English

Descartes

The qualitative and normative basis of human relations in a state constitutes man’s aeonian problem. It has had no clear conceptual model; and it is not without a reason. The point is that such a model cannot be built because of the absence of many systemic component notions required to formulate the universal (global) conception of government, as a sphere of human political activity, and its design features. People have made many attempts to create interstate associations and develop the already existing ones such as UN, WTO, IMF, NATO, CE, OSCE, OECD, OPEC, with the purpose to achieve the ideals of democracy, political pluralism and economic growth, but these organisations in actual fact are not international legislative organs designed to establish world order. Obviously, there is no need to provide arguments in support of a global political system capable of controlling nation states on the principles of individual justice and guaranteed creature comforts. For people, there is no other form of life. The proof of this is in the work of various informal groups and nongovernment organisations.

But how about the Big Eight, or G8, i.e. the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia; or the Big Twenty (G20), i.e. the same countries plus China, Brazil, India and others showing fast economic growth? They all, as we believe, are just tokenistic associations, no more than that. We must not forget that in this world to make human life assume just and fair social forms is a task of incredible exertion, exacerbated, among other things, by a need to fight incredible ignorance. The blame for this ignorance goes to no one as there has been no system of scientific knowledge describing an effective model for running a state. What we have at the moment is a number of sets of surrogate rules and regulations including ethical ones (which are a great many) that are imposed by those at the top upon all those below. But all these sets are the false and speculative forms of getting self-guaranteed creature comforts, which are unacceptable and inappropriate for both an individual and society. Rulers (their methods may differ from country to country but in essence they are mainly coercion), having no clear demands from the people, try through thick and thin to achieve subordination and ensure the execution of unfair laws which do not improve people’s life at all.

One needn’t go far for examples to show the helplessness of a state in its exertions to solve problems typical of many different countries in the global community, like fierce fights following certain sport events (for instance, soccer) where football fans, mainly young people, sometimes get killed.

This stems from the lack of social improvement in the life of young people. Here we have in mind those young men and women who, in the course of time, having no living place of their own find their life with parents more and more difficult as they want to have the right for privacy, just to be alone or to have a rest after work or studies. With no chance to do that, they are impelled to run away from the monotony of daily routine and their pastime assumes other forms. They team up and plunge into what they believe is the atmosphere of freedom which, in actual fact, spills out as anarchy, vandalism and violence. We are quite certain that everything would be different if they had their own place to live in separate from their parents.

Just thinking about this problem, one can find very many arguments favouring the need for a legislative and practical solution to build apartment houses with one-room flats for young people. Such welfare problems, by the way, have often been resolved hand in hand and in a wise way since ancient times. It is indeed so because wisdom, being a characteristic feature of thinking, is also a structural basis of the efficiency of a social system. Therefore in everyday human life ‘wisdom’, as a notion, implies a certain trinity, i.e. of the idea, the mechanism of implementation and the principles of coordination. It can be compared to a ‘house’, also as a notion, which will be just a makeup not suited to comfortable living unless provided with proper engineering facilities (or an inner structure).

Let us now take a look at a human community in which the key elements are the people and the government (i.e. the state). A simple logic allows us to formulate a systemic principle of life, and here it is: a wise man, either elected from that community or invited from other community to government, shall begin to form up a system for those key elements to interact. This system will be complex and open. ‘Open’ in this context means that wisdom will show itself in discharging the function of governing (rather than the Government!), which will structure people-and-state relations (i.e. provide care and mutual understanding between them). There can also be another type of system: the government and the people. However, at this point it needs to be said that systems bereft of wisdom in their governments are closed systems. Their characteristic feature is the endless and unlimited enrichment of those in power at the expense of social resources and the absence of even the slightest hint of democratic principles. This is one of the main reasons for low living standards and the existence of totalitarianism (anyone in power fears to forfeit his guaranteed creature comforts). As a result, we have the destruction of the rights and freedoms of the other people. Such systems are the ones that are unstable and most often sooner or later end up with revolutions.

We mentioned earlier the reasons for the ignorance (the absence of consistent knowledge and culture, a false belief in one’s own greatness and infallibility) of those people who seek the totalitarian type of power in human societies. Such rulers, tsars, kings, presidents, party general secretaries and other hierarchs were in no way marked by wisdom (and those who had the smallest makings of it were destroyed or otherwise victimized, which even today is quite typical of a number of states) and (which is only natural) always ruled as their intellect, or its deficit, to be exact, would allow. It is well known what it usually led to.

It is five years plus that RPhG has been setting forth issue in, issue out (12 issues a year) a variant of that conceptual and systemic social science which, as we believe, can lead mankind out of the deadlock of ignorance.

Thereupon let us go back again to the serious letter of a reader given above. It is the letter of a man of great culture who as it later became clear in a personal interview along with his scientific and technical work and teaching has been trying to find objective laws and consistent patterns in social life. He thought that the main reason for the absence of these laws was in the difficulty to grasp the diversity of thinking in the systemic organisation of the enormous mass of people on Earth. As we already know, this approach is correct for it would be a mistake to seek for a systemically important feature in the ideology of a party, a religion or a “superior nation”. It turns out that it is in the physiology of man that we can find the algorithm of the individual in the system of the universal.

And this is not just a function like in a bee - we have already given this argument in our previous articles – but an absolutely different form of human behaviour in a medium, characterised by a great variety of different purposes and aspirations. The reason for this brindled variety lies in the unique characteristics of human thinking. They have no homology in the nature of living organisms.

This is so because each individual has his own level of thinking, which means that ‘the man’ as a biological species has no clear-cut qualitative substance which he could use to fend for himself as any other living creature can and does. On the other hand, human thinking being a high quality feature of a living organism has a decisive advantage over any other living thing. However, no species of animal life is guided by such a specific principle as internecine destruction of its own kind, and sometimes it is mass destruction for that matter. In addition, it is often the case that a man living in a community and whose priority is to fend for his family finds himself in a situation of hierarchical dependence upon an individual with a lower quality of thinking.

Such paradoxes can only mean that the process of man’s biological evolution is not yet complete. It is quite possible that the man as a species is in the phase of developing a bio-parameter which is to be used by society as a socio-parameter to provide and guarantee a decent life for each individual.

As we can see, everything comes down to the quality of human thinking, or wisdom as we call it. It is wisdom that turns out to be the bio-parameter owing to which the human race develops its social imperatives (laws and regulations). Now we have come up to the normativity of wisdom! I already explained what it is in the early issues of RPhG and in my book “The Theory of Intellect”. Now it is time to ask ourselves: who is to blame for the fact that hierarchs whose thinking level is, mildly speaking, far from being high come to power through democratic elections?

There is no doubt that the word of biologists can have some weight for the public and consequently for the electorate, but this does not seem to be that important. It may happen that biologists will never be able to discover that kind of man’s energy which is manifest in his conscience or in caring about others which is a moral component of thinking because it may be a totally new type of energy. Let us recall the historical analogy with physics, i.e. how long and hard scientists laboured to get to understand the principles of the origin of electric current with its properties having long been used by man both in industry and at home.

Of great importance here is to understand the essence of human problems, which was correctly pointed out by Mr Zelinsky in his letter. They have to do with bureaucratic hurdles and revolutions from above. Even if people begin to understand that nothing and nobody but wisdom in government can give them freedom and dignity, they should imbibe the most important idea – that of their own strength. For example, let us assume that we learn from the Russian Media that a good man was killed and two thousand of his countrymen came to pay last respects for all the good he had done. But later on we also learn that the same man had previously committed a crime with total laissez-faire on the part of local authorities. Here is the question: how come that so many people who subsequently attended his funeral had failed to foresee the course of things, apprehend the impending crime and warn the authorities of possible consequences? Here is the rub! Those people’s hearts were frozen with fear, and obviously one needs strength to drive away that fear and understand that one cannot live like that and that our cleverer offspring will not forgive us for this weakness.

The human race should develop its social relations without the hierarchy of inequality, i.e. power. This conclusion was first ‘made’ by our ‘teachers’ – social insects. The world of elementary particles has no structural hierarchy either, according to the American physicist Jeffrey Chu. There is another theory developed by Shiing-Shen Chern, a Chinese mathematician, who called it “connection in a fibre bundle”. All this is consistent with the principle of progressive development of human thinking up to the level of wisdom, which will serve a determinant of interaction of all people as a dynamic ethic field where the process of self-organisation will unfold but this time without any hierarchs or oligarchs.

Now, a few words about the revolution foretold by professor Zelinsky. No one would wish to bring people to such grief. Neither winners, nor losers would benefit from it. It is a long time since this form of eliminating social problems was ‘mastered’ in theory and practice by modern hierarchs. All they want is a pretext, and if it is not there, they themselves will create it. For them, the most important thing is to land up in a no-matter-what country and to gain influence at the time when a new regime settles in. They all know what to do next. That is why the only and, I think, real way to establish the all-round atmosphere of justice on planet Earth is through encouraging people throughout the world to join the project “ethicosphere”. The purpose of this project is to deny power to individuals with the low level of thinking. To realise this idea, it is necessary to organise a global social and political bloc “ethical right” and, taking after today’s anti-globalists, stop those craving power because today there is a clear understanding of what any country can expect from them should such characters come to power.

It appears so that wisdom is a political factor. It is also a normative component of ideology and politics. Trying to have a better grasp of these notions, first we should proceed on the premise that good morals cannot be instilled in a human being because it is a quality given to him by Nature. Second, we should take it for granted that if any government official, lacking in wisdom, comes to speak in public promising you some positive changes, that person would be telling you lies because all those around him just as he himself are concerned only about their personal enrichment (for it just cannot be otherwise), and this is nothing else but corruption. Third, there is no such science as ‘economics’, even if there are academicians in economics.

A wise ruler a priori wants to help the people, and he will speak about the economical, rational and efficient running of national economy, about frugality and the use of benefits gained thereof for the country’s common good. Only such an approach will reflect caring about people and he, as a person vested with power, will account, regularly, honestly and in public for what he has or has not done. In this case, if there are any complaints from the public about this or that official, he will immediately replace the person who has shown ignorance or indifference with respect to someone’s trouble, not allowing any chance for corruption.

The political aspect here is to be understood first and foremost as the right of wisdom to run a country, in which, if this right is realised, there will be established, in fact, a truly civil society!

Arnold Kazmin,