At this level comes the understanding that the phase of realization does not, in principle, complete the work of the object, and in the phase of dissolution not only is what was left unfinished in the phase of creation completed, but also independent work is carried out, related to the subtleties of the object’s life that become visible and comprehensible only now. Only now is the time for their processing and realization, the completion of the karmic program of the object. In other words, a person at the amateur level becomes an enthusiast of their work, believing that the phase of dissolution holds the most esoteric, the subtlest and most delicate work. That this work is most often dirty does not disturb them. Moreover, here a significant expansion of consciousness occurs. If in the phase of creation consciousness is primarily focused on the object and the benefits it receives from all sides, then in the phase of realization consciousness includes the object, its function, and interaction with the environment within the framework of this function. In the phase of dissolution, the view is significantly broader both toward the object and the surrounding environment. It includes, first, all three phases of the object’s life, and second, the perception of the object by the environment on a much less utilitarian plane than simply the consumption of the results of this object’s activity by the environment.
This idea can be illustrated as follows: when a wolf chases a deer, in its consciousness the deer is represented as such, and its goal is clear and unambiguous—to catch and kill this deer. But when the deer, now in the form of a carcass, is safely brought to the den, and the wolf, satiated, watches as its cubs satisfy their appetite with venison, the wolf’s thoughts become much broader. They take on a philosophical character, and it can reflect, for example, on the role of the deer in the forest, and in the territories adjacent to the forest.
A professional level of working with the archetype of dissolution produces a person who knows their craft well. For example, in Vladimir Nabokov’s novel Invitation to a Beheading, the condemned man’s future executioner befriends him and carefully feels his neck, clarifying its anatomy—to deliver the decisive blow in the most optimal way. A less dramatic example is the work of a chef who prepares a dish—bringing the food as close as possible to the phase of dissolution in the mouth and stomach of the diners who appreciate his creation. However, the chef himself naturally works under the archetype of realization, like any other professional, but the shadow of the archetype of dissolution, or the submodality of the archetype of dissolution, is undoubtedly present in their work. The food must be edible, that is, ready for dissolution in the organism’s environment.
At the professional level, the phase of dissolution is embodied by surgeons who precisely remove what is superfluous in the human body, dentists who clean teeth of plaque and treat caries, naturopathic doctors who cleanse the intestines, blood, lymph, liver, gallbladder, etc. However, precision and ecological balance for the environment are not the main or sole sign of professionalism in the phase of dissolution. Probably, the most important thing that distinguishes the professional level of this phase is a good understanding and predominant attention to the ethics of what is happening. The ethics of dissolution differ radically from the ethics of realization and the ethics of creation, but this is not the only difference. What is important is that ethics in the phase of dissolution takes on a predominant significance, as if towering above the life of the object. It can be said that the formation of life’s conclusions is what the phase of dissolution is for—or at least this is how it seems to the person in this phase.
Life’s conclusions are not its immediate content, which concerned the person in the phase of realization. Moral conclusions, a more subtle understanding not only of the life of the object but of life itself—these are the conclusions that interest the person in the phase of dissolution. The meaning of life and existence—not only of the object but of those similar to it, the meaning of one’s own existence, transcending the boundaries of the conditioned world, and understanding the higher laws of being—these are the fruits that the phase of dissolution brings to the person who professionally masters it. To them, it seems not only an inevitable and necessary part of existence but also the most interesting part of it. Death does not merely end life, they believe; it also colors life with a special light, giving it a profound meaning that truly manifests and becomes visible only in the phase of dissolution.
At the professional level of the phase of dissolution, a person acquires wisdom—a quality that arises precisely in this phase and to some extent contrasts with the intellect characteristic of the phase of realization. The professionalism of the phase of dissolution is the subtle aroma of putrefaction, the aesthetics of decay and decadence.
WORKING THROUGH THE DIALECTICAL ARCHETYPE
The theme of working through the universal archetype is the theme of the relationships between its constituent private archetypes and the interaction of their modalities. Depending on how much a person is aware of these modalities, sees, feels, and hears them in themselves and in the surrounding world, and can control them, the level of their harmony with themselves, their effectiveness in external and internal projects, depends.
Stage 1. Primary Chaos. At this stage, a person does not think about modal times at all and pretends that they are indistinct for them. At least, in their speech and behavior, they are mixed in an unexpected and catastrophic way; however, they pay no attention to this. When perceiving other people and situations, they also do not notice what the main (leading) modality of time is in them and often ends up in trouble or introduces unusual chaos into the situation, which can be quite difficult to untangle. Their behavior is most often non-complementary, meaning they cannot support the modalities that the situation or partner offers and instead impose their own. Moreover, they interrupt even themselves, not noticing the illogicality and inconsistency of their behavior. To start with health and end with a funeral is their favorite trick; however, they subconsciously possess many others, mixing modalities in the most improbable ways.
A new employee comes to work. “Take care in advance of how you will be fired from here,” our hero will say meaningfully, long spoiling the person’s mood and making them cautious in a situation where this is completely unnecessary. An old man, a senior citizen not far from the grave, they will thoroughly lecture on how he should have behaved in his youth so as not to end up in such a difficult situation now. To a person immersed in serious and responsible work, they will advise them to wind it down as completely hopeless or to completely rebuild their attitude toward it, learning a new creative approach.
A mother who persuades her five-year-old son to eat a vegetable salad for dinner instead of his favorite cheese sandwich, motivating this with the richness of vitamins and the peculiarities of digestion at night, is at the first stage of working through the dialectical archetype: the boy expects revelation in the modality of creation, while she speaks in the modality of realization, which is completely incomprehensible to him.
Self-interruption is characteristic of the first stage, when a person spontaneously changes the modality of their behavior or speech without noticing that these changes are not motivated by the situation or their previous words and abruptly, roughly, and harshly interrupt their behavior, greatly hindering both themselves and the development of the situation and the people perceiving it. In fact, it is quite difficult to tolerate such a person, but in our culture, it is sometimes completely impossible to reproach them for anything. The maximum they might hear is: “Listen, you’re behaving somehow wrong!” But how exactly is wrong, the partner usually cannot explain.
For example, when explaining the same topic, this person can change the mood of their narrative in an utterly unmotivated way, jumping from the modality of a requiem and complete despair to the modality of expecting a bright future and new unexpected sources of support, then to the modality that assumes the existence of something already ready and functioning, instantly destroying this mechanism and drawing conclusions about the futility of its existence. All this sometimes produces a deafening impression on the listener, which in no way wants to be reduced to just a mental understanding.
“So what are you actually driving at? Where are we going? What do we have and what do we plan? What goals are we striving for and what conclusions will we reach as a result of all this?” There are no answers to any of these questions from our hero, and they do not even intend for there to be any, yet they behave as if all three phases of time have long been in their pocket, and with the dexterity of a magician, they pull out one, then another, then the third, paying no attention to how it all turns out.
A typical example of behavior at the first stage of working through the dialectical archetype is the behavior of a journalist who is energetic to the point of insolence when interviewing a celebrity. In the modality of creation, they present the hero of the show, telling or presenting to the viewers new sides of the celebrity’s life and work. In the phase of realization, serious questions about their work follow. The phase of dissolution includes their assessments of the life lived, individual life plots, as well as assessments of other people and professionals. By not allowing the celebrity to finish their answer in one modality or another, the journalist interrupts them and, according to their interview plan, asks questions in another modality, then a third, then again the first, as a result of which the celebrity begins to blink in confusion, becomes somewhat irritated, and everything that is happening begins to resemble a circus act—an impression that is also formed in the viewers.
Stage 2. Identification. At this stage, a person begins to realize that there are three phases of time—creation, realization, and dissolution. Naturally, they call them by their own words and choose a favorite one, which they consciously or unconsciously seek to use in all areas of life. They are skeptical of the rest and, regardless of the modality in which the interlocutor speaks, usually respond in their favorite one. At the same time, they are aware (in some cases) of their inertia and non-complementarity but blame others for it, not themselves. In other words, this person understands, for example, that there are circumstances when criticism is inappropriate, that is, they perceive the phase of creation as a certain special state of the psyche or nature when one can gather without giving back, accumulate without storing for the future, and simply play without bearing responsibility for it.
But if this modality is not their favorite, they will consider it, first, fleeting, second, unserious, and third, intended exclusively for the next phase, the phase of realization, if they are fixed on it. If they are fixed on the phase of dissolution, they will perceive both the phase of creation and the phase of realization as preparatory for the most important, most interesting, and meaningful phase of dissolution, and from its perspective, they will consider everything that happens, sometimes realizing their own inadequacy but not considering it a special sin.
For this stage, a condescending or contemptuous attitude toward phases other than the one they are fixed on is characteristic, although their assessments will differ depending on which phase they are viewing the others from. For example, the phase of creation seems absolutely unconvincing and ephemeral both from the point of view of the phase of realization and from the point of view of the phase of dissolution, but their criticism of it will be completely different. In frivolity, both phases will reproach the phase of creation, but while the phase of realization will reproach it for irresponsibility, an overly frivolous attitude toward the benefits it uses and the obligations it takes on, the phase of dissolution will reproach it for the fact that everything must end.
The phase of realization, from the point of view of the phase of creation, is too serious, boring, and limited in its perception of reality. “It needs to be lighter,” thinks the phase of creation. The phase of dissolution also considers the phase of realization limited in its perception, but in a slightly different aspect—it does not think about subtleties, about the completion of its own programs, and this is the only thing that is important and interesting.
In general, speaking about the relationships between archetypes, it can be said that for the second stage, a fixation of a person on one of the phases and ignoring the others is characteristic, even at the cost of non-complementarity in their behavior and poor mutual understanding with other people, as well as inadequacy in many situations. However, the favorite modality is felt by the person as their own, and the rest as alien, and that says it all.
Stage 3. Competition. At this stage, a person masters all three phases of time, some slightly better, others slightly worse, but in principle, they perceive all three and, if necessary, can use and perceive each of them. However, the actual use of these phases is poorly regulated by them, meaning that, considering it necessary and desirable to use a given phase, they are distracted and somehow switch to another, and in general, it may seem that there is a clear rivalry between the modalities of time in their subconscious, as if some forces of their subconscious are waging an incomprehensible struggle within their psyche.
At this stage, it can be said that different modalities of time correspond to different aspects of worldview, different ethical systems, and different models of behavior. But the person is not yet fully aware of this, although they constantly receive hints of such a state of affairs. For example, in the modality of creation, they may be extremely pessimistic and negatively inclined. At the same time, switching to the modality of realization, they gather themselves, feel a surge of optimism, and perform their work successfully. Such people are described by the well-known proverb: “The road is traveled by the one who walks.” The same person may treat the phase of dissolution very superficially and contemptuously, equating it with death, believing that it is better not to think about death and destruction at all, and as for purification, it should happen by itself. Their worldview and world perception will be extremely amorphous, and it will be very difficult for them to understand people for whom this phase is the most important in their lives. They will seem to them to be pretending or deliberately deceiving them, or not understanding themselves and what they want from life, that they have no formed worldview or something of the sort.
All situations in their life will be quite clearly divided into four categories: three corresponding to the modalities of time and a fourth—with an indefinite modality of time. In situations of the fourth type, they will feel uncomfortable, experiencing an indistinct struggle until one of the archetypes declares the situation as its own and paints it in its color, setting its own values and priorities, adjusting their world perception accordingly, engaging their worldview, thinking, etc. At the same time, transitioning from one situation to another if they are guided by different modalities of time will be quite painful for the person; they will not feel the appropriateness and possibility of such transitions, and when they occur, they will feel something like a transformation, that is, something inside them dies and something else is born, unfamiliar and standing in many ways on the opposite side.
Many people have observed instantaneous and completely incomprehensible changes in mood (both their own and their interlocutor’s) after what seems to be an insignificant turn of topic or plot. It is sometimes extremely difficult to explain these changes if one does not take into account the change of modalities. On the contrary, careful observation of modalities explains many things that are incomprehensible from any other point of view.
If a person is at the third stage of working through the dialectical archetype and has an unconscious rivalry between modalities of time that have not yet found their final place in their psyche, they can easily become a victim of an experienced manipulator who, imperceptibly for the person, changes their modality and thereby changes their perception of the world and their worldview. For example, there are people who are extremely trusting in the phase of creation, that is, at the moment when the modality of creation is activated, the person becomes an enthusiastic child who believes in anything that is offered to them. They may be extremely cautious and meticulous in the phase of realization, but if their partner manages to initiate the phase of creation in them, their mood changes, and any idea can be implanted in them, which they will then implement seriously, thoroughly, and responsibly. If, however, you try to offer them a new idea or even a modest variation of their life plot when they are psychologically under the influence of the phase of realization, nothing will likely come of it. There, the person is clearly focused on their plot, they are within the framework of a stable ritual that will protect them from any interference.
There are people who are extremely soft and pliable if the modality of dissolution is activated in them. A sense of universal forgiveness and permissiveness toward the surrounding world descends upon them; their hands drop, and they say to their partner something like: “Well, you’ve worn me out; now you can do whatever you want. Everything you ask for, I will give you!” If you communicate with such a person in the modality of creation or realization, they will not make any concessions or show any pliability.
Conversely, there are people who are pliable precisely in the phase of realization, meaning that if you deal with them in some production process with established frameworks, they will gladly go along with any cooperation, make uncomfortable concessions for themselves, fulfill requests, etc. But for them, it is important that all this happens within the framework of a constantly functioning and self-sustaining plot; if they fall into the modality of creation or dissolution, their pliability can disappear as if by magic.
Thus, the orientation and value attitudes of a person change with the change of modality. The reader can think about this topic based on their own life experience and will be able to convince themselves of how fair the author’s observations and thoughts set forth above are.
Stage 4. Cooperation. At this stage, a person learns to perceive and use such a subtle thing as the change of modalities of time. This ability is sometimes called a sense of time in the sense of feeling when something should be done. For example, this person feels when the phase of creation ends and the phase of realization begins, when the phase of dissolution ends and the phase of creation begins—in fact, the phases do not always follow the natural order of creation, realization, dissolution; they can change arbitrarily.
What does this mean, for example, in everyday behavior? A person who feels the activity of one of the private archetypes (creation, realization, dissolution) knows when it can be replaced by another and when it absolutely cannot. For example, in the middle of your interlocutor’s story about a topic that interests them, when they have not only announced the topic but also begun to develop it, to interrupt them and say: “Well, and what are you driving at?” or “What conclusion follows from this?”—that is, to abruptly replace the phase of realization in its active state with the phase of dissolution would be a great tactlessness, even if you are guided by the best intentions and perhaps it really is time for you to leave, and what your interlocutor is telling you is extremely interesting. On the other hand, when the phase of realization is already ending, it will often be quite appropriate to replace it either with the phase of creation of some new plot or with the phase of dissolution of the plot being discussed, and this transition, if it happens imperceptibly for the person’s consciousness, catches them by surprise: in fact, the phase of dissolution is already underway, but their enthusiasm does not allow them to feel it, and non-complementary behavior arises.
Such effects occur at the fourth stage, but usually the change of modality still reaches the person’s consciousness; they become aware of it and adjust their behavior accordingly. For example, a host, chatting animatedly with a guest, at some point feels that the guest is no longer interested in what is happening and is trying to wind down the lively conversation, glancing at their watch, politely coughing, or looking toward the door. This behavior signals to the host that the meaningful part of the visit for the guest has apparently ended, and they want to leave. Perhaps the host does not notice this immediately; perhaps the topic of conversation is extremely engaging for them, but at the fourth stage, after one or two indirect hints from the guest, the host’s consciousness registers the fact that the phase of realization has changed to the phase of dissolution, and they (perhaps with a heavy heart) accept this fact and shift the conversation to the outline of a future meeting, thanking them for the interesting communication.
In general, it should be noted that not all transitions are equally easy for a person. Transitions from the modality that is most familiar and favorite to them are especially difficult for them, but in addition, there are transitions that are psychologically more complex, for example, from the phase of dissolution to the phase of creation, from the phase of creation to the phase of dissolution, and from the phase of realization to the phase of dissolution. For each person, at least one of these transitions is psychologically difficult and uncomfortable. Why this is so is a complex question, but if a person masters at least one such transition in any material, it affects such transitions in all other life situations and plots.
At the fourth stage, a person usually masters no more than this modality. This means that they begin to differentiate each of the three modalities of time and feel different intonations within them that relate to other modalities. For example, speaking about learning, we can say that in general it takes place in the modality of creation. Many people, for example, believe that they are unable to learn a foreign language, drive a car, or cook. In such cases, the following psychological approach helps: “You, as you are, are certainly unable to learn English, but you can become another person who knows English.” Such an approach precisely and deeply involves the archetype of creation.
However, learning can be divided into three main phases corresponding to the three main modalities of time. The first phase is the phase of dissolution. It consists of the fact that a person identifies certain blocks, certain imperfections, obstacles that prevent them from mastering the material, or they identify a blank spot in the place of future knowledge and set themselves the task of erasing this spot. In other words, they identify a certain inability that must be destroyed and overcome by the ability to do so. The above may seem somewhat extravagant to the reader, but any lecturer, any propagandist knows perfectly well that at the beginning of a presentation, in order to interest the audience, it is necessary to present a problem whose solution is unclear, that is, it is necessary to create an obstacle that must be overcome and destroyed.
The next phase of learning relates to the modality of realization: here the process of mastering new material takes place, a kind of work with it; work, of course, in a playful mode, as the main modality of learning, that is, the modality of creation, presupposes, but the submodality here is realization. And finally, the third phase of learning is that the person, having mastered the subject of study, along with it goes out into the world under the distant supervision of the teacher to try themselves, to demonstrate their skills in the external reality. Thus, the former student becomes a young specialist. Here, the former student enters the world with a new skill, and the world unfolds before them in a completely different way. Now the acquired skill allows the person to almost effortlessly receive new and new fruits and results of their learning; around them, they hear enthusiastic exclamations, situations that were previously inaccessible to them open their doors, and a new life embraces them in joyful arms—here there is a submodality of creation.
Similarly, in the phases of realization and dissolution, three submodalities can also be distinguished, thus obtaining a more differentiated understanding of the modality of what is happening. Such divisions are sometimes extremely useful because they allow for a much more precise understanding of the interlocutor. Even if a person is within the same phase as their interlocutor, that is, the modality of time is coordinated between them, this does not yet mean that the submodalities are coordinated. The latter also play, as the reader understands, a great role. For example, wanting to clarify and clean up a relationship, a person can present a claim to their partner. For them, this is nothing more than a prelude, the beginning of a future serious conversation. This can be a completely specific claim that arises unexpectedly in the conversation and for them sounds in the modality of dissolution-creation, that is, the main content is cleaning, dissolution, and the submodality is the beginning of this cleaning.
Their partner, anticipating this serious conversation and having no desire to conduct it, can, as they say, let the situation slide, that is, say: “Yes, you’re right, I am very guilty before you, forgive me,” thereby setting the logical point and defining the modality of their reaction as dissolution-dissolution, that is, dissolution-dissolution, that is, dissolution-dissolution. The person finds themselves in a difficult position: on the one hand, the answer is completely complementary from a social point of view, because they were not contradicted but agreed with them, and on the other hand, they intended to touch their partner deeply, to discuss a much more serious and broader topic with them, but the partner somehow adroitly… again and approximately in the same words, already somehow awkwardly, because they were clearly told that the guilt was accepted, recognized, and even mostly redeemed.
The reader is invited to consider the three modalities of the concept of cleaning as an exercise: a) cleaning that occurs in the phase of creation of the object, that is, a process taking place in the modality of creation-dissolution; b) cleaning that occurs in the phase of realization, that is, in the modality of realization-dissolution; and c) cleaning of the object in the process of its dissolution, that is, in the modality of dissolution-dissolution. Thus, the author imposes on the reader the idea that cleaning relates not to the modality but to the submodality. Does the reader agree with this opinion? If not, let them think about their own interpretation of the concept of cleaning.
The genre of memoirs, for example, is generally in the modality of dissolution. This is something that was and has passed, and now it has only relative value, and the main thing is the reflection and conclusions from what once happened. A certain aura of the phase of dissolution always hangs over memories, coloring them in softening tones, removing the sharpness of former conflicts and illuminating them with the light of wisdom and deep understanding. However, within the framework of such a general modality, all three phases of time can sound as submodalities. A person can remember a time when the phase of creation was active in them, when life’s gifts, advances, and offers rained down on them from all sides. “There were days like that, I walked young, my eyes looked at the blue sky, my first gold was still unspent, stars shone proudly. My walk was not yet ridiculous to me, the heels of my shoes had not yet come off, and from every window where music was heard, such luck opened up for me.” (Bulat Okudzhava) Many memoirs about the Great Patriotic War are written in the modality of dissolution-creation, when the characters were still young, life was extremely bright for them, and the modality of dissolution is emphasized here twice, first, by the fact that these are memories, and second, by the fact that this is a past event.
A situation in the modality of realization-creation is, for example, the hiring of a new employee by a stably functioning company; they must integrate into its ranks and, within the framework of an already existing production process, introduce some innovations, and the very phenomenon of a person in a settled team is also an event in the modality of realization-dissolution.
At the fourth stage, the matryoshka combination of modalities of the dialectical archetype arises, manifests, and is realized by the person. This combination, of course, arises in any situation, regardless of the stage of working through this archetype, but at the fourth stage it is realized, and the person learns to work with it. Thus, for the fourth stage, first, the coordination of modalities of time is characteristic; second, a fairly precise feeling and use of the submodalities of time within a given modality; and third, their matryoshka combination. The latter is typical of a situation where the meaning of what a person says or does relates to one modality, while the immediate social meaning, that is, the external significance, relates to another. How common is such behavior? It is more likely typical than exceptional.
There are, for example, people who never fit into the programs they assign to themselves or that life immerses them in. They themselves, however, tend to stand on the opposite side. They are always late, in a hurry, do not have time, miss deadlines, everything slips out of their hands and loses its intended form. Such a person is psychologically constantly in the phase of dissolution. Due to life circumstances regarding interaction with other people, they are naturally forced to use all three modalities of time. However, their inner state is constantly manifested in their facial expressions, gestures, intonations, and a special construction of phrases—while the topic of conversation itself may belong, for example, to the modality of creation. The ability to discuss a future project, which is only beginning to emerge, in a funeral voice is perhaps a national trait of the Russian character—just as the ability to joyfully calculate losses, perceiving them in the modality of pure creation as special fruits from the tree of paradise. The mismatch of modalities between the inner semantic and outer social levels is a favorite trick used in jokes, witticisms, anecdotes, etc. It gives the situation a special comic effect.
There is a well-known quote, whether from life or fiction: “Let’s continue our games,” the editor-in-chief of a children’s magazine said gloomily, looking at his employees. The word “continue” as well as the gloominess of the gaze immediately suggest the modality of realization, and games, of course, belong to the modality of creation. Thus, the modality of the editor’s statement, in the social sense—creation, in the semantic sense—realization. The same pathos is characteristic of most anecdotes about Shtilitz, Chapayev, and other folk heroes. A very serious, deadly dangerous, responsible situation related to the phase of realization is played out as completely playful, where the responsibility of the characters is reduced almost to zero, that is, it is perceived in the modality of creation. “Vasily Ivanovich, mushrooms!” “Oh, get away, Petka, it’s not the time for mushrooms now.”
Stage 5. Synthesis. By the end of the fourth stage of working through the dialectical archetype, the mutual penetration of modalities is already quite significant. For example, a person, while being adequate in the modality of creation, at the same time already senses how it will unfold in the modality of realization and how this plot will end, that is, they also imagine the modality of dissolution. The same applies to the experiences and living out of the other two modalities. And at some point, a person has the feeling that they are rising above the rotation of time and seeing it all at once. At one and the same moment, one process is only beginning to unfold, the second is being realized, the third is ending, and they see the connections between these processes and their dynamics as if they were looking at time from somewhere outside, from a timeless dimension, and seeing it entirely.
This is the level of higher wisdom, when in an infant one can already see the youth and the adult, the old man, and in the old man one can see their own childhood and future incarnations.
PSYCHOLOGY OF THE DIALECTICAL ARCHETYPE
World Perception
For the archetype of creation, a person’s world perception is characterized by the feeling that they are at the center of the world. The world adapts to them, to their behavior, to their smallest whims, unfolding in the area to which they direct their attention, and folding, perhaps sadly, but obediently, in the area they ignore. They are deeply convinced that all rights belong to them, that they have everything in abundance, and everything they need is already theirs or will soon be, and to some extent they transfer this world perception to others, that is, they believe that the world is large enough for everyone; in short, as it is said in the Bible, “be fruitful and multiply.”
Under the archetype of creation, a person feels free and protected in the world, or does not need protection. If troubles befall them, they come from an absolutely unexpected direction, and there is no need or possibility to prepare or protect in advance—it is simply not conceivable. This person is open to the world. The world is full of surprises for them, surprises that never end. How a person perceives these surprises, how they anticipate them, depends on their temperament, life experience, and general life attitudes, but the very fact of their openness to the world and readiness to accept what it sends them is beyond doubt for them. “How else could it be?” they think.
For the archetype of realization, a person’s world perception is characterized by a feeling of being in balance with the world, a symbolic energetic and material equality. “I am an equal part of the world,” they think. “We must adapt to each other: I to it, and it to me.” Here, the idea of parity, equality, and balance is very strong. “It does something for me, I do something for it. The world is governed by a law to which I submit, but which it also submits to.” This person does not put themselves in the position of the navel of the earth; it does not seem to them that space is focused on them. They rather feel themselves to be an ecological part of an ecological world. Perhaps it is bad ecology, but the law of cause and effect, the principle that nothing in life is free, is given to this person at the level of their world perception. Here, the world is perceived as semi-controlled. The person has tools with which they can influence the world, and within certain limits quite effectively; on the other hand, they feel that the world to some extent controls them, limiting their will and putting it within certain frameworks, and the person considers this normal, that is, they do not perceive it as some kind of special lack of freedom. These limitations can even be useful.
Under the archetype of dissolution, a person’s world perception is largely sacrificial. They feel like an insignificant, almost powerless particle of the world. They say goodbye to everything they have; they have no property rights, no right to balanced relations with the world, no right to an exchange governed by just laws between a person and matter. Their general mood is: “Take my last from me; I don’t need anything anymore, nothing is a pity.” At the same time, they feel that by giving themselves up, by destroying themselves, they are comprehending some final, ultimate, fundamental truth that seems to them essentially more important than what was revealed to them when they were focused on the material plane of existence, that is, on the plane on which the Universe exists and builds itself.
There is no projection of guilt in this sacrifice, that is, they do not say to the world: “You are to blame for my dying.” They accept this state of affairs, submit to it, and try to focus on what was inaccessible to them in the phases of creation and realization. They pay the bills for those parts of their fate when they took advances and partially realized them, and they have no doubt that now is the time to pay, and they are not inclined to rebel against this.
Questions to the reader. What feelings do questions from small children evoke in you: delight, tenderness, a desire to answer them seriously, or a desire to brush them off as meaningless and stupid? Which of the phases of time do you consider the most insignificant? Answer as if you were speaking to people, and then think about what your true, inner attitude to these phases is. Do you think that the word “optimist” essentially means “fool”? Do you think that old age brings wisdom to a person? What age for a country’s president do you consider optimal: no older than forty, from forty to sixty, no less than sixty? Which of the three seasons—spring, summer, autumn—do you like best? When do you find it easier to work?
Worldview
Worldview is, so to speak, the theoretical foundation of a person’s attitude toward the world. Depending on which modality of time a person is in, their attitude toward the world can change.
For the modality of creation, a playful and unserious attitude toward the world is characteristic; that is, a person plays with the world, not thinking at all about the consequences of their game for themselves or the world. The world is given to them as an initial given, which is only beginning to manifest itself, and the results of a person’s actions are visible to them, at best, through a hazy veil. Nothing foreshadows the seriousness of the future. The person accepts the world, and accepts it unconditionally—this is another side of their irresponsibility—and largely naively. They are captivated by the world and completely immersed in it. There is still no division here of “this is me, and this is it.” The call “Be like children”
