Josef Šmajs

How will the Promethean myth end

The author notes that European spiritual culture has provided the world with two great myths: the myth of Jesus Christ and the Promethean myth. These two myths were an early indication of the rise of the hidden predatory spiritual paradigm. As a result of this paradigm (setting), later culture hypertrophically strengthened the human genetic predisposition towards an aggressive adaptive strategy. It is therefore necessary, according to the author, to expose and criticize this predatory paradigm and eventually transform it into a biophilic paradigm. If we want to understand this requirement, we need a higher-order theory, an evolutionary ontological theory of culture. One of the ways of achieving this objective is to weaken and criticize the myth in which the defiant Prometheus acts as an honored civilization hero. In the second part the author briefly introduces his evolutionary-ontological concept of culture. He defends the claim that culture is an artificial system with its own internal information and that two types of order have come into existence within culture in harmony with this information (spiritual culture): 1. strictly information-prescribed structures (specifically the material culture and technology), 2. Spontaneously (through succession) originating structures (especially institutions). If we want to change the orientation of the cultural system, we have to change not only its current information but also its former spiritual setting (paradigm).

On the principle of evolutionary ontology

Evolutionary ontology differs from traditional ontology in the following aspects: 1. subject; 2. means of its interpretation; 3. social role. The abstractly understood natural being is the subject of traditional ontology. The ontically opposing artificial cultural being is, besides the natural being, the subject of evolutionary ontology. This is because its subject consists in the complete terrestrial reality, including the conflict between the Culture and the Nature. Traditional ontology, within the context of the natural being, preferred stability, passivity and reversibility, while evolutionary ontology emphasizes processes, ontical activity and non-reversibility; in compliance with reality it considers natural being to be an activity, to be a process powered by the residual energy of the Big Bang. Traditional ontology has been abstractly academic and individually comfortable; evolutionary ontology, which has revealed the principles of the global environmental crisis, could play a generally philosophical and culturally paradigmatic role.

The Philosophical Conception of a Constitution for the Earth

Abstract For almost fifty years scholars have expressed their concern for the future existence of mankind and proposed ways of securing life in the years to come. Most of the declarations made by these movements do not, however, constitute viable instructions for change: they are rather moral discussion papers, containing much wishful thinking, or a list of flaws people are perceived to commit in their relation to Nature. All noble sentiments and efforts to understand and resolve the current crisis while ignoring the split of the planet into two opposing systems-Culture and Nature-are doomed to failure. The currently prevailing anthropocentric vision of the world is incorrect, not only in its details and in its specific arguments, but also in its deepest underlying principles-in short, in its entirety. That is this draft of a Constitution for the Earth is based on the ontological assumption that human Culture is not a continuation of natural evolution by different means. Culture is an artificial system opposing Nature. If it were set as Nature is in a biophilous, life-reverencing way, then Culture’s self-activity would grow in a desirable way. Culture would respect Nature and both systems would co-operate at a new level.

K ontologickému pojetí kultury

Autor interpretuje kulturu z hlediska evolucni ontologie. Kulturu pojima jako mladý uměle vytvořený system uvnitř starsiho, přirozeně vznikleho systemu přirody. Kulturu přitom považuje za nebiologický system s vlastni vnitřni informaci, již ovsem neni informace geneticka, nýbrž informace pojmova, spolecenska duchovni kultura. Autor uvadi dva hlavni způsoby, jimiž lidskou aktivitou vznikaji kulturni struktury: 1. historicky starsi nepřimý způsob, kdy tyto struktury vznikaji bez scenaře, tj. historickou sukcesi (např. spolecenske instituce a etnicke jazyky); 2. dnes převladajici způsob přimý, kdy tyto struktury vznikaji jako realizace scenaře, tj. jako struktury informacně předepsane (např. materialni kultura a technika). Haji nazor, že patrně jen starsi nepřimý způsob, podřizený biosfeře a obecnemu hledisku lidskeho zdravi a stěsti, může integrovat parcialni způsob přimý (informacně předepsaný), který podleha diktatu dilci vědecke, technologicke a ekonomicke racionality. Lidský druh přitom neni odpovědný za přirodu, kterou nevytvořil a ktere plně nerozumi. Je naopak odpovědný za kulturu, za sve dilo, jimž Zemi nevratným způsobem pustosi.

Jak skončí prométheovský mýtus

Clanek pojednava o krizi evropske technicke civilizace. Autor si klade otazku o jejim konci.