Prologue or the first degree
There are great tasks before us, and so we want to overturn the common beliefs, ideas and the future owes us already, because we revolted against prejudices. Least of all the feeling of reverent is peculiar to us, greatness of natural necessity does not impress us. First and last our enemy – the balance of natural order. Are there somewhere the pieces of silver for which we would had put our existence, this world we live, the bouquet of flowers the aroma of which we inhale, in depending on necessity, like Judas.
We claim this is necessary today to raise the question in its entirety about the realisation of personal immortality.
It is time to eliminate the necessity or balance of natural death. Any law is the expression only the temporary balance of some forces, is not it? But it is enough to put into operation the new forces or withdraw part of the operating forces – and this balance (harmony) will be broken.
If we will cultivate the forces the aim of which is the realisation of immortality then these forces – as if not counteract them other forces – will disturb the balance of death and will present the balance of immortality. Every life first of all seeks after the balance of immortality, is not it?
We put on the agenda «a victory over space». We say: not aeronautics, – it is not enough for us, – but cosmonautics. Our Earth should become the cosmic ship for us, – ship, which is controled by the wise will of a biocosmist. We are shocked knowing that Earth is in the perpetual motion on its orbit, like a she-goat on a leash by its herder – the Sun.
It is time to set the other path to Earth. It is time and for other planets to set the pathes. It is impossible to remain only an onlooker, but not an active player in a cosmic life.
And our third task – the resurrection of the deads.
We trouble about an immortality of a person in its entirety of mental and physical strength. The resurrection of the deads is a reconstruction in its entirety those who were in a coffin. We by no means do not fall into a bog of religion or mystics. We are very sober-minded people, and we declare war for both – religion and mystics.
Such is our biocosmizm. No doubt it is the utmost impudence. But the greatness and the impudence insult, and we already see the surd and evident hatred so as biocosmizm disparages all other ideas, ideologies. But we are optimists, not madmen. Those are madmen who want to do people free and perfect beyond biocosmizm. They are similar to Robespierre who started with a wish to make happy mankind and finished by idea to annihilate mankind. Every illusion about «a happiness in the world» beyond biocosmizm – is the most pernicious illusions, the beginning of the monstrous tyranny.
There are the greatest tasks in front of us. But we have no lenten or somber physiognomies, as monks or dictators have. We have another mentality. When we move by the paths of biocosmizm, our feelings are exceptionally simple and joyous, and we surpassed and leave behind the happiest Cyrenaica Aristippus in these feelings. Like a boy who rolls hoop we create the biocosmic. Cheerfully, with a pleased smiles upon our's faces we are realising the idea of immortality, inviting to the cemeteries and we are ready for going to the shipyards of the biocosmic ships.
We are creators. We already founded the «Crematorium of the biocosmists». For the ignorant brains the word «creatorium» sounds like a «crematorium», and they are right we think. Indeed, there are many things which we ought to burn down , may be all things. Because the biocsmizm opens the absolutely new era. Preceding history – from the first manifestations of organic life on the Earth to the deep shocks of the last days – is the same epoch. This is the epoch of death and petty affairs. Now we open the great era – the era of immortality and infinity. What is it our new aesthetics?
Our aesthetics is not a conclusion from the observation, registration and analysis the existing forms. The descriptive aesthetics, in spite of the all meanings peculiar to it, can not be in the same time the prescriptive aesthetics. Any its attempt in this direction is a baseless leaving the sphere peculiar to it, is an appropriation of rights extrinsical to it. It is impossible by way of the establishing that is to prescribe to those which are desired or may be.
Our basic conceptions of style follow from the biocosmic ideal. This is our method and scale of our evaluations. We can not accept the aesthetics of the symbolists or the futurists not only so that they are outdated and are going away to the past, but because we have our criterion. We have no wish poking our nose into philological or stylistical mouse-traps. Neither Potebnya, nor Veselovskij or Pogodin or any other do not impress us not a bit. The centre of our attention is not the historical or psychological, but teleological aesthetics. Still less, than old prejudices, the todays semi-literate theories can embarrass us.
Here is a question about the form and the content. What is more important above all? We can not say that content is all-important, and the form is nil. To think that form is all-important – hence to show an absence of elementary scientific-philosophical education. An idea is immanent to a form, but the form is not equivalent to an idea always. A form very often conflicts with an idea, and the idea does not embody into a form only. That’s not the point now. This age-old dispute is not interesting for us (about form and content) of epoch of german idealistic philosophy, – the dispute which is naively repeating today. We have totally a new axiom.
The question is not in a primacy of a form or a content, but in our attitude to a form and a content. First of all this is a proud independence of a creativity.
About our style?
Our style does not begin from the single word even if this word would be the art-specific one, but from the row of words. The center of our attention is not a single word or rows of words, nor ethimology, but syntax. And so the creation of the rows of the words is a multiplicity of the combinations of its elements.
We create no images, but organisms. The image of a word is based on the external vision, on the surface. The image is an only impression, only description, and so it is not insufficient. The images if these are not consolidated, – are not only chaos. The healthy path of creation goes from the image to the row. The forefront position of a poet – is the path of regress, is not going ahead, but back. While the row is the beginning of cosmos. We are not the creator of the images, we are the creator of the rows.
Will we really ignore the words or these are not equal for us? There are the words which are dead, and the other words, the life are pulsating in which, and we see little of words which are «ruddy». We like the healthy words and we revive the dead words. But reviving of a word does not consist in the showing of its primary image, but rather in the deft selection of prefixes and suffixes. Moreover we are interested in the guises of words, these words attract us as a words-werwolf, as a masquerade.
A word runs away from its primary content, is separating from it, masks itself.
But word, as a mask, revives in full measure in the row of the words. The more skillful rows the more expressive words. The rows decorate words, sharpen them, make elastic, multifarious. The creative will of the creator forces the word in the row to be another. The word in the row – is the form which changes the volume and the content, and the same word finds itself on the different shelves. In the row the words are playing with concrete meanings like with balls. The creation of the verbal rows – is transfiguration and resurrection of words.
Besides we are pregnant by new words.
We have a presentiment of interjections of a man who gets up of a coffin. The millions of interjections wait for us on the Mars and on the other planets. We think that biocosmic language is born out of biocosmic interjections (in the wide sense), – the language which is common of all the Earth, for all cosmos. (This is not the Esperanto, of cause; Esperanto is an idle plan, because even the language of barbarians is immeasurably more considerable than Esperanto since it is scanty). For us the properties of a verb are very important and expressive. Will we really limit themselves to infinitives like futurists? We are very definite and relevant, and it is not enough for us having only four modes. We have needs for tens and hundreds modes! It is nesessary for us – the mode of cosmos and the mode of immortality.
Our style begins with a row. The row is a straight or a curved line, which is plotted during the movement of creative spirit. But the row is not the metre yet. The metre – is an external scheme, biocosmic spirit always does not keep within this scheme. The biocosmic spirit draws up another scheme. As poets we mean the rows built on a biocosmic rhythm which is teleological, on a gesture, on an intonation, mimicry, weight, tempo and temperature. We are enemies of all given stabilization in language. We have needs in new syntax, built on the parallelism, intersection, parabolicity of the biocmic rows. We have needs in sentences created in accordance with the principles of geometry. The grammar – is a mathematics did not succeed to became a mathematic. We decided to become Lobachevsky in grammar.
We are the creators of the rows, but the rows for us are only the alive cells for the organisms are creating. Artistic organism – is our last aim. This is not only the aggregate of rows, but the living whole where some parts cooperate with another.
The word in the row besides its content and the content, which is determining by the place in the row, in the artistic organism is impregnating and blossoming by more complex one – the weight of the all artistic organism. And all the characteristic features of the row in full measure will be catched, interpreted only in the context, in the artistic organism. In it are the highest aim and the deepest content.
The death does not get tired, it makes its vile affair every second, executes living. The poet-biocosmist – are the fighter and singer in the camp of the people who rebeled against the death and dictatorship of a space. The poet-biocosmist creates his living organisms about immortality and cosmic flight, about resurrection out of the dead. How shall this be an idolater, when he must destroy all the pagan temples and altars. Does he wallow in the bog of little dealings, remain at office during the day or trade foofaraw, whereas he must make havoc in the stupid brain in order to sow in it the grains of the biocosmizm. Whether it be quiet and walk with closed eyes, whereas even his hills must be armed with the telescopes. Does he whimper and slumber dipped into melancholia, whereas the greatest creative work calls him, about which none of the creators, none of the hotheads did not dream.
We, biocosmists, are inseparable in our movement. But we, as brother-in-arms, above all come together near the greate aim.
But every of us has his personal way. In the biocosmizm, as anywhere, the creator can unroll his personal abysses. So, personally I have in view, by the way, reprinting of types, passed trough a thousand years (adaptation), particularly the types of animals. The types of animals are higher than the types of human beings. And as for divinity it was more preferable for it to appear in the image of animal, but no human. The divinity embodied in animal is higher than embodied in human, Apis is higher than Jesus. The central amidst animals – Savaof – is a cock. For good reason the last Socrat`s words were the cock. As great as a cock is a Horse, was uncovered by me in the «Gospel of Mare», which is higher than «The Gospel of John». The highest praise for human – to compare him to horse. As in the tale «Eruslan Lazarevich» there is: «Ivashko is an ash grey horse». My collection «The stallion» (1919) I devote so:
As a sign of our joint neighing,
Laugh of stupid and nasty pygmies,
These lines I squander in this crib
To you, my friend, light chestnut horse of Zikej.
The intuitive sage – Dog – is no less great:
...What Bergson? His eyes are blind –
Not a philosopher, but he simply plays the fool.
I say: learn from a Dog,
This is a first-rate great intuit.
Only for It the sack of secrets
was untied of secrets
left traces invisibly around.
Take a free lesson from Dog,
Standing on all fours, spew barking.
Or about the spat upon, humiliated, injured image of a Pig
Not is the pregnant pig the greatest miracle?
An its udder is pink and tender,
Like a cup of morning sky...
...Does not the celestial Milky cup
Like an udder really?
There and here – all the same.
And the udder is the same eternal.
Note, this is a method of double-track, and this is characteristically for biocosmic organisms. And this is from the poem (?) «Moon»:
...And only today ,
When other dough
rises on the other yeast...
That the Earth is a little and very cramped ball,
that a spirit is in the biocosmic pathes.
I note only, that here are given the rows as a planned endlessness (the lines 1 and 4). They can come to one sound and will multiply to +~.
A diversity of the rows is determined by the individual at first of all, by the resources of creator, who is possessed of the highly developed Sprachgefuhl. Our aim – to go beyond the language, but for the time present the biocosmic we are putting into practice within the bounds of language. And we now create the rows as a breakthrough into space, as a breakthrough into immortality: the rows are as the a breakthroughs of language, as a departure out of language.
In summary of prologue I note about vulgarization unfortunately, inescapable in biocismizm. The other Actors of the destinies of Art, damaged by the theorists of the proletarian art, devoid of personal honour and dignity, use our great ideas – and flutter them in every way. Indeed, for the propaganda of biocosmizm such the drummers are useful until «all are suitable in order». But... In short, in the «Creatory of biocosmists» the gate is open for everybody, and in order to be a poet-biocosmist a big and original talent is nesessary for it.
Biocosmizm  (materials, № 1).
Creatorium of biocosmists. M., 1922.
 See more «Biocosmists». № 1. March 1 1922.