![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Выдержки из бесед с ближним
[Ru]
nikpavl2002.dreamwidth.org/283.html
[Eng]
Sometimes for a person it is useful to shoot a glance from the outside at the processes that are taking place in the world around him/her, abstracting from participation in them. Someone, quite intelligent, offered people a game of survival, usurping the right to dispose of the habitat, and the distribution of goods and resources.
In a healthy society there is ongoing a process of accumulating its members’ collective experience of the existence in the habitat, with the subsequent return to each of them of knowledge, techniques and skills, formed on its basis. A person acts as a co-author and user of a common ‘knowledge base’, which optimizes the process of people's cognizing of reality, ridding its participants of the "re-discovery" of the already known.
The society develops optimal methods and forms of its existence in the habitat, without destroying the latter. That is how it should be. But we were offered a different ‘model’. The holder of the ‘society’s cumulative knowledge’ is a narrow circle of persons who usurped the right of access to it, and are dispensing it at their own discretion among the rest of the society’s members.
This circumstance hinders the society’s development. The society turned out to ‘be obsessed with’ the process of ‘survival’, although we already have the technologies and resources necessary to meet the natural needs of all the inhabitants of the Earth. But the powers that be don’t provide people with them deliberately, so that a person would be constantly engaged in the search for means of survival, being not distracted by the establishment of true causes and perpetrators of his/her misfortunes.
In the animal world and not only in it, to take for example the same ants or bees, the members of the ‘society’ exchange information, and none of them will distort it, because the very existence of an anthill or a hive depends on it. The human society would also have to regard similarly an information exchange (communication), but in reality this doesn’t happen.
The reason is trivial – the one who forms the society’s experience and determines at his/her own discretion whom and what part of it is to be given for further use, controls the very society “because,” as the philosopher Francis Bacon specifically noted, “knowledge in itself is also power,” thereby revealing its source.
That is only that in the former USSR, where there existed a multi-level system of ranking access to information of different categories of citizens depending on their place in the System, to his statement, which became the motto of the popular science and adventure magazine for teenagers "Knowledge is Power" [Power was translated into Russsian as cила – i.e. strength in Russian], the party ideologists gave another meaning: “Knowledge in itself is strength.” (Francis Bacon).
So, the Soviet people were raised from the school bench to believe that knowledge is first and foremost an instrument for solving any of the most difficult tasks of communist construction: ‘taming’ nature, as well as ‘conquering’ universe and even implementing, to put it mildly, a peculiar project for ‘turning the Siberia’s northern rivers to the south for irrigation of the Central Asian lands, but no more.
As for the formation and interpretation of the issues of politics and the experience of social life, the knowledge of them was under the full control of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee and had been realized exclusively within the framework of the doctrine of Marxism-Leninism as ‘the only true doctrine’. Those who dared to have and express personal opinion, soon found themselves in ‘nuthouses’ or ‘in durance vile’.
If I as a member of the society have used the same information as you, I would have known just as much as the one who realized the power deemed it necessary to tell me. But for each of us there is also an important personal experience.
As Denis Diderot noted, knowing what things should be, characterizes a clever human; knowledge of what things really are, characterizes an experienced person; knowledge of how to change them for the better, characterizes the genius person.
But personal experience of even the most ingenious person cannot compensate the society’s experience. In theory, social experience is formed as a result of accumulation and integration of personal experience of all members of the society. This is in a perfect world, in which we would really have developed as a civilization.
In fact, such an experience is still generated, but it is the property of a small group of people, and all other members of the society are informed of a very meager percentage of it. Personal experience in this case is in constant contradiction with the society’s changed ‘pseudo experience’.
In our time, the powers that be have gone even further and instead of real knowledge of the surrounding world they have implemented into the minds of people those ones that correspond to the model of a modified reality that is convenient for them, in which the controlled majority sees the meaning of their existence in service and slavish subordination to the interests of a controlling minority. All relationships between people are regulated by the laws of the ‘virtual’ environment, which contradict with the realities of their habitat. The System is responsible for monitoring the observance of the ‘virtual world’s’ laws, and people have become a part of it. That is why, paradoxically, they themselves are apologists and defenders of the System.
People have long been convinced of the truth of the saying: “Man assumes, and God – disposes.” And have you ever wondered where the Choice comes from, which people do every day in their lives and you in particular?
The answer is not complicated: The Creator has limited Himself and doesn’t interfere in the people‘s decision-taking, allowing us to make a choice personally.
The point and time of decision-taking is the point of bifurcation. Before doing that, you are free to choose any option, but when a decision is made, a new reality sets in your life, as the action determined by the Choice follows the latter, and after the action there comes the responsibility for the Choice made. In doing deeds, we gain the experience of Choosing and coexisting with the likes in the framework of a society. So the Creator wanted.
Now He is forced to intervene in human affairs, for Humankind has reached a deadlock, which is the result of self-serving activity of the ‘shepherds-impostors’. Oddly enough is that people often show discontent with their own choices, accusing the Creator of its negative consequences, but for some reason they do not remember Him when everything is good or when they make their Choice.
I hope you are not in a claim to the Creator that while changing the life of earthlings for the better, He does not consult with you and does not inform you of His intentions.
You can curse the ‘world elite’ up hill and down dale, but this is as useless as an udder on a bull. The problem of the population size of the Earth became topical for a banal reason. Imagine that the ‘first managers’ created the mechanism of controlling countries and peoples in such an ancient times, when not only the phenomenon of globalization itself, but even its ‘ghost’ was not visible on the horizon of the foreseeable future. Their followers used the System as a given, without going into too much detail of the principles and mechanism of its functioning.
But, as it turned out, "nothing lasts forever under the moon." Controlling the society in the current conditions requires a qualitatively new approach, which means that the question of the need for modernization of the System itself has become acute. Attempts to do this have been undertaken many times, but failed. What was left to do?
It's all simple: just begin to ‘reduce’ number of the living people up to the level of the System’s effective functioning. Accordingly, there appeared ‘theories’ that substantiated ‘reasonable’ arguments for such a ‘reduction’. Thus, the development of civilization became artificially inhibited, and it was likened, figuratively speaking, to the ‘movement of a squirrel in a wheel’.
In the current situation, one has a little left to do:
1. To ask the incompetent, thieves and grabbers ‘to leave’ those ‘feeding places’, to which they ‘became attached’ with their asses.
2. To find and appoint to the vacated posts competent and knowledgeable people, who are furthermore honest and obligatory.
How can one accomplish both clauses with minimal losses and ‘without much pain?’ The ‘gentlemen’ will not leave themselves the ‘lofty perches’ (and who would doubt!). They will in every possible way interfere with the implementation of the second clause. Everything is correct, because you cannot change the System by the methods and means it offers.
But there is a way out, and now it is being realized. There are created external conditions that make stay in the ‘good trading spots’ of the incompetent people, prone to greed and stealing, dangerous for their health and the very life. At the same time, the process of self-discrediting corrupt officials is gaining momentum. There is a destruction of their social ties. "Those who dropped out of the cage" are rejected by former accomplices. And there is no need to convince anyone of anything and "agitate". And we together with you only have to watch.
People often believe that by gaining such "levers", they will be able to control the power. It sounds ‘fiery’ and naive. You do not understand that the people have never been bearers of the power. This misconception was rooted in the minds of people, in order to assign to them the responsibility for the imaginary choice in the power of those whom they really did not choose. Something like an ‘anointing’ to the power. The form of ‘voluntary’ subordination of the majority to a far from being "righteous" handful of rascals – ‘dexterous’, but weak. Such a power becomes situational and unstable. And the changes are coming.
Why do you that persistently associate the future with a concrete leader, who supposedly ‘will come?’ In my opinion, it is more important to create the conditions under which this very leader will turn out to be as it should, and not become another ‘wax figure’ in the pantheon of the power.
The path of persuasion and explanation with the goal of raising the ‘inert’ masses is long and will lead to nothing. Qualitatively, nothing will change, because they will choose from what the System will offer.
It is a different matter to change the conditions of choice from outside, when a person is motivated to achieve an optimal result. People have never encountered with something similar. Sometimes it is more useful and safer to lead a human over a precipice with his/her eyes closed, than to let him/her see the abyss into which he/she could fall.
Translated by professor Leonid Bilousov
[Ru]
nikpavl2002.dreamwidth.org/283.html
[Eng]
Sometimes for a person it is useful to shoot a glance from the outside at the processes that are taking place in the world around him/her, abstracting from participation in them. Someone, quite intelligent, offered people a game of survival, usurping the right to dispose of the habitat, and the distribution of goods and resources.
In a healthy society there is ongoing a process of accumulating its members’ collective experience of the existence in the habitat, with the subsequent return to each of them of knowledge, techniques and skills, formed on its basis. A person acts as a co-author and user of a common ‘knowledge base’, which optimizes the process of people's cognizing of reality, ridding its participants of the "re-discovery" of the already known.
The society develops optimal methods and forms of its existence in the habitat, without destroying the latter. That is how it should be. But we were offered a different ‘model’. The holder of the ‘society’s cumulative knowledge’ is a narrow circle of persons who usurped the right of access to it, and are dispensing it at their own discretion among the rest of the society’s members.
This circumstance hinders the society’s development. The society turned out to ‘be obsessed with’ the process of ‘survival’, although we already have the technologies and resources necessary to meet the natural needs of all the inhabitants of the Earth. But the powers that be don’t provide people with them deliberately, so that a person would be constantly engaged in the search for means of survival, being not distracted by the establishment of true causes and perpetrators of his/her misfortunes.
In the animal world and not only in it, to take for example the same ants or bees, the members of the ‘society’ exchange information, and none of them will distort it, because the very existence of an anthill or a hive depends on it. The human society would also have to regard similarly an information exchange (communication), but in reality this doesn’t happen.
The reason is trivial – the one who forms the society’s experience and determines at his/her own discretion whom and what part of it is to be given for further use, controls the very society “because,” as the philosopher Francis Bacon specifically noted, “knowledge in itself is also power,” thereby revealing its source.
That is only that in the former USSR, where there existed a multi-level system of ranking access to information of different categories of citizens depending on their place in the System, to his statement, which became the motto of the popular science and adventure magazine for teenagers "Knowledge is Power" [Power was translated into Russsian as cила – i.e. strength in Russian], the party ideologists gave another meaning: “Knowledge in itself is strength.” (Francis Bacon).
So, the Soviet people were raised from the school bench to believe that knowledge is first and foremost an instrument for solving any of the most difficult tasks of communist construction: ‘taming’ nature, as well as ‘conquering’ universe and even implementing, to put it mildly, a peculiar project for ‘turning the Siberia’s northern rivers to the south for irrigation of the Central Asian lands, but no more.
As for the formation and interpretation of the issues of politics and the experience of social life, the knowledge of them was under the full control of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee and had been realized exclusively within the framework of the doctrine of Marxism-Leninism as ‘the only true doctrine’. Those who dared to have and express personal opinion, soon found themselves in ‘nuthouses’ or ‘in durance vile’.
If I as a member of the society have used the same information as you, I would have known just as much as the one who realized the power deemed it necessary to tell me. But for each of us there is also an important personal experience.
As Denis Diderot noted, knowing what things should be, characterizes a clever human; knowledge of what things really are, characterizes an experienced person; knowledge of how to change them for the better, characterizes the genius person.
But personal experience of even the most ingenious person cannot compensate the society’s experience. In theory, social experience is formed as a result of accumulation and integration of personal experience of all members of the society. This is in a perfect world, in which we would really have developed as a civilization.
In fact, such an experience is still generated, but it is the property of a small group of people, and all other members of the society are informed of a very meager percentage of it. Personal experience in this case is in constant contradiction with the society’s changed ‘pseudo experience’.
In our time, the powers that be have gone even further and instead of real knowledge of the surrounding world they have implemented into the minds of people those ones that correspond to the model of a modified reality that is convenient for them, in which the controlled majority sees the meaning of their existence in service and slavish subordination to the interests of a controlling minority. All relationships between people are regulated by the laws of the ‘virtual’ environment, which contradict with the realities of their habitat. The System is responsible for monitoring the observance of the ‘virtual world’s’ laws, and people have become a part of it. That is why, paradoxically, they themselves are apologists and defenders of the System.
People have long been convinced of the truth of the saying: “Man assumes, and God – disposes.” And have you ever wondered where the Choice comes from, which people do every day in their lives and you in particular?
The answer is not complicated: The Creator has limited Himself and doesn’t interfere in the people‘s decision-taking, allowing us to make a choice personally.
The point and time of decision-taking is the point of bifurcation. Before doing that, you are free to choose any option, but when a decision is made, a new reality sets in your life, as the action determined by the Choice follows the latter, and after the action there comes the responsibility for the Choice made. In doing deeds, we gain the experience of Choosing and coexisting with the likes in the framework of a society. So the Creator wanted.
Now He is forced to intervene in human affairs, for Humankind has reached a deadlock, which is the result of self-serving activity of the ‘shepherds-impostors’. Oddly enough is that people often show discontent with their own choices, accusing the Creator of its negative consequences, but for some reason they do not remember Him when everything is good or when they make their Choice.
I hope you are not in a claim to the Creator that while changing the life of earthlings for the better, He does not consult with you and does not inform you of His intentions.
You can curse the ‘world elite’ up hill and down dale, but this is as useless as an udder on a bull. The problem of the population size of the Earth became topical for a banal reason. Imagine that the ‘first managers’ created the mechanism of controlling countries and peoples in such an ancient times, when not only the phenomenon of globalization itself, but even its ‘ghost’ was not visible on the horizon of the foreseeable future. Their followers used the System as a given, without going into too much detail of the principles and mechanism of its functioning.
But, as it turned out, "nothing lasts forever under the moon." Controlling the society in the current conditions requires a qualitatively new approach, which means that the question of the need for modernization of the System itself has become acute. Attempts to do this have been undertaken many times, but failed. What was left to do?
It's all simple: just begin to ‘reduce’ number of the living people up to the level of the System’s effective functioning. Accordingly, there appeared ‘theories’ that substantiated ‘reasonable’ arguments for such a ‘reduction’. Thus, the development of civilization became artificially inhibited, and it was likened, figuratively speaking, to the ‘movement of a squirrel in a wheel’.
In the current situation, one has a little left to do:
1. To ask the incompetent, thieves and grabbers ‘to leave’ those ‘feeding places’, to which they ‘became attached’ with their asses.
2. To find and appoint to the vacated posts competent and knowledgeable people, who are furthermore honest and obligatory.
How can one accomplish both clauses with minimal losses and ‘without much pain?’ The ‘gentlemen’ will not leave themselves the ‘lofty perches’ (and who would doubt!). They will in every possible way interfere with the implementation of the second clause. Everything is correct, because you cannot change the System by the methods and means it offers.
But there is a way out, and now it is being realized. There are created external conditions that make stay in the ‘good trading spots’ of the incompetent people, prone to greed and stealing, dangerous for their health and the very life. At the same time, the process of self-discrediting corrupt officials is gaining momentum. There is a destruction of their social ties. "Those who dropped out of the cage" are rejected by former accomplices. And there is no need to convince anyone of anything and "agitate". And we together with you only have to watch.
People often believe that by gaining such "levers", they will be able to control the power. It sounds ‘fiery’ and naive. You do not understand that the people have never been bearers of the power. This misconception was rooted in the minds of people, in order to assign to them the responsibility for the imaginary choice in the power of those whom they really did not choose. Something like an ‘anointing’ to the power. The form of ‘voluntary’ subordination of the majority to a far from being "righteous" handful of rascals – ‘dexterous’, but weak. Such a power becomes situational and unstable. And the changes are coming.
Why do you that persistently associate the future with a concrete leader, who supposedly ‘will come?’ In my opinion, it is more important to create the conditions under which this very leader will turn out to be as it should, and not become another ‘wax figure’ in the pantheon of the power.
The path of persuasion and explanation with the goal of raising the ‘inert’ masses is long and will lead to nothing. Qualitatively, nothing will change, because they will choose from what the System will offer.
It is a different matter to change the conditions of choice from outside, when a person is motivated to achieve an optimal result. People have never encountered with something similar. Sometimes it is more useful and safer to lead a human over a precipice with his/her eyes closed, than to let him/her see the abyss into which he/she could fall.
Translated by professor Leonid Bilousov