Political clinic

It's been a long time since I left my last entry here. Unfortunately I'm not a regular blogger because I have serious problems with inspiration to write something here, obviously I could write some ordinary yadda yadda on a regular basis, however I want to write something interesting , something that you wouldn't read at every blog and it's always difficult to make up your knowledge to combine it into something worth to read. Maybe I don't have a talent for that, or mb I'm just lazy to think too much about what entry should be written, I've no clue for that, and it doesn't matter anyway. 

Stalemate in the world development

I offer you a little talk about our modern world, about its ups and downs, about our current problems and possible solution of them. We are living in the interesting times, in the times of pivotal steps and on the brink of drastic changing. Why that changing is going to occur right now? And what sense I put in the changing? To answer these questions it's not enough to make one blog entry, simply because tough questions require complicated answers. However I'm going to try to explain everything in a nutshell for starters.

At first we should understand that the world lives according to the rules of some historical project, that project includes number of the regulators and existential concepts (i.e. metaphysical aspects). When I say the word ''project'' some readers would perhaps imagine that there are some ''schemes'' written according to which everything works. But that's misleading understanding, the term historical project implies the epoch, each epoch had its own number of rules that were created by the people's social energy and implemented in their life being. One of such historical project was modernity, according to which, the Western civilisation used to live and which is built up right now in many other parts of the globe like Asia for example. Modernity had certain traits that could distinguish it from others. Economically speaking, it was transition of the feudalism into capitalism when so-called ''free cities'' started to appear in Germany and Italy, the term free city implied that they are free from the feudal power. Such economical clusters soon started to appear across the whole Europe and launched the industrialization process, each of the cluster formed a capital, trading became the main activity. On the spiritual level, christian religion became dominant, it is very important to grasp the difference between christian and pagan times of Europe. In pagan religions the perception of time was that there are a number of time cycles that change each other over and over, contrary to that, Christians had very strict and sequential calendar and perception was based on the concept, that time moves to the apocalypse. I mention that, because human being coherence has been always seriously depending on its time perception and that's the area where religions made a great influence. The third aspect was regulatorical, according to the modernity understanding, human being is an evil and that you can't change it, so it was developed some sort of ''carcass'' made out of laws, fear and codes, the function of that carcass was to convert all the energy that human evilness produces to use it as a fuel for development. 

For about 500 years, modernity has been developing, it had its own falls and rises, ups and downs. But right now, we have faced the greatest challenge ever. So-called ''carcass'' has been ruptured and no longer can hold current human. It has broken for many reasons, one of which is that the epoch of modernity is over, because we are out of the fuel to continue it, the world (except for some Asian parts like China, India, Vietnam that continue to build its modernity because they still have enough rural population that can be used for industrialization) is already modernized. We no longer can continue that historical project, and there is no new one. In the absence of a new one, we are drowning in the postmodernism that gradually establishes chaos. And the laws no longer regulate anything, the world became lawless, I think I don't need to spend time on showing you why it is lawless, just read the news. What is even more alarming, is that people basically understand that there is a problem, but they don't talk about that problem, they talk about everything except for the main thing, about human. Modernity didn't intend to develop human to change it as I said before. And under such circumstances we have so-called scissors of the technological development also known as Peters paradox, where technological advancement grows exponentially while human being declines according to the Gauss curve up to the asymptote. Rapid technological development and complete underdevelopment of human makes human basically not accommodated to its own complicated and perplexed technological world that he has developed. Day by day, human behave less adequate because they no longer can get used to that world. 

There are three major problems. First, science inherited paradigms of its existence from the ancient times. Science has managed to become a real productive force, yet failed to eliminate fragmentation that makes science totally unmanageable and therefore it is moving to the patterns that are either not necessary for humanity, or in the absence of human's development pose grave threat to a human. That makes to draw a conclusion that we should either find a way to unite science back, or science will turn into the cannon described in the novel of Victor Hugo "Quatrevingt-treize" when that cannon was tore off from the ship during the storm and destroyed that ship. The second problem is historical, humanity always had ideals, from Moses to Christ, from Christ to the ideals of the French Bourgeoisie revolution, from French revolution to the Russian Bolshevik revolution. But now it has stopped. There are no ideals in metaphysical sense, no class that can implement some new idea and no masses to follow that idea. 

So what can be done? We should look at the world parts and see what's going on. Unfortunately Latin American affairs are beyond my scrutiny and I have very limited grasp of it so far, but doing my best to research it better. The Western countries already can't do anything, I see no signs of at least understanding and discussing the problem there, postmodernism has almost destroyed all energy that could generate something new there leaving it metaphysically in shambles. Maybe I'm wrong of course, but if somebody can show me someone there who at least raised that topic there, be my guest. So what else remains? Well those who at least tried to build the alternatives remain - Russia, I'm talking about alternative in the Christian culture of course, Islam doesn't not interesting because it ceased to develop long time ago and it's useless to try to find some solution there. What makes Russia different from the West? Well the main difference is that in Russia, by contrast to the West, law has never been a regulator of human. Russian moral is very difference from the Western one, it is based on the culture. And here's another interesting moment, the perception of culture in Russia is strikingly different from the Western perception. In the classical Western sense, everything is divided on epistemology (theory of knowledge), aesthetics (theory of art) and ethics (theory of right). By contrast, the Russians flatly refuse to accept such fragmentation and such definitions, for the Russians the main philosophical ideology was always scientific and cultural integrity. The Russian Empire and the Soviet Union had that concept, Russian mentality cannot accept any division, the whole Russian civilisation was based on the unification, it was developing as a spiral not. The Western civilisation can be depicted with k-means clustering using Voronoy iteration, while the Russian civilisation by the squared Archimedean spiral.  The pictures below reflect it:

Another significant difference is that since the 18th century, Russians were obsessed by the idea of humans development especially the Soviet Union, Russians were closely watching how the West regulates its human and they could understand how it works, yet this approach has been always alien for Russians. Therefore Russian experience in creating such monolith in theory can help. Of course the Westerns like to say that ''you can't make ideal human''. Definitely we all have our little foibles, but we are not talking about little and strange habits here, fundamental behaviour and perception can be changed, and evolution has proved it, fundamental that has a capacity to change life, that can awake the highest creative abilities of each human.  

How can the absence of alternative backfire in a long-run? Well it is quite rhetorical question in fact, it can backfire only with fascism. Fascism in the modern shape of course, to be more clear, you must understand what is the concept of fascism, not it's not based on Jewish question only, because anthropological inequality is just a consequence of the more deep and general idea. The idea of fascism is multi-storied humanity, where humans divided in the categories where different categories either have privileges or not, where one people officially declared as more superior to another, in the Hitlerism the main parameter was anthropological, however it was all based on gnosticism. Basically the same gnostic methods will be used in the modern world, to create people's inequality, people will be divided on three groups: hylics, psychics and pneumatics. Where pneumatics will be the highest in the chain. And then, metaphyisicall Thanatos will come, Thanatos was a Greek god that personificated death. Death is what fascism based on Fascism is based on death, living death, and it can be even seen on the example of Spanish Falangists, their greet and battle-cry was "Viva la muerte, y muera la inteligencia" which can be translated as "Long live to death, and let the intellect die".  I don't know who I would be in this black world of Thanatos, the only thing I realize that I don't want to live in it even if I would be pneumatic there. Milton once said that ''it's better to rule in hell than serve in heaven'', well that's not what I share, I don't want to live in hell under no circumstances even if I would be a sole ruler of it. And this is not a surprise that it was fascism that was stirred up on the Soviet Union. Soviet Union had robust ideology that ordinary mercantelists could not break, and only fanatical fascists that also had inspiration could do that, fascists had completely opposite ideology to the communists, that's why Black and Red had clashed, fortunately Red won, however it's only a matter of time when Red and Black will cross swords once again, and once again the world will be hanging by the slender thread.

Information warfare

Here I'd like to talk about something more practical that can help for every individual to make his contribution into the fight for the future. Currently the main issue is information warfare. What is the information warfare? How do we understand it? Well in general, information war it is struggling for the society's awareness. It is a process where the struggling sides try to win smb's confidence, to earn sympathy and support, it's a battle for minds. In order to be a winner in such wars, you need to have certain tools, inspiration and skills for that. It's almost like in real warfare, in real warfare as you may know, you need to have good equipment, good training skills, certain tactics for particular offensive or defencive operations and great idea for which the soldier should fight, because the real winner in every war is a person who is ready to die. One can kill for money, but to die only for idea. I'm going to cover all parameters in details in my further entries, but right now, I'd like to describe the model on which the entire infowar is based. The are three main components of the infowars: activity in spreading the information, level of persuasion of the content and proper delivery of the content for each individual group. These components are equally important and without having them all together it's impossible to achieve success. To clarify, let's understand how it works. For instance you carry some content that has persuasion level - S and transmit power that you use is - P. In that case your efficiency - E will be equal:

E = SP

This is very important equation that allows to make some conclusions. If the power of your transmitter P equals 0, in that case persuasion level of your content has no sense whatsoever, you sit in the room and some convincing information accumulates in your brain but you do not even write it down, let alone offer it to people. What potential in the information wars you have in that case? Zero potential.  

It is almost exactly the same if S = 0, in that case your transmission power makes no sense at all and whether you have high powered transmitter or not if the persuasive ratio of your content equals 0 all your efforts will be pointless. You deliver some balderdash to the vast amount of people but they don't take it serious. The result will be the same as in the opposite case. Because it doesn't matter how many tanks, assault rifles and planes you do have if there is no ammunition and shells for them. 

So what if your enemy has much higher transmission power than you because he has much more tools and instruments to spread his information, like newspapers, TV, popular website? In that case you should be much more persuasive than he's, your content should be more convincing and elaborate. If for example persuasive level of your enemy equals 2 and transmit power 20, while your transmit power is only 2, then you need to be more persuasive in 10-11 times in order to defeat him. 

But that's not all, apart from S and P, there is another parameter called f,  it is a correspondent carrier for a receiver of the information, because many people understand the same words differently. In the telecommunication field, when you transmit some information, you have to use proper frequencies that receiver is able to receive. If for example you make your transmission in the centimetre band (SHF) while the receiver can receive only millimetre waves (EHF) or decimetre waves (UHF), then again your job will be useless, because the receiver won't obtain your content at all. Same in the infowars, it is also very important to use proper places, again comparing it to the telecoms field, it is like using patterned antennas that make transmission in the certain direction, because omnidirectional antennas not always have enough coverage. Confucius once said ''you need to pick up the right words and spread them in all bazaars'', and that's exactly what you need. It is vital to understand that because society doesn't look like a monolith right now, it's impossible to use the same approach everywhere, society is a maze of different social groups and these groups have different perception and different preferable sources of information, therefore bespoke methods are necessary. And in order to fight for the social awareness we should take the society not as some monolith, but as a sum of the large numbers of groups. Modern society let's call it as O can be depicted by a certain equation: 

   n

O = Σ O_i

  1

Where O_i is a social group. That would look like that in a more elaborate form:

O = O₁ + O₂ + O₃ + O₄ + ... O_i, + ... O_N

It is also should not be ignored the time frames of course and what you have left until you have a chance to fulfill your task, because every war has its own time limits and time circumstances. The sum of times that it took to complete some task can be described by the following equation:

t = Τ₂ + Τ₁ + ... Τ_i + … T_N

Where Τ₁  and Τ₂ times that you have consumed for making some certain infowar actions. 

And ultimately we will obtain the equation of informational wars:

E = SP(O₁f₁ + O₂f₂ + O₃f₃ + O₄f₄ + ... O_if_i, + ... O_Nf_N) / t

So our total effectiveness equals to the sum of all E that you have to each particular O_i

So are we ready to defeat currently established postmodern chaos? Do we understand its insidious and malignant traps? If we are aware of it, then there is only one chance - to agree on one common thing, accepting that it is destructive for the world, and say goodbye to it. We shouldn't be fazed or embarrassed when struggling against it. If we do not want the hell to absorb all what we love, all to what we serve and all in what we believe we should find the strength to challenge it, to revitalize high ideals and aspiration to the real progress. We should estimate the complexity of that situation and offer proper responses on the social, political, moral, existential and metaphysical levels.