, emotional and relationship abilities. He forgets carnality. Human being is essentially carnality. If human being is set as absolute, carnality has to be set as invulnerable too. Carnality is not only enabling and medium of cognition and domicile of Eros, Dichter's concept of carnality is a wide term. Carnality is the fact that constitutes human being. And not only human being, even the holy trinity is not complete without the Messiah who combines carnal and divine nature. Carnality enables erotic love and friendship, carnality enables gifts and relationships of being. Carnality is the nature of being "within the world" and humun being is essentially "within the world" (there is no human being "outside" the world). Carnality constitues the being of every imaginable object, because to be means essentially to be cognizable. Carnality is the key that allows the world to be in accordance with the human being and vice versa. But the personal carnality is not identifiable because it is the medium and cause of identication, being and action and therefore lies outside the categories of being. Only erotic love, religion and the beautiful object allow to experience personal carnality. In both human actions (erotic love and religion are actions, not situations or descriptions, according to Dichter) human being opens totally, emotionally, physically and in all other human categories, only when human being is defenseless and vulnerable in every possible relation can a man experience his very own carnality. And only in this state does he feel his dependency and his possibilities, only when he himself is totally vulnerable. The beautiful object is a special object. Human being is essentially understanding being. When experiencing beauty a man does not only experience the object but he does also experience that something is appearing. Normally the fact that something is appearing is ignored as a matter of course. But the aesthetic emotion includes the joyful awareness that something like the beautiful object is possible. The man is experiencing that something is appearing and he is experiencing that the appearing object corresponds and answers his own being, that the object fits. The second point Dichter criticizes is the extreme short-sighted concentration on what Edelstein calls the "subject". This, so Dichter, is ego-logy. It ignores the fellow man. The fellow man can never be understood with such a blinded concentration on the subject. In fact everyone is morally responsible for all his fellow men. Human action and experience is not only surrounded by "Yous", it builds it's existence on the fellow man. But still the "You" can't be reached, it is an asymptote. We can only converge, but we will always fail at the cruel infinity of the asymptote. The "You" is an asymptote and therefore it can never be reached, it is an unreachable aim. That is specifically visible in erotic love and in religion. The loving man as much as the believing man can never reach his beloved or believed (at least not in this world, maybe one of the reasons of lovers' or believers' otherwordly hopes). But still we are driven by hope and by our moral bond. The beautiful however can be reached, even more it does not have to be reached. The beautiful object already fits and answers. Dichter accepts most of Edelstein's thoughts on language but he adds two more aspects to Edelstein's analysis. Firstly he claims that language is action and secondly he claims that language is command. Language is not description but it has essential social functions and roles. Dichter concentrates on actions that are explicitly completed or performed by speaking. When a man says "I promise" he does not describe, he acts, the promise is performed by language. And he acts socially, his promise has a social role. in fact every kind of speaking or writing is 1. action and 2. fulfilling a social role. Depending on how language is defined, Dichter says, one could be tempted to claim that every action is language. Secondly, Dichter says being slightly inconsistent, language is not information or communication, it is command. Language does not only determine possible expressions, it dictates what a man can answer, what he should expect, what he should be concerned by. When someone acively uses language in a conversation or in the media, he acts according to the commands of language and the "consumers" of his language product have to obey the language regime, expecting what language commands, answering or acting just like commanded by language. After this two arguments Edelstein's pre-linguality has to be re-read. Something outside of any form of language has to be 1. ouside of (at least lingual) action and sociality and 2. outside of the command structure. That means the pre-lingual or non-lingual perception is an "egocentric, lethargic, aesthetic game" without moral responsibility or understanding of the fellow man. That is, so Dichter, pure ignorant ego-logy and decadence. Therefore Dichter concludes that the commanding structure of language is the commanding structure of moral responsibility, language makes it possible to at least converge the asymptote. Pre- or non-linguality is not desirable. After Dichter has destroyed Edelstein's concept of pre-linguality the space has to be filled with another desirable aim that unlike the "You" actually can be reached. That is multiplicity. The world is multiplicity and every form of thinking that wants to concentrate the multiplicity in one approach or declaration is false and dangerous. One of the best examples of multiplicity is place. Place doesn't mean spiritless place or site and place doesn't mean mathematical space. According to Dichter place is living space and territory, for animals and for men. Place has it's own spirit, place can be loaded up, place is a product of conscious and unconscious needs and actions. Place is constituted by carnality. Virtualization is the greatest danger for multiplicity. Virtualization is narrowing multiplicity and constricts it to one code. Virtualization destroys the authenticity of place. Dichter is warning of the virtual space and preaches the original and authentic space. The "architecture of space" is the possibility and the duty of the political space or state. It is this architecture the state can alterate and regulate. When the state tries to organize the space according to aesthetic, human and moral categories (Dichter accepts most of Edelstein's aesthetic arguments), meaning if the state advances charm and emotion, if it enables the joyful experience that something is appearing and that something beautiful is possible and if it helps to build and develop places as concretizations of living, then the state corresponds, then the state answers the human being, then the state fits...
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)