EastWesterly Review Home -- Blog -- EastWesterly Review -- Take2 -- Martin Fan Bureau -- Fonts a Go-Go -- Games -- Film Project -- Villagers -- Graveyard
Custom Search

EastWesterly
Review

Issues

38 | 37 | 36 | 35
34 | 33 | 32 | 31 | 30
29 | 28 | 27 | 26 | 25
24 | 23 | 22 | 21 | 20
19 | 18 | 17 | 16 | 15
14 | 13 | 12 | 11 | 10
9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5
4 | 3 | 2 | 1


   
Annual Conferences

24th | 23rd | 22nd | 21st | 20th
19th | 18th | 17th | 16th | 15th
14th | 13th | 12th | 11th | 10th
9th | 8th | 7th

Foundling Theory Fund

Letters from the editor

Submit your article

Links

Get e-mail when we update our site. Your e-mail:
Powered by NotifyList.com
help support us -- shop through this Amazon link!

© 1999-2016
Postmodern Village
e-mail * terms * privacy

The Manifest of Homo mortem
by Serge and Galina Roganov

The gift to humanity on the threshold of a new century

1.

Every cultured modern person knows that history develops through two main stages of human relation - tragedy and farce. But nobody is ready to admit that the universal form of historical relations is a parody and in the XX century when the time of historical epoch belongs to earth way of one generation, parody becomes the primary form of culture's world. Our world comes to an end. Nothing happens among us. Nothing new. Let's greet forgetfulness as an absolutely safe instrument for everyone! We can invite bikes everyday and invite others to admire our inventions so as nobody can closely study the whole of human history (for what?) to find same questions and the same answers.


What else can dead godman write except a manifesto? Like as what else can dying godman write except the gospel from godman? As to me, to real earth godman, I did as anyone from godmankind did - I wrought the gospel and manifesto. To tell the truth, I could choose another title for my masterpieces, for example, "Science of Logic" or "Being and time"; all the same, even with such honorable titles my works would remain the same, the gospel and manifesto.

2.

Any godman should die
together with its own epoch
like as any god should

From the beginning of the new Russian revolution (Perestroyka) I decided that I was godman. Why not? The new image was better than the old soviet "young communist". We need to create a new earth world like as earth gods, but our worldwide recreation has failed. Everybody agrees with me, that if I should die (because communism is destroyed) I'll better die as godman. This "godman" sounds more solemnly. Or maybe you think I should to tear up or hide my Party-membership card and become a Russian democrat and rush into church? Don't trouble, I wasn't member of the Communist party, but I dream to create a new earth world. I was free godman like many others.

As a rule, there must be the great grief and, as a good Russian rule, there must be the repentance. It is repentance that serves us as the door to the new world. It is the grief that must follow us when we say "good buy" russian communism.

For the first time I wanted to die when I was offered to make a suicide, or, in other words, to repent. New Russian "democrats" (former party members) cried: "Repent! Repent!" I couldn't repent - that wasn't the matter whether you were a member of the communist party or not - all soviet people were communist or, as Dostoevsky said "godmans". We get accustomed to on the one hand that history must die especially when we tire to watch how our epoch conquers peaks; on the second hand, sometimes, regretfully, every person dies. We like to watch when history dies; we always hope for something, and we are always sure that the death of history is the death of the old generation, government or party structures. But what should we do when a whole epoch must die, when all our life becomes our whole word's dying? Certainly, I can cry out: "I shall not dream to rebuild world as communist; I shall not fight against enemies of soviet people," but all the same, we want to build a New World in some or other way, and in spite of our social revolution, we all remain "soviet" people, communist or "godmankind". We always need to recreate something as many people need to. It is not the matter what we need to create - new soviet epoch, new metaphysics or new ethics. All of us always want to ruin old values, history, theories and to create something new. Maybe I should die somewhere and never begin to cry out: "The Godman is dead, listen to me attentively -the godman is dead, dead, dead!" - I remember in the nineteenth century somebody cried: "God is dead," and greet godman, but whom I should greet now, when I am dead as godman? I must greet the human being, mankind and so on. I gladly agree. But sometimes it seems to me that we hurry to die as communists; precisely speaking, we hurry to cry that we are dead (everybody agrees that such repenting allows us to live eternally).

When I decided to die I didn't know how I could die and for what. I soon tired from such decisions. But it seemed to me that there was more sense in my decision than I thought at first glance. Maybe as a mortal being I could find a solution for myself first of all. It was all the same for me: what else could I find in human culture, because each person has only one life, and it is impossible to ask for another order of my earth being. Daily problems are greater for me than all cultural values like they are greater for any common person. When god dies then godman enters the new world. When godman dies, the man, the common earth human being, enters its own world. And if I wouldn't like to rebirth as the new godman in the realm of repentance I must understand that all in the earth world come to an end and nobody can exist without such ability. It is easy to become a cadaver and leave the earth world and [every]body else. But it is more difficult to leave earth history when you still remain in that history, when you continue to act, to deed, to do something. Truly speaking, this is a misunderstanding because your "leave of the world" as the image of human death belongs to the death that is an instant Christian event for daily god's usage.

You may find this funny. Maybe this is a joke. My need of death has its own history. When we start to play we forget the starting point of our game. I started from eager intention to remain, to save myself. I used to be the godman and I needn't any rebirth as a new Russian democrat - I always thought that I always deed with my own brain and hands only, and if the world refuses to accept my vision of world happiness, so I must come to an end. And let's come to an end together. And as godman I wouldn't allow somebody else to live eternally. Let all worlds come to an end if the world can't understand where the world happiness is. This is the common step - you may find this in each great masterpiece of human culture. Each "godman" starts with such intention. Each godman avoids the present and seeks for new gospel in the past or in the future. The present commonly remains for common people and only godman knows how silly, how weak they are. Let's greet godman, or you are still sure that godman is the person who can kill any person for any divine purpose?

3.

"To dream about breakfast" and
"To have a breakfast"
are absolutely different things

One problem remains - I can't die. Can you die? I can't. My death always belongs to Nature, God or communists. Without such murders all of us are suicides. Truly speaking, natural death is death without man who really dies. I can die only when I die with my own earth efforts, with my own hands. We struggle for freedom for human beings and now what do we need? Who am I then? I am suicide. Let's think over this again. How can the epoch die when generations refuse to realize the death of the epoch, or, in other words, they don't want to have such goals to die themselves? The death of the epoch is the social death of the generation. When the generation wants to live eternally, the history of the nation become ruthless and endless.

What is the man who doesn't need to die? Only a mould of eternity. And the main problem which I have tried to decide - to whom belongs the realization of my own death? To Nature? To God? I know the single solution of that problem - the realization of my own death may belong only to me, and must belong to me. Nobody else. I realize my own death with my own earth efforts like everybody does.

To realize death - this is the deed of earth man. Everybody will die some day, everybody can think over this coming event, but who realizes [his] own death? Everybody. Who can realize the human death except the man itself? Nobody. Now we all are like suicides - the sense of my own death reveals as my earth possibility to realize it, and this deed is only my deed, and only as the sense of realization of my own death it belongs to me. It is very easy to decide when theory, or metaphysic, or culture must die, but what we can decide about our own death?

I wish to die but I don't wish to resort to assistance of psychiatrist or to die by means of traditional methods of suicide. [Does] everybody who needs death require somebody's help? [Is] everybody who needs [his] own death ill? If our century builds the New World of the human being, where there is human death without fail, who prevents me not to admire the last instant event of everybody's life in the mirror of my consciousness, but to realize personally that last event of my earth way? And at the same time I can't realize my own death because when I am there, [there] is not any death, when death is… You may play with words, with logic but when somebody dies there are not any words and logic. This is the beautiful idea to die, and, certainly, I agree to die not only with my own generation but I agree to die personally, but I don't know absolutely why should I die or in other words, why should I realize my own death. Maybe it is really god who can realize my own death better than I try to realize.

The need of death, or as philosophers said " need-to-death," has its own history like the death itself. We can't believe in the history of death. The instant fundamental event remains as natural nonsense, which we shall think over and find the answer: "for what?" All of us know the answer for the cunning question "for what?" because we are absolutely sure from the beginning of earth human history that such an instant event is the great fundamental instrument not only for god or nature, but also for us, for our human history, for every person.

We often gladly say that human natural death isn't nonsense, but such event that is absolutely possible and necessary for our god, for our nature, for our law, social justice, defense, government and so on. One may play with a million meanings of this sense, but for me, personally, for me where is the sense of my death? I must explain this point more properly. We rarely find ourselves in a strange condition of our common life when we absolutely needn't our death. What a pity[ful] condition! - may say others. As to me, I may say only that - Let others die but I needn't die. I mustn't defend my nation, I mustn't struggle for world happiness for all nations, and I needn't to kill other people to establish the great order of my country, and I needn't to kill somebody to steal one's money. Answer me then what should I personally die for? Maybe both the god and the nature are impossible without my personal death, but it isn't the matter for me whether they are possible or not. As to me, I would like to know whether I am possible without my death? The history of human illusion answers me that it isn't possible. Let it be. Maybe I am mad and I need a skilled psychiatrist or money, which I'll get for such confusion for somebody's usage. We get accustomed to the thought that we can deed in a strict field of our abilities where our death hasn't a place. But answer me then what people seek for when they play with human death for any purpose? Maybe it is people who need assistance of that skilled psychiatrist and always need money to have a good meal and to play and play with human death or with the image of human death (this is all the same). Am I right? Or, maybe, I am not right?

This is only the first step to new madness. Let's give up the play with the sense of death. Truly speaking, I play with sense because people like such play, and if you need human understanding you must play - people like the theater of consciousness and need such play first of all. For example, let's look at the eternally modern play with the death of god. Let it be.

I must explain thoroughly my "holy" decision to die because I often encounter such confusion of ideas that my explanations turn into the funny play with a single actor even for me. When I ask myself why should I die, I don't mean the death as a pure murder or suicide. Nobody wants to be murdered. Somebody wants to be a suicide. As a rule, such people must be sent to hospital, but as to me I would like to send them to philosophers, to thinkers of the XX century. What could they advise to poor suicides, especially if we remember the simple crucial point of such speculation - if the man is impossible without the event of [his] death, then who must realize man's death? Certainly, only the man itself can realize one. Are there any differences between healthy men and suicides? The sense of death may be revealed as the sense of realization only. Why should I die? - this the first step. Why should I realize my own death? - this is the final step. Where is the sense of my realization?

4.

Who realizes my death? If you mean "natural death" we needn't seek for such a silly sense and answer. Naturally, the realization of "natural death" belongs to Nature itself or to God itself. But maybe God is really dead? And maybe the human being isn't a mere natural being. As I remember, the last century's struggle against the natural human being, [o]ne can turn human death into a natural event or into the play of language, but as to me, as for all people, this is not the play or the divine act. Where can we find natural death if we aren't natural beings? You assure that I am not natural being, a natural animal, and offer me to play with natural death or with the sense of a natural fundamental event. This is great nonsense, and if there aren't any Gods and Natures there is not any sense of natural death for me because I am not a natural being nor a good Christian.

We try to build the finite world of the human being. We have built the finite world of our consciousness as we've built finite worlds of [all] human abilities. Are you tired? Are you tired [of building] new finite worlds of human beings? History teaches us that any kind of human ability, any kind of human organ, can serve for Your Majesty [the] Thinker as a basis for any kind of interpretation of the human being. Even a nail can serve like as existence or reason. One can build a divine image of humanity from a cell of the human body. Who can contest such a cultured approach?

The finite world means only the world that has a history, the world that can not only start but can come to an end. Only such worlds have history and are real earth history. And if we declare that human life is impossible without human death, so we must declare the right-to-death for any human being as the main human right like the right of human life. Moreover, we must declare the right-to-realization of any human death, realization that belongs not to gods or nature but to man itself. The sense of human death now can reveal for us as the sense of realization of our death. Now we get real finite human beings, human beings, which can realize their death[s] without assistance of any skill orders. If we can't realize our death, there is not any sense of death for us, but there is only the sense of a murder, the sense of being killed.

Explain to me then what is murder? I can take the gun or knife and kill somebody. But I can refuse somebody's right to die and then I am the same murderer as in the first case. There are not any differences between two approaches to the murder of a human being. Having finished the horrible stage of human history in the twentieth century the murder leaves the strict borders of natural violence. But it is very comfortable for people to deal with murder as mere natural violence. The murder of people has a wider scale of usage. We know very well where the evil is or where the good is. We are mistaken. We still kill history like an animal for Christmas because we know very well when a new epoch can begin its stream and where one hasn't any right to start. New generations decide who is to blame and who cheats the youth of new culture and then thunders sound as the divine critic of miserable human existence.

5.

Yesterday I got to know that
god was dead. I didn't know

Each religion begins with godmankind and each religion comes to an end as godmankind. Modern godman is the slave of eternity and it is not the matter what kind of eternity you like. Eternity means pure history or the pure divine order of logic, or beauty, or language or the human being without realization of its own death. They are illusion because they never can be finished and remain as real human deeds. Or maybe you still think that eternity is something other?

Maybe god is dead and maybe god is not dead. Strictly speaking, that is not the matter for any real person. God is really many-sided. Every historic epoch has its own image of god like as its own image of godmankind. If you are not a worshipper of a parody, you maybe feel that now the image of christian god vanishes into thin air and only eternity as parody remains for common use. We needn't rush into other religions. We would do our best to find a new image for our dying world, but all the same we remain christians which are absolutely caught in our consciousness.

The death of god is interesting only for god itself, in better case for past generations which lost its belief, but for us now there isn't any interest except our deep intention to appear in the cultured world as a very witty and insightful person which can ruin heaven. As to me, it is more important to answer present questions, or in other words, to follow my earth way. I must die to remain in my own world and to expose it to my children, not for future generations.

Oh, I think that only I am godman because I believe in the eternity of our historic way, because I believe in my own eternity. We all get accustomed to earth eternity - all our deeds that never can die. One can destroy somebody's dreams but dreams can't die; one can destroy plans, ethics, culture but these human deeds don't need to die to become real earth events. Earth events rarely need death, and therefore, they exist like modern earth human being, without realization of its own death. I am not right, I am not lone godman. Godmankind enters the third millenium destroying old values as if old values can't die.

Murder remains the universal instrument of human relation. It is not the matter who is the murderer, and our century reveals for us the eternal beauty of social murder when we buil[d] new history - revolutions, civil wars, two world wars; the eternal beauty of criticism - we tried from the beginning of our century to put an end to rationalism, to metaphysics, to religion, to old culture and so on. You may not kill somebody to prove you are a murderer. You may only take one's own death, or, in other words, all of us know that we must struggle for the right-to-live, but who knows that everybody needs the right-to-death too?

I understood that I should perish if I couldn't die. I need death to stand in the impetuous world of russian history; I need death to stand in itself because I needn't a new personal image, new social place.

I was so astonished that I forgot the death of an epoch, the death of the Soviet Union at once. I must die and I need to die or maybe I feel that it would be better to die - I don't remember exactly. One can easy understand the death of history or the death of philosophy, and it is very interesting to bury something and it isn't interesting absolutely to me to bury myself.

6.

There is not any one's cadaver

I can offer to you a million language games and you may give me [as many] too. I am right and you are right. Or maybe you would like to examine my basic intention to die? I am gladly agreed. But your examination, your close search for my mistakes can't help me really die, and if I offer you to realize your death what would you play with?

Let's think over human death. Let's re[t]ain "natural death" for others['] gods. The death of finite being may be finite itself only, or, in other words, it may be only history, the real earth history, and only now death and realization of death can belong to human beings. Death as instant event belongs to murderers only. Everybody can grow old. But you can't find any death in old age in common sense. Oold age is only the language of death, the language of a new history of human earth existence. It is death which allows us to stand in our existence, it is death which reveals for us our being which exists now as our memory, it is death which allows us to understand ourselves and everybody, it is death which allows us to finish our earth search because from some moment of our earth way there will not be any new search for us, any new being for us, any new understanding for us, any new steps and leaps.

We always come to a deadlock with death as an instant natural event. And the sense of such nonsense never reveals for us both any place for our human death and any sense of our human death. For what do we play with an instant fundamental event? Because we are still slaves of ourselves? For what do we play with the language, with meaning of natural death? Are we tired to be earth people or do we eagerly seek for a new divine boss?

Old age is a loss of vital energy, extinction of life, but where is the death here? Extinction of life is only extinction of life, not death, and if we look closely at a cadaver, where is the death? The cadaver is not the death. Then, why do we deal with our death as if the death is the cadaver? Let's remember all words and images of death that exist among us. All these words belong to existence of one's cadaver. I know about death only one simple thing - sometime I'll vanish into air. Nothing more. The life of my cadaver hasn't any relation to me. I couldn't even say "my" cadaver because there is not any "me" near my cadaver like there is not any cadaver near me. The image of natural death haunts human history. I don't know why people identify human death with the human cadaver. All interpretations of death don't leave the field of a cemetery where the cadaver decays. (Alive cadaver!). [It's] no matter what "my" cadaver does when I leave this world. "My" cadaver exists for my relatives and friends till they bury me. Truly speaking, I don't know whom they will bury. I don't drag "my" cadaver with me all my life long, so how they can bury "my" cadaver? And why can't I bury my cadaver too? Let's bury our cadavers together!

So, cemeteries and cadavers have no relation to one's death. It is known that all of us will die one fine day. And that is all we know about our death. Nothing more. And the main item is that we never can die with our own earth efforts. Natural death exists as natural nonsense that has a sense only for high orders - God, History and Nature. When somebody wants to die then somebody must take treatment and all of us take care of one's health. Good will and good treatment - what do you need else!

Our relations to a social murder differ from our relations to our death, but we often confuse these relations and confuse these different ends. No matter what or whom I can meet in that final event and, no matter is there an afterlife or not regardless of any logic. I needn't any afterlife now, here on the earth. I don't know why. Moreover, it is said that there is the being only, there isn't any non-being. Why? Precisely speaking, the being is given for us. And the non-being never can be given for us, [o]nly for our consciousness. Let's re[t]ain this act for skilled philosophers. It is all the same for many people whether the non-being is given for somebody or not.

Death associates with grief and sorrow. We get accustomed to look at our death as a great grief which we must avoid and we do our best to avoid it till death catches us some day. We leave our death in the realm of somebody's violence and we are not ready to accept another approach to our end. God deprives people of their death because he maybe knows that from this fundamental point man can start its free way in earth history. Death never can belong to a human being. Let truth and consciousness or any human fundamental abilities belong to man, but death eternally remains in the realm of divine order. There are not any griefs and sorrows for a dead body except for its relatives and children.

Maybe the one's death helps somebody [be] aware of something more fundamental than common problems. Actual death demands to act, not to relate in some other way to it.

This stage of one's earth way is possible by means of extinction of life. In other words, when one tries to keep one's world one must ruin all another possibilities or enter the realm of non-being. This "extinction" is only the language of death, but death itself folds as actual earth history. Really, we only keep that [which] we have created yet and as to our being - oh! There is not any being beyond [our] earth existence- we must keep it too. There is the one way only for real earth being - right-to-keep itself or, in other words to die. No matter what will happen when we leave the earth - the history of death comes to an end like any actual earth process. The death of finite being may be only finite death. Finite death is a history, and there was not any other death from the beginning of human history. Death as history, real earth history of every person, knocks in every consciousness but everybody has a right not to note this knock. One may refine everybody and everybody has the right to refine. Let it be. But everybody must start its way and must finish it. One may dream for eternal becoming, and only eternal becoming needn't any end. Re[t]ain this eternity for somebody in heaven.

Any kind of relations to this fundamental last event in personal life remain only relations "to" or "towards," and divine thinkers never look closely at this event itself, no matter what kind of interpretation you may prefer since this would be the interpretation of various relations whether to your own death or to the death of somebody else. XX century has created the world of human beings where there are a variety of relations to human death or, contrarily, relations of death itself to human beings are basic intentions of both the human being and the death. Perhaps such death helps to build and to understand something, the death that belongs to nature similar to [how] death helps Nazis and Communists to rebuild the social life of their nations. The cultural death to which the man always is "to" or "towards" has no differences with natural death. In each case the death is like a murder, and it does not matter who kills the human being. One may relate in some or other way to the fact of death, but death itself remains for man as an alien death or, precisely speaking, as another's death. To be sure, natural death is the great universal instrument of the human being and one may build any being at any time - nobody can contest this holy right. Now the century quits the earth stage and what is reserved for us? The same natural death?

The crucial point for last century is as follows - the natural death that helps us to recreate everything in the earth world emerges finally on our way. I don't mean the personal death, but first of all, the social death of our new and happy worlds--and only then somebody can think over the personal death itself. Truly speaking, one cannot divide these processes. Actual finite being reveals for us its earth sense. We never find any sense of human death because we always remain as murdered persons. The sense of such death always belongs to murderers, and we should search the sense of a murder, not the death. Certainly, one may ask oneself "why should I die?" but I am sure, nobody knows why should I be killed. Any kind of relations to the fact of a murder may be offered to one's consciousness and finally, - the same question, the same answer, the same nonsense.

That is so funny, how human thought plays with human death. I am a human being and like to play too. Why not? Let's take apart such play with words and with our death. We can't solve this puzzle because from the beginning we follow the wrong way, and the solution is not the realm of logic or language cunning. Not only god and gods are dead, but the death of the lonely man, or in other words, person and so on, in the shadow of any Unity (metaphysics, cultures) is dead too. We play with death that is dead now. Only for murder may human death be an instant event, but for the real earth man the human death may be only the history, the real earth history. Man is not born as mortal being but he becomes a mortal one. Human death is human earth history that absolutely belongs to man, and only as earth history it belongs to man itself, and only in a such way can he realize its own death. Only now I can answer the question why should I die. If I shouldn't to die, should I live? We absolutely forget that we are hostages of eternity not only when we seek for something beyond the universal, but we are always the hostage of eternity when we forget our own death. The man must die to remain a real earth being, and he can die because its death belongs to him here, on the earth. Human death is earth history like human life. We must remember now--and I want to emphasize - we don't find such death somewhere in history and it isn't the matter where we can find such death. It is important for us that we resolve the problem of our modern history, it is important that such death is my own choice to stand in itself and to allow others to begin [their] own history.

Our notion of death remains still in the realm of Christian culture. God was dead long ago but we still look at our death as if it belongs to somebody else. Natural death, being-towards-death… what else? We don't believe in our earth death because we remain slaves of eternity. And we create eternally ideas as if we never could die, as if it is absolutely impossible for us to die. Then how can we live? How can we come to an end? How can we seek for truth if we can't keep our ground? How we can create something new? Any creation comes to an end only when it enters its own non-being when it becomes the history of death; only then any creation becomes a real human deed.


7.

First of all we must refine our own image of a human being to refine the images of both life and death. That refining is not rebirth of old values or creation of something new. And we can resolve such a problem only acting as Homo mortem. So, we must remain ourselves. The ruined history helps us [be] aware of some truth, but it helps only those who want to be sincere and really want to act in the new history. It is very easy to think over the death and there is the good place for such speculations - I am sure that Russian kitchen will replace the cathedrals and other miracles of Russian culture. The soul and consciousness of Russian people exist in the Russian kitchen. The grief and sorrow concerning one's death emerge at the kitchen. Let's greet the Russian kitchen! Pure western people come to Russian museums and universities and they never get to know where is the nerve of Russian culture. I would like to act in some or other way beyond Russian kitchen. The ruined history is not the history where there are only grief and sorrow or the mad stream of new life. I mustn't leave this mad stream for any purpose like I'll leave this earth word some day. I cannot leave the presence. I am a common man like many others...

We enter the world of non-being. The non-being of Homo mortem is not only given for us but we actually exist, act, deed in the history of non-being. We have created all possible miracles, yet we needn't create another miracles for that purpose. The human being is the human being only. We have one life and one death; we really create one earth being and one possible understanding of this being and nothing more. I may be late.

We enter the world of non-being. What does it mean for us "to enter the world of non-being"? What does it mean for me "to enter the world of my non-being"? The crushing stream of russian history helps me and at the same time it crushes others. When I was godman or, in other words, the habitant of the common cultural realm, I could explain everybody--how they must live and understand each other or something else. But now I wouldn't like to run the risk of being spoken about as a witty and insightful human being, I wouldn't like to offend people and turn them into some unreal being. The huge universe of human relations allows me to remain as a sincere man and to reveal the huge universe of my inner world to those people, which would like to accept it. There are not any griefs and sorrows for me now because I must to be in time for my existence. I must enter non-being to stay in itself, to stay in my earth universe and keep my world till I finish my earth way. So as my inner world is not the earth eternity for the coming future, I cannot avoid keeping it, first of all, for myself. This world is only the human world and it demands my own assistance to exist among earth beings. I think everybody admits such a position, no matter whether they are aware of this one or not. People are not aware of its acts but, as Marx said, they act in spite of their unawareness. As to me, I have made my choice, I only get to know that I am aware this entrance. Nothing more. I try to look closely at my non-being and reveal that this entrance may be more important than one may think and maybe it is important for someone to enter together, or precisely speaking, to be aware that we have entered the world of our non-being. Only now history may come to an end - my history can do this too. To keep one's world is to allow it to finish all its fundamental possibilities.

8.

My owl of Minerva flies in the twilight of my earth way. I always thought that my death would be something solemn and [of] interest, but really it happened as a prosaic event, and as people don't note the death of somebody at once and must get accustomed to the "dead" body of relatives or friends, so I don't get accustomed to my own death at once. When I wrote the book The Gospel from Godman. Posthumously. Personally. I fully understood that I was dead. I got the possibility to speak clearly, to listen attentively to each person. Our century looks at death as if death is the way to another world - it is not the matter how we understand that other world, and for many people of our millennium death itself remains as the door to another order. I would like to follow my own earth way - to die with my own brain and hands or, in other words, to create the history of my own non-being, my death and to try look at the human world when I follow my own way as a dead person yet. And as a dead man I can sincerely speak to others and I can reveal my own world for others.

People don't know their death yet. The image of human death remains intact. Instead of the eternal question "Who is right?" I should seek for the death of my own realm. Only then, when I come to contradictions, to deadlock of my own understanding, I can be sure that I am right, because my point of view vanishes like I'll vanish finally (but only after my earth way, after my Christian death). The scheme of my earth way is revealed only to me and nobody can penetrate my inner word. One may interpret it in some or other way, but nobody can borrow or steal my realm, my generation and my epoch. All text that I leave for others is only a reflection of my earth way.

Cultural development becomes a play on the cemetery long ago. No sooner than the epoch dies than newly born prophets immediately appear, sunk its skilled hands in a cooling cadaver of history and find there - you would never believe that - a multitude of eternal youth's recipes for the future generation. The death of god gave way to the death of man (if you prefer - the death of communism, language and so on). Everybody knows that the new world starts development when the old one is dead. But there will not be any development without the death of any development, so we always deal with processes. Any god will die regardless our eager interest in such great theater.

We know only the man, which exists only in our consciousness. Let it be. Maybe only such an image allows us to understand itself. Let it be. I agree to adopt any point of view now and as our modern history teaches us, any point of view can exist as any nation, school of thought, culture and so on. Let it be. But when we begin a new historic epoch or human life, we must remember that we can't keep our ground. The being is only being. But we say now about man: Only the man can keep both being and non-being and only in such way can he come true. Death allows man to keep itself and this history of human death can develop only when man destroys himself.

Eternity perishes us. We would like to seek for the eternal beauty of our divine consciousness as if we don't want to say something useful to our children. We still think that the death of god or the death of any old historic world is the death of god personally or the death of representatives of old generations. Then the murder is very comfortable to rebirth new values and goals!

We mustn't now seek for new words or theories on the threshold of a new century. I think we are tired from new words. We mustn't struggle with the old world - we must understand its own history of earth death and understand how we can start our way [to] the future, understand the history of our becoming, and understand that we can't start without the death of the old culture or, precisely speaking, our new history can start only when starts the history of the old word's death. The Old World can die with its own efforts as we will die, or in other way, as eternal beings, we can't re[t]ain any culture for our children.

We mustn't now seek for new theories, and as to me, I must think over the death of my own theory, of my own point of view like my own personal death. That is only my own deed: otherwise I never can say something.

We always seek for the end of something and the right-put-to-an-end belongs to human beings and people very proud of their ability put to an end to something. Murder is really a very easy act for anybody. I can't find any differences between murder of a person and murder of a cultural tradition. In any case you remain a mad godman. You still think that this deed helps you to become a new person of s new history, and many children from culture play with the death of traditions. Traditions can die without your help; in other case, they couldn't be the real human tradition. Human traditions like human history differs from the divine scheme. They can die to become a real tradition.

We should agree that nobody is surprised looking at any new system of thought. So, it is not the matter what way of thought we choose, and as a matter of fact, history has invented everything for human usage. Only a shy thinker can continue to seek for answers on common questions in the past, and when he succeeds he starts to teach the future generation as if the future will not be able to decide everything and start to teach its own future.

"To die" means for us the common sense of the earth way. We must create not only a new step in any fields of knowledge or in any direction of human life but to stay in our creation, in itself, ruining at the same time any other human possibilities, and only then we will be able to expose some real one. I wouldn't like to say something unusual for initiated prophets. All I can say is very familiar to everybody, and all I want is to hear from others the same.

Earth being of death or earth human non-being will allow us to avoid murder as the universal instrument of the human world.

Death is said to be the simplest thing, but not for those which must realize the history of death as life is not the simplest thing and one must realize it.
No matter how I could reveal for itself this great truth. Ask every person and [we] all of us know that. The more people know about truth the better truth is. Such great truth may exist on the peaks of human history only, for common people this is a simple thing and one mustn't even think over this problem. But habitants of the peaks need to teach everybody and cry from the heaven of divine order.

You may enter the new world as a mortal being. And only as a mortal being you can make the first steps, and only as a mortal being who can become mortal you can understand yourself. Who doesn't know such great truth? Don't trouble, people often start the struggle for the new order of human being but often come to an end with such "gospels" for human beings.

The future belongs to Homo mortem. The ethics for the new millennium may be only a new approach to the understanding of earth human death. The world has been altered now. Not only the old humanism is dead, but the death of the lonely man in the shadow of Unity is dead too. If I shouldn't die, should I live? Right-to-death belongs not only to ill human being but also to every earth person now. We can't build the New World among many nations, states and religions if we forget how we can die. Without death we fail to understand each other. The future belongs to Homo mortem yet.

Oh, what a beautiful speech for godman! Truly speaking, the future always belongs to Homo mortem as the past always belongs [to him]. One may find here something new to offer to somebody at the cultural market. Only the present exists for us, for Homo mortem too. Mortal eternity - earth people make only the first steps to the understanding of their dearth, the place of death in world history and in the history of every person. Earth being of human death is really a non-being of a murder, of ruthless revolutions, of terrorism.

This is only my decision, or, truly speaking, the decision of my generation entering a new stage of Russian history. If I would be the representative of the modern cultural realm, I rush into other continents and nations and offer to rebuild the world or realm of culture. And I am afraid very much that such a mortal being can start its way on the peaks of human history. Let's study the science of death; let's kill those which don't study this science. Moreover, other religions aren't dead yet and nobody can say when and in what way they will die. We only start to think over the way in the third millennium. And our first task is to complete our way.

9.

After being as godman

I wouldn't like to appeal to cultured world, or, in other words, to the history of men and women. There always exists only the family. Real family is earth non-being of love. Only family knows the answers. They know how to follow the history of the earth world. The necessity of death still rules the human world and will rule till we encounter the simple problem - how can we live in the present, not in the future or past? Families - earth's multitude of human beings demands both the starting point and finish. They have only one future - their children, their actual present. Only lonely men and women can cry out in the future and in the past "Give us eternity, give us eternity!!" (for what?!) and only families know how to follow silently [their] earth way in the eternal present. When the great history tried to conquer the peaks it got into the family where human history really contemplates, emerges and starts its way into heaven. It is family, which saves the world and opens the door to and for other worlds. I don't know what the future will remember, deed, dream but there will not be any new heaven for us. In any case, I hope on such a miraculous way of history.