When Disinterestedness Is More Profitable Than Profiteering

For the majority of the people even simplistic formulations about what determines human behavior seems enough to explain their motivations. For example, the commonsensical formulation that being defines consciousness – that our reactions, feelings and even needs are determined by the conditions and organization of our life, that how we live defines our ideas and beliefs rather than the laws of human thinking do – having become the axiom of modern reason. In other words, addressing other people with the arguments that made in terms of their “being” – in terms of their actions in the context of their lives is much more effective than to appeal to them while talking about their “consciousness” – their ideas of what is right and what is wrong, the question of moral truth, decency, etc.

Still, observing how human history is developing, especially in the 21st century – how intensely even the democratic West’s wealthy decision-makers fight for profits and domination and use their democratic cultural legacy more as an (idealistic/rhetorical) banner hiding economic calculations and strategic manipulations, we come to understand how reduced to flatness the very dichotomy between being and consciousness is, but at the same time – how it, indeed, corresponds to intellectually poor condition of people’s pop-consciousness. “Consciousness” is a function of being (and especially when it looks domineering over it, as it is so with the fundamentalist religious or fascisized secular ideologies) only for people without any interest towards independent truth, when their lives (including the givens of their psychological complexes) dictate their ideas and feelings which just react on the circumstances and conditions of their life. Be too dependent on your life, like too poor or too rich people, or be formed by a despotic milieu, and you will have too rigid and even extremist ideas. For example, it is meaningless or even dangerous to try to tell the truth about one spouse (let’s say – the previous one) to another one (let’s say actual one) – who will then form her ideas based on “being”, not truth.

If god as an “absolute monarch” of being, or a despotic and belligerent secular ideology have exaggerated power and influence, the reason is that these projections/ constructions prosper on people’s feeling helpless in their socio-cultural being. In democratic conditions of life when prosperity is without consumerism and education is without careerism (when education is for living, for demythologized understanding of conditions of living) there is no chance for development of extremist religious or secular ideologies because with a healthy prosperity and truth-centered education human self-respect and the feeling of one’s social influence grow to a very impressive degree (that registered in growing of middle-class) and then prevent belligerency and intolerance towards the carriers of otherness and credulity towards leaders and bosses.

Austerity is an ingenuous strategy of transforming the masses into crowds susceptible to propaganda and overwhelmed with the militancy and scapegoating passion to search for people “guilty for our problems”. People without a healthy prosperity and humanistic education are intellectually and spiritually devastated, and then extremist ideologies can easily rule over them (by providing them primitive narcissistic compensatory pleasures – the right to hate, idolatrous pride and self-aggrandizing identification with the truth through believing and idolized authoritarian leaders).

Austerity for population is the basic strategy of de-democratizing the democratic countries. It quickly reduces democracy to pre-democracy (with its dominance of irrational beliefs over rationality, credulity towards wealthy decision-makers, militarization of the economy and the bastardization of masses becoming more belligerent, self-sacrificial and pro-war oriented).

If in pre-democracy traditional: rigid and dogmatic – conservative “consciousness”, indeed, dominates being, in the democratic conditions of life consciousness is in a friendly collaboration with being. Democratic being produces friendly forms of consciousness. In a healthy (not deteriorating into totalitarianism) democracy there is no domination of consciousness over being or being over consciousness – the both are influencing one another in free collaboration with one another. When intellectuality and spirituality are not authoritarian categories they don’t dominate being – they are part of it. There is no anymore the metaphysization of spirituality and intellectuality or their reduction into pre-scientific “common sense”. The very thinking becomes ontologized, and, on the other hand, being becomes sublimated and impregnated with disinterested rationality.

Being-consciousness dichotomy becomes dissolved when thinking becomes part of life in a form of humanistic thinking oriented not on technological domination over life but on the survival of humanity as whole in embrace with nature. The implications of this democratic rapport between what previously was being and what previously was metaphysicized consciousness, for pedagogy are very substantial. How from the vantage point of an existentialized consciousness to explain the truth to those who live, as we all do, in being? Consciousness cannot talk from the position of being – it could be pure authoritarianism. At the same time being without consciousness would be like the consumerist obsessions of the type today’s mass culture has been built on. Only in a society without domination – direct, like in traditional totalitarian societies, or accumulated in money, free consciousness will be able to freely embrace free being where genuineness will match refinement and where to live will also mean to think and to love – to have a different identity from those whom you love and to help your beloved to grow as human being.