Will is not will anyway. Femme fatale

Chapter 12. Polymundia or "what will, what bondage - all the same ..."

Many of them, before they entered into a pact with Chaos, were human. Now they have become ugly both mentally and physically ...

Michael Moorcock. Lord of the Storms.

Ideology is always in a state of more or less acute confrontation with science.

One of the cornerstones of the classical liberal doctrine: "the existence of higher truths of reason, accessible to the efforts of the individual's thought, which should play the role of guidelines in the choice between good and evil, order and anarchy."(Chapter "Liberalism" in the political science dictionary). European science was based on this principle, which became a powerful productive force, incredibly accelerated progress, contributing to the victory of liberalism and its spread across the planet. The grateful heirs have rethought their ideological heritage exactly the opposite.

The dramatic nature of von Hayek's final work "Pernicious Arrogance" is in tough opposition, on the one hand, to tradition ( "the habit of following the rules of conduct", "principles, institutions and practices conditioned by traditional morality and capitalism") and, on the other hand, "constructivist rationalism" from which socialism, hated by the author, is derived.

“Man has become a thinking being thanks to the assimilation of traditions - that is, what lies between reason and instinct. These traditions, in turn, originate not from the ability to rationally interpret the observed facts, but from the usual ways of reacting ... - by creating a market order - are definitely not consistent with rationalistic requirements ... We will be able to more clearly imagine the situation ..., assuming that our traditional institutions are really not understandable ... "

The famous economist is not without internal struggle, but nevertheless decided on recognition, which I especially recommend to respected opponents - to all those who disagree with the interpretation of neoliberalism as a religious doctrine.

"In English and even German, there is no perfectly suitable word that could accurately reflect the specifics of the extended order or how far the way it functions from the requirements of rationalists. The only suitable word "transcendental" has been so overused that I hesitate to use it. Literally, however, it really means something that goes far beyond our understanding, desires or intentions and our sensory perception ... This is especially striking when the word is used in a religious sense, as can be seen from the Lord's Prayer, which says: "Yes your will (that is, not mine) will be done on earth, as in heaven, "or from the Gospel, where the following statement occurs:" You did not choose me, but I chose you and set you up so that you would go and bear fruit and that this fruit of yours remained "(John 15:26)"(emphasis added by von Hayek).

On the other hand, what is "Pernicious Arrogance"? "The influence of rationalism was really so deep and pervasive that, in principle, the smarter educated person, it is all the more likely that he (or she) shares not only rationalistic, but also socialist views ... People of intellectual professions for the most part are socialists ... " I emphasize: "socialist"- not necessarily a supporter of Mao or Fidel Castro. "Socialist agitation" von Hayek finds in Albert Einstein and Gordon Child, the greatest archaeologist of the twentieth century, who significantly changed our understanding of evolution human society precisely from an economic standpoint.

The last thing I would like is for my own comments on von Hayek to sound dismissive. I am in no way trying to equate to the exhibits of the liberal freak show (A. Adamsky, B. Paramonov, etc.) the venerable Austrian professor, in whom, in addition to ideology, we will find quite deep, well-grounded and, I beg your pardon, rational conclusions: for example, about how the planned and spontaneous in the activities of people correlate; about competition between human communities, about "cultural evolution" is. So the epigraph from Moorcock does not fit him. But since the subject of this research is still ideology, we are primarily interested in this component.

And here it is surprising how accurately, sometimes almost literally, von Hayek reproduces another, much earlier author - the famous critic of the Enlightenment and the Great French revolution Edmund Burke. "Prejudices are useful, they are concentrated eternal truths and good, they help the hesitant to make a decision, make human virtues a habit, and not a series of unrelated actions ", - Burke wrote in 1790, defending the foundations of the monarchy, aristocracy and state church from "cliques" of "theorists" and "professors", which "give great value to their rational projects, without respecting the modern state structure."

"All attractive illusions that made power magnanimous, obedience to voluntary, gave harmony to various shades of life, inspired feelings that adorn and soften privacy, - they all disappeared from the irresistible light of reason. All the veils that adorn life have been brutally torn off; forever abandoned all the lofty ideas borrowed from the storehouse of morality that possessed hearts and were designed to hide human failings. They were declared funny, absurd and old-fashioned. "

Burke-1790: "People doomed to drag out a heavy working life, monstrously deceive, instilling in them false ideas and vain hopes, making real inequality even more bitter, because it is impossible to get rid of it. " Hayek-1988: " Requirements for these(market - I.S.) the processes were fair or had other moral qualities, nourishes naive anthropomorphism ... In such a system, the successes of some are paid for by the failures of others who made no less sincere and even worthy efforts: the reward is by no means given for merits ... I do not think that it has received wide circulation the concept of "social justice" describes some possible state of affairs, or at least makes sense at all. "

In his anti-revolutionary pamphlet, Reflections on the Revolution in France, Edmund Burke defends property. In her inviolability he sees "law of nature" and at the same time "moral lesson" ... Violation of the laws of nature and morality threatens "the greatest evil"... Wed Hayek: " moral norms (including, in particular, our institutions of property, freedom and justice) are a certain additional gift that cultural evolution has endowed man with " The difference is that Burke is referring to the feudal property of princes of blood and archbishops, which is encroached upon by the liberal bourgeoisie.

"The wind blows to the south, and moves to the north ... "

It was easy and natural for the liberal of that time to appeal to reason, speaking on behalf of the third estate against the privileges of the degenerated aristocracy and church feudal lords, who themselves did not believe in God or in devil, but instilled ignorance and prejudice among the people in order to more accurately keep them in obedience. There really could be no rational justification for such privileges - only references to "transcendental tradition" beyond the reach of the mind.

Today, the place of the princes of the blood has been taken by financial oligarchs, and the episcopal chairs - by the media and show business. The right of Soros or the Cherny brothers to export the savings of hundreds of thousands of honest workers to "offshore" is just as provable as the right of Marie Antoinette to lose France at cards. And the liberal of the late twentieth century, willy-nilly, is forced to borrow their specific argumentation from the worst opponents of liberalism.

All repeats. Closing the circle, the tail bites too smart head. "Monarchy as a Delegation of the Divine Will" from the followers of the very church that once paid with thousands of lives for the proud refusal to participate in the imperial cult. Respectful references of the theorists of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation to Ivan Ilyin and Solonevich. Militant anti-intellectualism among liberals ...

The irritation against "clever men" is the stronger, the more noticeable the contradictions of dogmas with life and among themselves.

If you are really against the death penalty, then why are you killing the Yugoslavs? if everyone is obliged to pay taxes, then what is "offshore"? Why do you register votes of no confidence in scientific knowledge in articles and monographs (and not in shamanic dances) and sign them with academic degrees? Etc. etc.

Before the owners " open society"The same problem arises that once before their predecessors from the Central Committee of the CPSU. Specific scientists are necessary to solve specific problems, but science as such is incompatible with ideology, and social disciplines are simply destructive. Hence: the orientation towards" narrow specialization. " a scientist is one who knows everything about the 16th chromosome, has heard about the 15th, and vaguely remembers that Shakespeare is Baz Luhrmann's assistant.

Hence the persistent "reforms" of scientific methodology. I emphasize: not the "editing" of individual fragments: "such and such a king should be praised, but do not mention that one at all!"

Here it is necessary to stipulate that science is not a collector of information, but a system of knowledge. As Alexander Tarasov rightly noted, "capitalism is trying to replace the category of knowledge with the category of information. Meanwhile, this is not the same thing. Scientists, artists and society in general own knowledge, while information can also be owned by a private owner as a commodity (a bureaucrat, for example, traditionally owns it as a commodity information). False knowledge, as you know, is not knowledge at all. And false information can be no less valuable than true. " The knowledge system is based on certain rules, which are just called the boring word "methodology". What distinguishes an amateur from a professional is not that one knows less, and the other more, but that the former does not know the methodology. Therefore, it is easier for him to discover new "physical phenomena" (like "telekinesis") on the basis of testimony, "Slavic writing" under King Minos, etc. Naturally, the methodologies of different scientific disciplines differ significantly (since the subject and methods of its research differ). But if we take the basic principles of research work, as they are set forth, for example, from the medievalist V.B. Kobrin (in the article "Where did we crush the butterfly?" And in the final chapter of the book "Who are you dangerous, historian?"), Then both a biologist and a physicist will gladly subscribe to many statements. This is exactly what distinguishes science as a whole as "the sphere of human activity" from ideology. Moreover, I will take the liberty of affirming that on the same methodological principles should be built and theater review, and a forensic essay ... And why, in fact, is such a review needed, in which the assessment of the performance is known in advance to the author - or is prescribed to him by the editor? What justice can be promoted by a judicial essay according to the method of S. Dorenko (Chapter 4)?

In real science, methodology is inseparable from ethics. It's not a compliment. This is just a production necessity. The expression "honest scientist" is tautological, since "dishonest scientist", that is, a forger, not a scientist at all: "a bad person is not able to serve the truth unselfishly"

"Only science seeks pure truth, - wrote Ernst Renan, - Only she provides accurate evidence of the truth and is strictly critical of the methods of persuasion ".

In the 90s, I can note three attempts on science. The first two concerned only social disciplines and left a mark quite comparable to the achievements of the 1948 VASKhNIL session in biology. The third disease from the very beginning took on a generalized character.

1. "Culturological approach" we have already analyzed in detail in Chapter 7.

2. The "civilizational approach" requires a special discussion. He approached history and sociology under the flag of fighting the "formational approach", which meant the annoying Stalinist (not Marxian) "five-member", the one that obliged society to develop from a primitive communal system to slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism ... Unfortunately , the proposed instead turned out to be not better, but worse. And the fact that the advocates of the "civilizational approach" are still unable to define what "civilization" is - A. Tarasov counted 42 (forty-two!) Competitive definitions - this is not so bad. In the end, there was a lot of confusion with the formations. The main problem is that the "formational approach" had a scientific basis, albeit distorted by ideology, excessively concretized and schematized. As the productive forces grow (and this, in turn, correlates with the assimilation of more energy from the environment - an objective natural science criterion), society goes through certain stages of development. Further, one can argue about the definition of specific stages, about the role of the subjective "human factor" in accelerating or slowing down this process, and so on. But the question was posed in a completely different way. In order not to tire the reader with 42 definitions, I will refer to A.Ya. Gurevich - for a lecture in which he outlines the essence of various cognitive models presented in post-Soviet historiography. Gurevich has the word " civilizational " has a synonym - "relativistic". "... Each community (culture, civilization) is a unique structure, a unique phenomenon. According to the relativistic point of view, it is inappropriate to ask which of these structures is better or worse, more progressive or more reactionary. They are different. And each of them, apparently, is a kind of integrity that satisfies some fundamental requirements of people who live (or have lived) within this integrity. general view, an approach to history, which we have recently began to call "civilizational"

Thus, first, progress as such is "canceled"; secondly, the unity of the human race and the civilization it creates, which is divided into a great multitude (42 and more, as many as it pleases) immiscible streams; thirdly, any historical regularities, that is, history ceases to be a science, but turns into a shop of antiquities - not a museum where exhibits are systematized, but a shop. Or a collection of anecdotes. And if by definition we are not able to understand and evaluate other "civilizations", then what is the point in studying Ancient Greece or Japan of the Tokugawa era? And his native Russia 500 years ago? Only idle curiosity.

One collects beer labels, another day and night "is cut" into computer "shooters", the third is studying the feudal war of the 15th century. The listed activities are equivalent. "It is wrong to ask which is better or worse."

Same "it is wrong to ask which is more progressive"- human sacrifice or their prohibition; slave trade or liberation of slaves; Nazi Third Reich or Roosevelt's New Deal. They are neither better nor worse, but simply "various", there is no general evaluation criterion and cannot be.

"Civilizational Approach" collapses historiography many centuries ago - as if chemists were moved from modern institutions to the laboratory of Paracelsus.

On the ethical side, long before the current campaign, an exhaustive description of "relativism" gave V.B. Kobrin. "This position, in my opinion, contradicts the very essence of history ... Probably, our human dignity and moral sense would be offended if we knew that in four centuries the historian will only try to "understand" the Hitlerites, without condemning their crimes. So do we have the right to deny justice to those who lived and suffered four centuries before us? ""A historian has no right to be indifferent to people of the past. He cannot but feel sympathy for them. If he is indifferent to their joys and troubles, to their successes and sufferings, then, of course, if he has intelligence and hard work, he will be able to write many useful and even valuable research on specific issues, but will never be able to solve large, cardinal problems ... Often we can condemn actions, but not those who committed them, understanding the conditioning of certain actions that are unattractive to us by the peculiarities of time and upbringing. not to justify, under the pretext of expediency or general cruelty of the century, extrajudicial killings, mass executions, aggressive wars, treason and betrayal. Otherwise, we will cease to be human ... By banishing morality from history, we inevitably expel it from modernity. "

In my opinion, the judgments of our remarkable medievalist are not only of intra-workshop interest, but affect everyone who is engaged in the study of human society, ancient or modern: economics, legal relations, art. Of course, personal opinion, even the most authoritative one, is just an opinion. Everyone has the right to have something different. But then it should have been formulated honestly. After all "relativism"- not just a fashionable innovation or some improvement in research methods. This is a cardinal break with the entire humanistic tradition in science (and more broadly - with " cultural opposition " Soviet times), delimitation in precisely those issues that were fundamental not only for V.B. Kobrin, but also for S. B. Veselovsky or A.A. Zimin. In the dispute with S. B. Veselovsky with Stalinist ideologists "relativists" turn out to be on the side of the latter.

Immorality "civilizational approach" is also manifested in the fact that it constitutes a ready-made theoretical platform for nationalism and racism. The emotional aphorism of Rudyard Kipling " West is West, East is East, and they will not leave their place ... " long before Of the Last Judgment gets a kind of scientific justification. I emphasize: if there were objective data confirming the natural inequality between peoples or the organic "incompatibility" of different cultural traditions, they should be considered seriously regardless of possible political conclusions. But the fact of the matter is that the experience of history speaks of something completely different. Non-believers, foreigners, "yellow", "black", joining the "non-existent" progress, are able to do everything that quite recently (on a historical scale) was considered the prerogative of a white Christian man (and if you look a little deeper, then a white Christian noble origin). Thousands of pages were written in due time with justifications of German Nazism or Japanese militarism through a special "mentality" to which these peoples were supposedly doomed from birth. Some authors saw it as a gift from the gods, others as a congenital deformity. But only a few years have passed since 1945 - and where is this "mentality"? How is the special "Nordic character" of a German manifested in comparison, for example, with a Belgian or Dane? Of course, understanding cultures requires a lot of effort. But there is no law that would prohibit it. Three "civilizations" (Chinese-Confucians, Hindus and Muslims) live and work peacefully in Singapore, and one is self-destructing in Rwanda.

When Edward Radzinsky writes about Stalin that "as befits an Asian, he was in everything - a slave before a master" or LDPR deputy Alexei Mitrofanov justifies Saddam Hussein by saying that "in the East, the leader must be tough"- this is the "civilizational approach" in pure form... Only science has nothing to do with it.

3. The so-called "postmodernism". "The so-called" - because if in the two previous cases it is at least approximately clear what the speech is about, then here it remains to make a helpless gesture. After reading hundreds of books and articles, I still could not figure out what it is with the letter "p" and on what basis it is not clear what is being built in "main stream modern philosophy, arts and sciences ".

My favorite dictionary of cultural studies says the following:

"In political culture, P. means the development of various forms of post-utopian political thought. In philosophy, the triumph of post-metaphysics, post-rationalism, and post-empiricism. In ethics, post-humanism of the post-Puritan world, moral ambivalence of the individual. Representatives of the exact sciences interpret P. as a style of post-nonclassical scientific thinking. . "

That is, to all scientific terms, famous author"definitions", the prefix is ​​added mechanically "fast", which turns into an inarticulate interjection, like the word "pancake" and other, coarser word-bundles in the lexicon of postpersonalities, pouring a regular bottle.

School textbook " Modern world"(an approximate analogue of the old" Social Science ") refers" P. "for some reason to the section of architecture.

"Postmodernism is present in all forms contemporary art, but it manifested itself most vividly in architecture ... Architectural forms of past centuries and the beginning of our century are deliberately contrasted in Poland with elements of functionalism. This accentuated eclecticism is elevated to a creative principle ... ".

Since when did eclecticism become " creative principle" and direction, all the more new? VDNKh - what a masterpiece " postmodernism "?

The article by Mikhail Epstein is called "The origins and meaning of Russian P." Turns out, "communism is postmodernism with a modernist face ..." and since "in the Russian civilization there is an intention of self-erasure, self-destruction, transformation into conventional signs -" traces ", representing an endless delay or absence of its signified ...", Russia turned out to be the most P. country - "ahead of the West precisely in this postmodern quality." Hello from "civilizational approach". AND "a new crop of Russian culture has risen, which is fully ripe and is being reaped right now - a postmodern culture."

It is a pity that the fruits of such a rich harvest were not named. However, it is to blame. On page 179 one particular writer appears - D. Galkovsky, "who understands a lot about poetics." He gifted Russian culture of the 90s. "novel-treatise" "Endless impasse"... Isn't this the same treatise where 1937 is declared "the happiest in the last hundred years of Russian history ... Pigs fell into the abyss"? Epstein's choice is symptomatic (in terms of "moral ambivalence"), but one example, even such a striking one, is not enough. By the way, the cultural dictionary also says about "flourishing of artistic practice P."- and generally without a single confirmation. In private conversations, journalists who insist that "P" does exist, most often refer to Umberto Eco's novel "The Name of the Rose". The work is truly unconventional, since it combines two genres: detective and historical novel... But what does it have to do with " communism with a modernist face " and other scientific nonsense? The Strugatsky brothers also combined two genres - a detective story with a fantasy novel ("A Beetle in an Anthill"), and Mikhail Bulgakov in "The Master and Margarita" - as many as three.

G.S. Knabe: "The tendencies that are usually denoted by the name of postmodernism with its absolutization of personal independence and denial of everything that recreates collective ties and unites people, including the rationality of the logic of provable truth, that is, science in the proper, literal sense of the word ..."

It is clear that this can only be psychiatric clinic: there "denial of everything that unites people" called autism (although "absolutization of personal independence" echoes some of the infallible truths already known to us from other chapters).

To break through to at least some kind of understanding, let's take a source that is both a monument "n" of literature, and a theoretical work designed to explain what it is. The work of Boris Paramonov is called "P. The End of Style", and the author himself is a columnist for Radio Liberty of the US Congress. For this very composition, Paramonov received the Zvezda magazine prize.

"Democracy is postmodernism. In turn, democracy is a special, well-defined type of culture, taken already in the broadest sense of the term - as a way of life, as a style. Democracy as a cultural style is a lack of style, by no means even not eclectic of the Alexandrian type. The style is opposite and contraindicated in democracy. "

(So ​​all the same: there is " style" or not?)

In addition: 1. "P" "has a political dimension"; 2. "flora and fauna give a lesson in postmodernism"; 3. "Pushkin is a postmodernist"; 4. "extremely postmodern Francis of Assisi"; 5. "n" - "The rehabilitation of dens. And the main thing is the cleared up consciousness that there are no dens at all."

Here are some more profound thoughts of Mr. Paramonov:

“What do (postmodernists) have in common with sophists, Alexandrian eclectics, medieval buffoons, romantics of the 19th century, Pushkin, Timur Kibirov? called "The Jew Pushkin", but so far only wrote about Woody Allen. "

"This fascism, of course, is purely aesthetic, like that of Leni Riefenstahl, but after all, the latter served Hitler and no one else. Or rather, Leni Riefenstahl and Hitler are of the same breed, artistic. Fortunately (unfortunately?) For Paglia, in America Hitler is not and never will be, and until the end of her days she is doomed to throw pearls in front of pigs. "

(Note the specific democratism of this gentleman who feeds on the very American taxpayers whom he calls "pigs").

"Stalin destroyed the (constructivist) style of early Bolshevism, replaced it with the eclecticism of socialist realism - and thereby marked the prospect of freedom ... In hindsight and hindsight, it is clear that this was where the new Russian freedom began: when the brigade commanders were renamed colonels, and the people were named Yakir, Uborevich, Gamarnik, Kork, Vatsetis, Putna were replaced in the army by people named Vatutin and Konev, Vakhromeev and Yazov. "

Holding back my nausea, I turn to purely academic conclusions. The burden of proving a hypothesis falls on those who put it forward. No one is obliged to refute unsubstantiated statements. If the "postmodern specialists" are unable to explain what it is, then the subject of their studies is of the same kind as "the basic economic law of socialism"(which also made money, awards and titles). No " mainstream of modern philosophy, art and science " the letter "p" does not exist in nature.

What is there? Frank, blatant verbiage as an alternative to the supposedly outdated "positivist" science. End point of the crusade against reason proclaimed by liberal ideologues:

"P. mentality bears the stamp of disappointment in the ideals and values ​​of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment with their belief in progress, the triumph of reason ..."(Culturology. XX century.)

"P. is a state of culture that replaces the New Time and throws into the past a "modern" project, which was based on the values ​​of realistic knowledge, individual self-awareness and rational action, relying on own strength conscious self-organization of mankind "(M. Epstein)

Since the imposed dogmas have no convincing justification - neither from a rational nor a moral point of view - it is beneficial to pretend that reason and morality do not exist at all.

Academician V. L. Yanin is equal to Boris Paramonov: both write texts consisting of letters.

BUT "our 'adversarial theory of justice' never asks what the truth is."

What is true, what is not true ... what is good, what is evil ... what will, what bondage is all the same.

It was these words that were mechanically repeated by the heroine of the film-fairy tale by Alexander Rowe, being under the influence of evil spells. Only respected scientists are bewitched if they weakly agree to the role prepared for them (for example, historians will tell fables about ancient emperors at night, freely competing in the matter of amusement with the masters of the "new shamaturgy" and artistic exhibitionism). They bow to the feet of international patrons of art for giving their money - that is, not their own, but exported from Indonesia and Thailand - not only for Lysenkoism, but also for real science. Only Lysenkoism for some reason grows more and more from year to year, and less and less science. Judging by the textbooks (see the corresponding supplement to the newspaper "First September"), this sad tendency is simply striking.

The fate of science in the 21st century was dedicated to a special "Round Table" in "Nezavisimaya Gazeta", to which both professional ideological workers ("culturologists" - "political scientists") and scientists who rebuilt their own "were invited" discourse"under the party line.

Read carefully, dear colleagues. And don't say you weren't warned; or that the problems you face in your industry are caused by someone else's personal "stupidity" or "unprofessionalism." Or other coincidences of circumstances, purely individual and not having a common cause.

M. Rat: "Most of the troubles that we have today in Russia and around the world are the product of that very scientific rationality. Or, as I would say, the unjustified expansion of science into areas where it has absolutely nothing to do ... Now I am reading a book where the correlation of modernist and postmodern ideology takes place. In chapter, dedicated to culture... It discusses the opposition between modernism and postmodernism. These are indeed all burning topics. And they need to be seriously discussed, and more than once.(really, what else to waste time on? - I.S.) Because we still have to cry with this traditional classical science and the unpredictable and uncontrollable consequences that follow from it, like the Chechen or environmental ...(in other words, it was science that inspired Dudaev to secede) ... The new concept should replace one type of scientific rationality with many different types of rationality. "(I wonder how big it is " a bunch of"? And what will happen if the very mister "deputy" in the accounting department is charged a fee in accordance with some unconventional "type of rationality"- for example, for a penny per ruble?)

V. Rozin: "As a culturologist, I draw your attention to an interesting phenomenon: we are probably burning out the last portions of scientific fuel - a reckless interest in learning about nature and the world. But maybe, in fact, we have already lost it. We are more interested now - and thank God, perhaps ! - other things."

(what kind "other things" showed up outside "nature and peace" ?!)

L. Ionin: "It, science, has led itself to a dead end ... Polymerity, or, if you like, polymundia, from my point of view, is that this polymundia will appear due to the fact that science will narrow its boundaries ..."

Host: " And where will a person turn for a panacea then? "(I pay attention to the substitution: "panacea" it is not science that trades, but completely different departments)

G. Kopylov: " In a variety of socio-cultural institutions. BUT scientific activity, as a result, perhaps, it will stop altogether, because the energy that drives scientists - the energy of the search for truth - will dry up. Vadim Markovich has already spoken about this ... As an analogy: 150 years ago, the leading form social life and understanding was religion. And what happened to her now? She lives in her place. Religious thinkers write books on how religions live in a secularized world. That is, religion is looking for its own forms of existence. And it will be the same with science. There will be their own "priests", their "temples of science", laboratories like monasteries - in a socially alien world. "

L. Ionin: "My answer to the question" Where to go? "- absolutely real case... There is a House of Culture "Meridian" in Moscow. And there was a schedule posted on the notice board: a rock group such and such performs then and such, a rock group of such and such performs then, and in the corner there is a neat piece of paper: "On Wednesdays and Thursdays at 18.00 - practical exercises on reincarnation." ... There are, after all, religious cultures and all other fundamentalisms. They are a sign new era... Recognition of their legitimacy and legitimacy is a sign of a new era. Not that they are backward, underdeveloped, but they are simply different ... "

An interesting contradiction between content and tone: it seems that Mr. "political scientist" defends the rights of religion over science, but with demonstrative disdain: "and all other fundamentalisms ..." In fact, of course, there is no contradiction. Priests, like scientists, have a place in a subcultural zoo. In the recreation center, where on Wednesdays and Thursdays "practical exercises on reincarnation."

So that they do not get confused by those who will determine the fate of mankind.

It is even more interesting that only one person (!) From the collected " Independent newspaper"Areopagus - Professor, Doctor of Technical Sciences Boris Kudrin - dared to object on the merits. Although the naked eye can see that the eloquent" polymundia " half a newspaper based on "given" that have fallen from the same fruitful ceiling.

Why has science exhausted itself? What facts confirm this - except "books where the correlation of modernist and postmodern ideology takes place"? In what exactly did scientific knowledge turn out to be untenable - and in comparison with what? Astronomy versus astrology? Or scientific medicine - with "extrasensory perception"? Or, perhaps, B. Paramonov was capable of some discoveries, to which D.S. Likhachev? What are these discoveries? That Lermontov is Jewish and Pushkin is Chinese?

The ethics of modern liberalism is being built on the same wretched model.

Popular in the liberal media literary critic Mikhail Zolotonosov formulates her "golden rule" from his, pardon the expression, specialty:

"New type of novels began to appear, not engaged either by ideology or even by traditional ethics and therefore destroying what was previously called the humanistic tradition ... Completely unbiased compositions- neither ideologically nor ethically ... that is, in the exact sense of the word, free ... The meaning of the text is contained in the text itself. My hypothesis: as we go deeper into the 21st century, there are more such works, the truth about a person will be revealed more and more straightforwardly, at first it will seem cynical, and then people will get used to it. "(emphasized by M. Zolotonosov).

Seemingly pretentious idle talk. What " unconventional ethics "? And why "humanistic tradition" in the past time - "used to be called"? And what else could there be "the meaning of the text is enclosed" if not in the text itself? In brown paper, or what?

But Zolotonosov's idle talk is very intelligible "engaged by ideology." "Freedom" and "the truth about man" they are located on the other side of good and evil.

I hope the readers have already paid attention to the fact that other characters in this book, in different voices and on different occasions, repeat, in essence, the same formula: "the market system is not characterized by any ethical principles ..."; "we will have to leave aside the question of" what is good and what is bad ";" did you make money, transported drugs? yes, God knows, I don't care ";" people by themselves do not interest anyone " etc. What an American Propaganda staff member is promoting "Hitler's artistic breed" and "new Russian freedom" in the person of Stalin, characterizes not only the employee himself and the institution for which he works. This is a natural manifestation of the general "moral ambivalence".

Some might say: the leisurely theorizing of professional chatterboxes does not pose an immediate danger. And "liberal fascism" is just a polemical metaphor.

However, the facts (of which only a small part is collected in this book) testify to something completely different: the position "beyond good and evil"- not just demagoguery; it directly determines practical policy.

Liberal is different from "a terrible Bolshevik Chekist in a leather jacket with a Mauser" the fact that "He personally does not shoot. He creates conditions for the mass death of people. Moreover, not his political opponents ... but simply the weakest, those who cannot resist ..."(Alexander Tarasov, emphasis added).

But if you really want to exercise your hands yourself, this is also not forbidden.

The aphorism of NATO representative Jamie Shea about the pilot who shot the convoy of Yugoslav refugees "with the best intentions, as befits a representative of a democratic country"will surely go down in history books someday.

While working on the chapter on drugs, I discovered a description of another interesting experience... Enthusiasts so-called. "Methadone therapy" (see Chapter 8) was administered to experimental drug addicts during pregnancy, the strongest drug methadone, and then they watched what would be born. "The effect of methadone maintenance doses on pregnancy and newborns has been extensively studied. Women who have stabilized have been shown to have a normal pregnancy with maintenance doses of methadone. However, a newborn whose mother takes maintenance doses of methadone may experience opiate withdrawal symptoms. but they are treatable ... "

Dr. Mengele's experiments continued "with the best intentions, as befits a doctor in a democratic country."... The results have been published. And they did not provoke not only a protest - even a slight bewilderment.

1. Political science. encyclopedic Dictionary... M, Publishers, 1993, p. 154.

2. Hayek F.A. Pernicious arrogance. M, News, 1992, p. 137, 116.

3. Ibid, p. 42, 125, 127.

4. Ibid, p. 93- 95.

5. Ibid, p. 105, 42.

6. Burke E. Reflections on the revolution in France. M, Rudomino, 1993, p. 86, 73.

7. Ibid, p. 80, 54.

8. Hayek F. A. Cit. op, p. 128 -129, 19.

9. Burke, p. 113 -115

10. Hayek F.A. Cit. cit., p. 93.

11. Tarasov A. Super-statism and socialism. - Free thought, 1996, no. 12, p. 94.

12. Kobrin VB Where did we squash the butterfly? - Book Review, 12/22/1989; To whom are you dangerous, historian? M, Moscow worker, 1992.

13. Ibid, p. 190.

14. Renan E. The Life of Jesus. M, Ed. political literature, 1991, p. 37.

15. If colleagues - natural scientists add to my list, I will only be glad.

16. Tarasov A. Youth as an object of a class experiment. -Free thought, 1999, No. 11, p. 40.

17. Gurevich A. Ya. Culture of the Middle Ages and the historian of the late twentieth century. - History of world culture. M, RGGU, "Open Society", 1998, p. 254.

18. Kobrin V.B. Ivan groznyj. M. Moscow worker, 1989, p. 6.

19. Kobrin V.B. To whom are you dangerous, historian ?, p. 216-218. See also: Smirnov I. Ethics of history in publicistic and popular works of V.B. Kobrin. - Problems national history and culture of the period of feudalism. Readings in memory of V. B. Kobrin. M, RGGU, 1992, p. twenty.

20. Radzinsky E. Stalin. Vagrius, 1997, p. 83.

21. TVC. Saddam Hussein's Baghdad Myths. 02/10/2000

22. Mankovskaya N.B. Postmodernism. -Culturology. XX century. Vocabulary. University book, 1997, p. 349.

23. Panteleev M.M., Savateev A.D. Modern world. M, MIROS, 1999, p. 243

24. Epstein M. The origins and meaning of Russian postmodernism. - Zvezda, 1996, no. 8, p. 176, 187, 188.

25. Knabe G.S. The basics general theory culture. - History of world culture. M, RGGU, Open Society, 1998, p. 83.

26. Paramonov B. Postmodernism. End of style. - NG, 01/26/1994.

27. Mankovskaya N.B. Cit. op, p. 348.

28. Epstein M. Cit. op, p. 187.

29. Round table of the application "NG-science" - NG, 16.02.2000.

30. Zolotonosov M. Mercy of the XXI century. - Moscow News, 2000, No. 23.

31. Tarasov A. A very modern story. Feminist as a stripper. M, Norma, 1999, p. 40.

32. Official actions of APA. Statement of Attitude for Treatment with Methadone Maintenance Doses. Cit. Quoted from: Bulletin of Asociatsii Psychiatrists of Ukraine, 1996, No. 1, p. 27.

the author Troitsky Variant Newspaper

"Intuition is still needed!" Olga Orlova Column: The Existence of Science Einstein did not believe that God plays dice. Therefore, he was skeptical about quantum mechanics, which makes it possible to derive "speculative patterns." However, it turned out that he still plays. In 2009, Alexey

From the book Newspaper Day of Literature # 77 (2003 1) the author Literature Day Newspaper

Nikolay Dorozhkin Bondage and Greatness of a Poet It was autumn 1949. It became known that we will have a new "German" in the seventh "A". The news was upsetting, because Martha was fine with us. The petite blue-eyed blonde taught the German lessons cheerfully and briskly. Our

From the book of Aristos the author Fowles John Robert

Good is equal to evil 42. Against good deeds, sometimes one more last, desperate argument is put forward: all actions, whether they are performed with good intentions or with bad intentions, over time are so cunningly intertwined that in the end what is contained in them

From the book The Fifteenth Stone of the Ryёanji Garden the author Tsvetov Vladimir Yakovlevich

The last chapter, which talks about how sweet the melon may be, its tops are still bitter to the taste The saying about the melon and its tops is the eastern equivalent of the expression about two sides of the same coin. , O

From the book Volume 10. Publicism the author Alexey Tolstoy

Russian people and German bondage Catherine II tried the landowner Saltykova for cruel treatment of serfs and sentenced her to put in a pit, behind bars, so that passers-by could see the fanatic, and who wanted to - and would spit on the shaggy gray-haired woman. Near

From the book Newspaper Tomorrow 973 (30 2012) author Tomorrow Newspaper

From the book Enemies of Putin author Danilin Pavel

We will buy everyone anyway ... This did not suit Khodorkovsky at all. Since the beginning of the 90s, the head of YUKOS has realized how profitable a good relationship with officials and how loyal deputies can be useful: “Any deputy depends primarily on his own

From the book Debt of the USSR in rubles, checks, sheepskin coats. The secret wars of the empire the author Kustov Maxim Vladimirovich

We will not get anything from them. The object of the most large-scale military-economic assistance of the Soviet Union in the 70s and 80s of the XX century was Afghanistan. And he also became a vivid manifestation of all the symptoms of the gradual degradation of the Soviet system. For almost 10 years Afghan war

From the book The War We Live In. Tales of Troubles author Lekukh Dmitry

But they still write about Spartak. One discussion here shocked me. It started on the Internet and is already slowly spilling out on TV screens - at least, their sports channels. And sucking in everything large quantity internally flawed people, deadly

From book Literary Newspaper 6460 (№ 17 2014) the author Literary Newspaper

“We will still be together” Brothers Borislav and Slobodan Milosevic 15 years have passed since NATO troops literally tore apart the Slavic state of Yugoslavia in 1999. During three months within the framework of Operation Allied Force, the alliance's aviation systematically

From the book Nationalism the author Dontsov Dmitry Ivanovich

Rozdil II Will, like the law of life. - ЇЇ Forms. - The will to rule. - The role of a lot of the moment. - Two persuasions of strong-willed nationalism On the will (not on reason), on dogma, axiom (not on telling the truth), on independent, not on derivative postulates, on unproven reasons, to think

From the book Trampled Flowers of Evil [My Theory of Literature] author Klimova Marusya

Chapter Two Style and Will Now it is finally clear: famous saying Lenin's "of all the arts for us the most important are the cinema and the circus" turned out to be exactly half true. Cinema is flourishing and has supplanted all other types of "arts", but the circus, on the contrary, does not look

From the book Conflict with the West [Lessons and Consequences] the author Tretyakov Vitaly Tovievich

Kiev will still cheat Putin's proposal to "postpone the referendum on federalization," and without specifying the date of such a postponement and the exact conditions, was unexpected and disappointed many. An explanation suggests itself - Putin backed down and refused to support the insurgent

From the book of Antidote by Ionesco Eugene

III I WOULD HAVE WRITTEN EVERYTHING I WOULD WRITE EVERYTHING EQUALLY I started writing for the theater somehow imperceptibly. I didn't even know why, but not in order to stand up for some cause or show my contemporaries the way to salvation: he could well lead them into the abyss. I most likely

What will, what bondage, - All the same

Phenomenal experience of volitional activity

Thought experiment: Deus ex machina

How important this connection between phenomenal consciousness and the social dimension is, the following thought experiment will show. Imagine that we have created a robot society. They will not have free will in the usual sense, since they are causal automata. But they will have a conscious model of themselves and other automata around them, and these models will allow them to interact with each other and control their behavior. Now imagine that we have added two more features to their internal models of ourselves: first, the mistaken belief that they (and everyone else) are responsible for their actions; and secondly, the “ideal observer” [- conscience], representing the interests of the group, such as the demands of honesty in reciprocal altruistic interactions. What will change from this? Will our robots develop new causal characteristics simply from a false belief in free will? The answer is yes; moral aggression will become possible, since a completely new level of competition will arise - competition for the best following the interests of the group, for moral merit, and the like. Now you can increase your social status accusing others of immorality or acting hypocritically. An entirely new level of business optimization will emerge. With correctly specified boundary conditions, the complexity of the created public system, although its inner integrity will remain the same. Social evolution will be able to develop at a new level.

The custom of ascribing moral responsibility - even one based on the illusionary phenomenal self-model - will create a decisive and very real functional characteristic: the behavior of each robot will be more effectively influenced by the interests of the group. The price to pay for selfishness will rise. What will happen to the experimental robot society if we then reduce the self-models of its members to the previous version - for example, by giving them the opportunity to know their true nature? ..

Arguments for free will

Here is the first of the stupidest arguments in favor of free will: "I know that I am free because I feel free!" Yes, and you also perceive a world filled with colored objects, although you know that before your eyes there is only a jumble of waves of different lengths. The fact that you are consciously experiencing a certain state in a certain way does not prove anything at all. The second argument is: “But such a thesis leads to dire consequences! Therefore, it cannot be true. " I definitely share this concern (think of the robot society in our experiment and how scientific self-knowledge might affect them). Many people in the humanities often do not know that experimental research has already proven that a decrease in faith in free will can lead to a noticeable decrease in the willingness to help others, to an increase in the desire to cheat, to a decrease in self-control, to a weakened reaction to one's mistakes, to outbursts of aggression. Even objective changes in the neural correlates of the unconscious preliminary stages of the volitional act have been experimentally proved. Self-model theory explains why this happens: the conscious, cognitive self-model is firmly attached to our unconscious self-image, and therefore a shift in the self-model can - as with psychosomatic diseases- to direct and maintain causal changes in the internal state of the body and in external behavior. So, if the uncertainty of vulgar materialism in free will spreads in society, then it can really lead to antisocial tendencies, more impulsive and unceremonious behavior, which will be increasingly ignored Negative consequences own actions. There is no doubt that there is a psychosocial danger, but the truth of a statement must be considered regardless of its psychological or political consequences. It's a matter of simple logic and intellectual honesty. However, neuroscientists also contributed to the confusion. It is curious to note that they did this precisely because they often underestimate the radical nature of their position. Here's my second thought on the matter.

Neuroscientists often talk about the "goal of action," the "motor selection process," and the "motion detection" in the brain. With all due respect to them, as a philosopher, I must say that from a conceptual point of view, this is absurd. If we take the scientific view of the world seriously, then there is no “goal” and there is no one to choose or determine the action. There is no “choice” process: in reality only dynamic self-organization takes place. This is a process without a goal and I. Moreover, the processing of information that goes on in the brain does not even obey the rules. Thinking is different from computation; it does not follow the rules of logic either. It is less consistent with our traditional notions of "sanity" than we thought in the past. Information processing in the brain is more about processing similar information structures or constant competition between internal images. There are few situations in which information processing simulates inference in the "space of causes." Ultimately, it is ruled by the laws of physics. The brain is best described as a complex system that continuously strives for a stable state, producing order out of chaos.

According to the purely physical principles of the natural sciences, nothing in the world has value or purpose: there are only physical objects and processes. This seems to be the essence of the strictly reductionist approach - and it is precisely this that cannot be made to believe in self-model beings. Of course, there may be notions of purpose in the brain of a biological organism, but ultimately - if neuroscience takes its underlying hypothesis seriously - they are irrelevant. Survival, fitness, well-being and security as such are not values ​​or goals in true sense of this word: obviously, only those organisms survived that internally represented them as goals, and also felt them as such. But the habit of talking about the "goals" of the organism or the brain makes neuroscientists forget how strong their own (not as scientists, but as beings with a self-model) predispositions really are. We see that even judicious natural scientists sometimes underestimate the radicalism of combining neuroscience with the theory of evolution. It transforms us into beings who increase our fitness by hallucinating goals. I will not claim that this is the truth, complete and final. I am only pointing out what follows from the discoveries of neuroscience, and how these discoveries contradict the self-model we are aware of. The subpersonal self-organization of the brain simply has nothing to do with our concept of "choice."

Of course, complex and flexible behavior, driven by the intrinsic image of the “target,” does exist. And no one bothers us to call this behavior "activity." But, even if we enter the activity understood in this way into the picture, from a philosophical point of view we can come to the conclusion that character there is no in the picture - there is no entity carrying out the activity. Experiments with phantom limbs helped us understand that body parts can be depicted in a phenomenal self-model, even if they do not exist or never existed.

It was to such a height that professor of Moscow State University Dugin unwittingly raised the significance of the meeting of the student circle in the Russian provinces. To the question "Well, how do you like the performance?" Bogdan Gromov was there directly and said that he liked it very much, because it "exalts all of us, it is me and humiliates everyone else." He, of course, was ironic, although, presumably, there was some seriousness in his words.

As a matter of fact, that evening the conversation generally proceeded in just such a way - it seemed to be serious, but “you understand,” it would seem sincere, but with the possibility of retreating into a safe grotto of refined, refined irony. And those outlines of worldviews that were outlined by the four students at the very beginning were not just mobile - they were conditional. Well, sort of like in a child's game: "Come on, I'm for the Russians, you are for the Germans, and then we'll change."

Children (oh!) Gushed with information, threw meanings like snowballs. A funny, hot and a little crazy discussion, however, it looked like a snow fight. Naturally, I wanted to cover my face with my hands, so as not to close up between my eyes with some extraordinary concept. And theories whistled one bolder than the other.

Yes, under Semikopov, young people, of course, would not have frolicked. He would certainly refute the questionable, ask for clarification of the vague, and in general - would structure the discussion. And the point is not even that the level of his education is higher and allows him to see the field of intellectual battle in more detail and whole (although this is certainly the case). The young people of the philosophical circle are by no means profane, each of them is well-read and educated in his own way, but ... They are children of their time. Postmodernism for them is not just a desirable point of application of the mind, it is a habitat, a form of life.

Has become the rule now good taste to subvert ideals, insult sacred objects and pretend that this is one of the variants of the norm. If you want - pray to the icon, if you want - trample it, both are equivalent in the light of the postmodern spotlights. I don’t know what kind of scraper from philosophy is promoting this worldview concept, but it dominates the young minds of our time.

And I also have the impression for a long time that the generation born in the late eighties, early nineties are unwillingly postmodernists. They grew up in such a madhouse that they developed a protective reflex - not to have anything to lose, to get rid of everything that can become a source of pain. They seem to strive to achieve that bliss in which, remember, Marya the artisan was, when she was bewitched in the Underwater Kingdom: "What will, what bondage - all one, all one."

But juggling with destructive theories, launching fireworks from actual names like Derrida and Heidegger - is this really life? As Fedosya Ivanovna said in "The Formula of Love": "To read someone else's rhymes is not great valor." I now agree, in our woman's opinion, where it is more important to find the point of application of the heart while it is hot.

It's like Vasily Matkivsky at a meeting of the circle said that any culture is alive only when there are people ready to die for it. And that's right, isn't it? Not only in relation to cultures and civilizations, but also in relation to each of us. After all, the willingness to sacrifice, and not the ability to build theories, is a pivotal quality of a person.

And then, life - it makes its own adjustments. Look how Nietzsche thought about it - he buried God, and laughed at mercy, but overstrained himself when he saw the coachman beat the horse. He hugged her, cried - and never returned to his sanity after that.

During my school years, I collected postcards with portraits of Soviet film actors.
I also had this photo:

"What will, what bondage - all the same"
Remember Marya the artisan?

Her fate was not easy.
On May 8, 1926, a daughter was born into the family of Lieutenant General of Artillery Konstantin Romanovich Myshkov.

She was given a newfangled name at that time - Ninel, which means Lenin - on the contrary.
When the girl grew up, she preferred to be called Eve.
So she introduced herself to the young actor of the Vakhtangov Theater Vladimir Etush. He found out about the real name of his future wife only at the registry office.

In 1947, immediately after graduating from the Shchukin School, Ninel Myshkova made her film debut in A. Fayntsimmer's adventure film For Those Who Are At Sea, based on the story of the same name by Boris Lavrenev.
But this debut was followed by a 4-year downtime. The actress was prevented from filming the vicissitudes of her personal life.
There were many creative intelligentsia in the Etusha's house. Composer Antonio Spadavecchia also dropped in to see them. The author of music for the same film "For those at sea", as well as for the wonderful film-fairy tale "Cinderella". Antonio was 19 years older than her, but she fell in love and left Etush for him.
But this marriage turned out to be short-lived. In 1953 Ninel Myshkova met the cameraman Konstantin Nikiforovich Petrichenko. He, too, was older than her, but by 11 years.
They immediately got married, and in 1954 their son Konstantin was born, who later became a famous diplomat.

In these years, she did not appear in films often, and mostly in fairy tales.

In 1952 - "Sadko"
1956 - "Ilya Muromets"
In 1957, Myshkova starred as Lida in the film novel by Lev Kulidzhanov and Yakov Segel "The House I Live In", after which success comes to her.

She begins to play a lot in films. One of her memorable roles is Marya the master in eponymous tale Alexandra Rowe in 1959.
On the set of the film "Hello, Gnat" Ninel Myshkova met director Viktor Illarionovich Ivchenko, who was also 14 years older than her ...
Three years later, in 1965, the director began filming the film adaptation of Alexei Tolstoy's story "The Viper" and for a long time could not find an actress for the main role. Here he remembers Ninel Myshkova.

She was already in her late forties, but she still looked beautiful. In addition, she was one of the first in the Soviet Union to undergo plastic surgery. But, unexpectedly, an old friend of Ivchenko, cameraman Alexei Prokopenko, is against Myshkova's candidacy. They have worked together for a long time, but in the conflict between Myshkova and Prokopenko, the director takes the side of the actress, and another is working as the operator in the film.
Viktor Ivchenko fell in love with Ninel without memory and honestly confessed this to his wife. Nor could his son stop him. The ex-wife was never able to forgive him for this. She didn't even show up to his funeral many years later ..
But before that, Ivchenko and Myshkova had six years of cloudless happiness. In all his subsequent films in the lead roles, he only shot her. At the same time, he literally created films for her, subtly feeling the character of the actress.

"The tenth step" - 1967.
"Falling Frost" - 1969.
"The Way to the Heart" - 1970.
In the summer of 1972, Viktor Ivchenko went to Rostov-on-Don to shoot his new picture... There he was overtaken by the fourth heart attack. Ninel urgently went to her husband. On September 7, in the hospital, he died in her arms. It was a terrible blow for Myshkova. In one day, she aged ten years. Ninel herself transported her husband's body to Kiev, organized a funeral, putting in a coffin all the letters they wrote to each other. After the funeral, she left Kiev forever.
She completely lost her taste for life and work. Then she began to appear periodically in episodic roles, but they could not be compared with her previous works.
In 1982, Ninel Myshkova in last time starred in a movie - in the role of Valentina in the detective series "Vertical Race". And then another blow. Ninel amazed terrible disease- progressive sclerosis. She stopped recognizing people, finding her bearings in life.
The son, Konstantin Petrichenko, took his mother to him and surrounded her with care. He drove her around the best specialists France, but everywhere I heard only one thing - this disease is incurable.
So she lived for another 20 years ...
On September 13, 2003 Ninel Myshkova passed away. And, as often happens, they suddenly remembered about her. The press began to write about what a wonderful actress she was, and that she could not fully realize herself ...