Prof Andrei Iezuitoves, PhD, D.Sc. Academician
Prof Santhi Jayasekera, PhD, D.Sc. Academician, Film Director
Dear colleagues!
I hope you will agree with me that the main thing for science is the discovery of everything really new in reality, as at all levels and in all manifestations of interaction of material and spiritual principles inherent in reality itself.
Discovery is the interaction, material and spiritual, of the goal and result of scientific research. In discovery, its goal is productive, and the result is purposeful. The goal and the result are materially and spiritually significant, being in interaction, material and spiritual.
Scientific discoveries, in essence, are ‘binary’. It is a statement of something new in reality, previously unknown to science, and at the same time being in interaction with the explanation of actually existing such new materially and spiritually.
‘Binarity’ is ‘two in one’, not ‘two apart’ or ‘two side by side’ as in dualism.
Many people do not easily accept the fundamentally new perceptions of the world around them that fundamental discoveries offer them, and the stronger the inner resistance to accepting them, the more strongly and visibly they move beyond their traditionally stable perceptions of the world. This is natural, and it takes time and patience to assert the new in science and in life.
Р. Descartes rightly believed that the truth should be sought in the indomitable human endeavour to ‘new’, not in the militant retention of the ‘old’, and ‘to find the truth, everyone must at least once in his life to free himself from the perceptions he has learned and completely re-build the system of his views’. This is what the Philosophy of Interaction (PI) constantly and insistently calls for and is essentially like.
Pushkin was profoundly right when he asserted that ‘the best and simplest changes are those that come from the improvement of manners without any violent upheaval.’ ‘The best and simplest changes’ to people are brought by truly fundamental scientific discoveries, which require honesty, truthfulness from the discoverer and high morality from him. They do not tolerate any violence, material or spiritual.
It should be emphasised that interaction is not a transaction. The principle of ‘you are mine and I am yours’ does not apply in interaction, as in a transaction, but the principle of ‘we are each other’s’ in mutual and common interests, with each of the interacting persons not forgetting both themselves and the other. Interaction is voluntary and vitally necessary for both parties. The transaction is forced to a certain extent: it is necessary, it is customary. The transaction can be interrupted by one of the parties at a convenient moment. Interaction can only be interrupted simultaneously and bilaterally.
Science should not consider its own prospects of interaction for politics, but actually enter into direct interaction with it at different levels and in different manifestations important for science.
It is indicative that in the West there has now appeared, if I may say so, a philosophy which claims that science is not science and everything in the world is constructed by certain ‘systems of language’ and ‘subconsciousness’, therefore ‘objective knowledge is impossible to achieve’. This is nothing but a variant of agnosticism. Naturally, discoveries are out of the question. FS is the future of the whole world, a world without violence, material and spiritual. Science, through its discoveries, is called upon to affirm this materially and spiritually.
Language does not exist by itself or arbitrarily. It designates real phenomena, material and spiritual, which are cognisable by science and therefore contain discoveries.
Modern science in principle cannot stay aside, materially and spiritually, from the wars raging on our planet, threatening the life of mankind, everyone and everything.
Science, in essence, is peace-loving. The purpose of science is to bring people good, not evil. Another thing is that the achievements of science can actually be used for anti-human purposes. This is especially true of fundamental discoveries.
Thus, as he is called, the ‘father of the atomic bomb’ Robert Oppenheimer was at first very enthusiastic about ‘interesting physics’, but after seeing the mass death of people from the atomic bomb, created on the basis of his fundamental discovery, fell into a deep depression and soon died. Austrian physicist Lise Meitner, who is called ‘the mother of the atomic bomb’, theoretically discovered the possibility of the atomic bomb, but refused to participate in its practical creation as a weapon of mass destruction of people.
These examples are very instructive for today’s scientists. Science can and must serve not war but world peace. This is realised by the pioneering scientists themselves and such ‘parents’ are not dangerous for their ‘children’.
In our time, many people to reassure themselves against the possible emergence of even more powerful weapons of destruction of people than already existing, refer to the words of Pushkin: ‘Genius and villainy are incompatible. In fact, in Pushkin they look differently. In Pushkin’s tragedy ‘Mozart and Salieri’ they are uttered as a question-and-answer by Salieri and Pushkin himself fully agrees with them: ‘Genius and villainy are incompatible. Not true.’. Indeed, in reality, ‘genius and villainy’ are quite co-operative. We can say that the genius ‘father of the hydrogen bomb’ Edward Teller was in every way and constantly proud of the weapon of mass destruction of people created by him and had no remorse, unlike Oppenheimer, the ‘father of the atomic bomb’. As we can see, ‘parents’ are different, and ‘children’ need to remain vigilant to stop them in time.
As it is known, many people, including scientists, have been trying and trying in vain for many centuries to establish as absolutes such definitions of good and evil, which would be unconditionally accepted by everyone, everywhere, always and in all situations. The fact is that the proposed concepts of good and evil are either too abstract or too concrete and closely related to historically conditioned worldviews and considered normative human behaviour to be truly universal and eternal.
FV will attempt to break this impasse. For FV, everything that in principle, in one way or another, materially and spiritually, promotes interaction, materially and spiritually, is good.
Anything that in principle, in one way or another, materially and spiritually, opposes interaction, materially and spiritually, disrupts and destroys it through violence, materially and spiritually, is evil.
Both good and evil represent the interaction of the general and the particular, the immutable and its historical manifestation, the objective and the subjective, the typological and the immediate-individual, the natural and the acquired, the independent and the educated, etc. It is impossible to enumerate all aspects. The main thing is that it is precisely interaction and anti-interaction, which themselves in principle interact with each other, materially and spiritually, intuitively and consciously. Goethe perceptively wrote about ‘the power that wants eternally evil, that creates only one good thing’. There is also an expression: ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’. It goes like this. There are no absolutes of good and evil, it is futile and useless to search for them. If, one way or another, we talk about the ‘absolute true’, it is interaction, material and spiritual.
Happiness is also, in essence, the interaction of man, material and spiritual, with the nature around him, animate and inanimate, his own creations, with internally close people and himself.
Nowadays in geopolitics, as FV believes, pacifism, which is fundamentally related to science, plays a truly outstanding role. Pacifism (from Latin pacificus – pacification) means a special worldview that condemns all wars and demands the establishment of universal peace on Earth.
Alfred Nobel was a pacifist in his views, establishing a special International Peace Prize in his name for ‘promoting world peace’, and considered ‘any war a barbarism’, trying potentially and by all means to prevent any war.
Tellingly, the first woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize was a convinced and active pacifist, Bertha von Sutner. Zutner was a defender of the life of all people on Earth against any war, publisher of a special magazine ‘Down with War!’ and a novel of the same name. Let us recall in this connection E. Hemingway with his novel ‘Farewell to Arms!’, an opponent of any war and also a Nobel Prize winner.
It is pacifism that is now becoming the true banner of the times for the defenders of world peace.
It is high time that the slogan ‘para bellum’ (prepare for war) be replaced by ‘para pax’ (prepare for peace). Preparing for war inevitably leads to and ends in war.
Preparing for peace teaches timely and skilful defence of world peace and the elimination of the threat of any war.
It is time to create a fundamentally new history of mankind without any wars in the present and future.
There are no ‘special laws of war’. Its only ‘law’ is to kill people without differentiating them. It is time to stop comforting demagoguery. War in principle does not happen without innocent victims, it is impossible to avoid them. One should realise this and stop any war.
It is demagogically considered ‘work’ to kill people en masse in war. The more they kill, the better the ‘work’. This is a profanation of the very phenomenon and the concept of ‘work’, which is always creative.
Military conflicts on Earth will not stop until they stop dividing people into ‘ours’ and ‘not ours’, ‘theirs’ and ‘not theirs’. Even sporadically killed ‘our own’ are mourned. The masses of killed ‘not our own’ are not even noticed. For mankind all people were, are and will be people ‘ours’ and ‘ours’ and all people always had and will have a vital need, materially and spiritually, for world peace.
At present, a large part of people are in a state of ‘militaristic pandemic’, affected by the ‘virus of militarism’. A real ‘militarised madness’ has set in, even a ‘war syndrome’ has appeared. It is impossible not to recognise it.
Pope Francis timely warns, referring to the various local wars already being waged on our planet, that a partial world war has begun and ‘nobody cares about it’. It is time to move from words to action. The world is indeed threatened with doom. It is necessary not to take refuge from war, but to exclude it completely from the life of mankind.
At present, there are no ‘just’ and ‘unjust’ wars. All wars are ‘unjust.’ All wars aim at forcibly annexing to the territory of one’s country some part of the country at war with it and thus geopolitically strengthening itself. This clearly violates world peace. There should be no wars on our Planet. It is vital for humanity, one and all.
At the same time, we recall Pushkin’s words: ‘there is exhilaration in battle, and a gloomy abyss on the edge’. This too is now a ‘life-threatening syndrome’. American film director Martin Scorsese has clearly shown the life-threatening appeal of violence as a cruel pleasure. Such a ‘syndrome’ must be overcome as soon as possible, and the sooner it is, the better it will be for all mankind. War is deadly for everyone and always deadly for all people.
At the same time, it should be said that there are other real threats to the life of humanity, of everyone. They too must be seen, they must be reckoned with, they must be explained and somehow overcome.
Nowadays we have already abandoned the theory that industrial carbon dioxide emission raises the temperature of the Earth’s surface. A new theory has emerged which claims that the natural process of degassing the Earth and the decay of the potassium isotope are influencing the warming of the Earth’s surface. For FW, this is a blatant pseudo-revelation.
Degassing means removing harmful gases. What harmful gases does the Earth have, how and where are they removed. This leaves us guessing. Potassium as an alkali metal ranks seventh in the Earth’s crust. It is not clear what it has to do with gases, the more harmful ones, and how exactly potassium affects the increase in the temperature of the Earth’s surface. The question remains open. The earth is too large for it to depend on some private and dubious processes occurring on its own.
Nanotechnology, which is considered a fundamental discovery, is actually a pseudo-discovery, extremely dangerous to human life. ‘Nanotechnology’ is already being used in medicine to replace red blood cells in human blood with nanoparticles. An injection is made and several trillion ‘nanorobots’ appear in human blood. It is difficult to even imagine it, much less directly feel it. Naturally, the lethal outcome of such an experiment is inevitable. It is not necessary to experiment on human beings and try to replace the natural with the artificial. Nothing useful for man will come out of it.
As Pushkin wrote: ‘there are strange convergences in life’, and they become true discoveries. Thus, back in 1913 in Russia was staged Mikhail Matyushin’s opera ‘Victory over the Sun’, in the design of which first appeared the famous ‘Black Square’ by artist Kazimir Malevich. ‘Black Square’ as a symbol of the cosmos defeated by itself destructive for humans impact of the strongest solar thermal radiation. And recently billionaire Bill Gates has offered with the help of special aerosols, forming the shape of ‘black square’, to protect certain areas of the Earth’s surface from destructive for them active solar thermal radiation. Let’s see what happens. In any case, ‘convergence’ is taking place.
It is often asserted that everyone needs to adhere to ‘traditional values’. This cannot be recognised as a discovery. Such ‘values’ are too vague and vague, and they are not given in a systematic way. There are reasons to say that the traditional value for all times and for all is interaction, material and spiritual, in nature, in society and in man.
It is considered a discovery in modern geopolitics to introduce the term ‘velvet revolution’ in a broad sense, which means a relatively ‘soft’, non-violent and at the same time fundamentally important transformation of what already exists. Obviously, it is also possible to introduce as a kind of term the notion of ‘velvet discovery’, meaning a non-violent, ‘softly’ perceived and fundamentally new discovery made in basic science. The FS can be considered in a certain sense an analogue of ‘velvet discovery’ as, in its turn, a certain analogue of ‘velvet revolution’.
At present, it is considered a fundamental discovery to completely replace human beings as pilots and chauffeurs in aviation and motor transport with devices. Practical attempts are already being made. From the FV point of view, it is very dangerous for the lives of people, passengers of such transport, and, in fact, is a pseudo-discovery.
A kind of experiment is already known, which took place back in 1986. The pilot of a TU-134 aeroplane consciously switched off from any own control of the aeroplane and entrusted all control to the instruments. Upon landing, the aircraft lost all orientation in space, hit the ground, crashed and burned. Many people in the plane died. It is worth repeating such an experiment, which is very instructive and fundamentally important. With ‘autopilot’ the pilot constantly monitors the instruments and corrects their readings.
No instrument, even the most perfect one, can fully replace a human being when controlling a complex system in motion. The instrument can only provide preliminary and relatively accurate data for control. Man’s spiritual and practical reaction to various surprises and sudden appearances is more sensible, more far-sighted, more operative and even faster than that of any device that is pre-programmed for certain readings. Instruments help a person to make his own decision. By the way, an instructor is put in a chauffeurless car for insurance.
There is a need for interaction between a person and devices, with a leading and controlling role of a person. It is unlikely that there will be many people willing to get into a car or aeroplane that is empty and without a chauffeur and pilot. It is very dangerous and very unfamiliar. People would probably prefer an aeroplane and a car with a pilot and chauffeur. Forewarned means forearmed. That is the reality.
Modern ‘apologists’ of unmanned air transport and motor transport need to remember that operating ‘drones’, small-sized aircraft controlled by a person from the ground, are different in principle from aeroplanes and cars without pilots and without chauffeurs. In this case, ‘drone’ refers to different phenomena. Etymology implies the exact meaning of a word when it is used. In relation to ‘drone’ this is not observed and not only in relation to it.
Nowadays there is a lot of talk and comparatively less writing (it is a very responsible and serious matter) about the necessity of ‘multipolar world’. Such a statement and such, if I may say so, concept of the FW can in no way be recognised as a scientific discovery and something useful for the development of science, materially and spiritually.
Let’s turn, and not for the first time, to etymology to ‘save the world from delusion’
The word ‘pole’ (from it the word ‘polarity’ is derived) – in Latin polus – means the imaginary extreme point of the Earth’s axis. As it is known, the axis can have only two ends. In principle, there can be no more. ‘Bi’ is Latin for ‘two.’ ‘Bipolarity’ is ‘two poles’ as two ends of the ‘axis’.
There are two poles on earth: north and south, two magnetic poles and two poles: cold and heat. It does not occur to anyone to increase the number of such ‘poles’ and add to them some more ‘poles’ with a different name and location on the Earth.
In geopolitics the case is more complicated.
For a long time there were two universally recognised ‘poles’: the USSR and the USA, which interacted materially and spiritually. Other countries, one way or another, were located between these ‘poles’ and also interacted, materially and spiritually. The world was fundamentally ‘bipolar’.
When ‘one pole’ historically weakened and ‘the other pole’ strengthened, they began to speak of a ‘unipolar world’ led by the USA. However, the other pole did not disappear at all. The USSR (then the Russian Federation), the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, etc. remained.
At present, the world will also be and remain ‘bipolar’ in principle. ‘One pole’ is the PRC – a great socialist country. ‘The other pole’: the USA is a great capitalist country. Other countries, one way or another, will be positioned between these ‘poles’.
Individual countries and their various kinds of associations (unions, blocs, alliances, consortia, etc.) are in a hurry to declare themselves ‘poles’. In fact, it is a special ‘multiregionality’ with its centres calling themselves ‘poles’.
It is in the interests of the actual ‘poles’ and all regions to interact with each other materially and spiritually. Of course, in the most multilevel and diverse way.
Etymologically, with true science behind the etymology, it is believed that ‘one’ is ‘little’ and ‘two’ (‘bi’) is ‘many’ (more than ‘one’). ‘Many’ is more than ‘two.’ Thus, ‘multipolar world’ etymologically means ‘bi-polar world’. The proponents of a ‘multipolar world’ are actually advocating, without realising it themselves, a ‘bipolar world’.
‘Multipolar world’ is not being formed, they are masquerading under it, and not very skilfully.
‘Poles’ are opposites that can and must interact. The fundamental and universal source of development, in fact, is not the struggle of opposites at all, but their multilevel and diverse interaction, ultimately material and spiritual. This is what the FV is convinced of, and it corresponds to reality. Struggle as violence does not stimulate development, but delays and even stops it. It is the interaction of different beginnings that gives rise to a new phenomenon and reveals the new in an already existing phenomenon. This is development, which can be positive and negative in its direction and result.
The purpose and meaning of ‘bipolarity’ is in the unswerving and unshakable universal and comprehensive establishment of world peace, peace without violence, material and spiritual. This is a truly fundamental and enduring discovery.
We can say that in the modern world, the rich and the poor are two inevitable socio-economic ‘poles’ that can and must interact, materially and spiritually, in mutual vital interests, material and spiritual. One ‘pole’ in principle does not exist outside and without the other ‘pole’. They are called to interact, materially and spiritually.
The interaction of material and spiritual principles, with the most important role of the spiritual beginning, is the basis for the development of science, its true discoveries.
It is considered a modern fundamental discovery to assert that there are real civilisations-states in the world. From the point of view of FS, this is a pseudo-discovery.
Civilisation, in essence, is broader and more multifaceted than the state.
The state of any country together with the country, one way or another, is a part of a certain and existing at the given time civilisation, which includes different countries with their states, and represents a historical period with special material and spiritual interaction in different spheres of material and spiritual life of mankind, all and everyone.
A state will remain a state, a civilisation will remain a civilisation.
What is born of civilisation is not the exclusive property of the state. States come and go. Civilisation remains.
True patriotism consists in valuing oneself highly, but not in considering oneself better and more perfect in everything, always, everywhere and in comparison with others. One should not confuse hubris with pride.
A truly fundamental scientific discovery is the discovery of a special kind of ‘short strands’ in DNA, which were previously considered ‘rubbish’. It turned out that it is the ‘short ramifications’ that regulate the speed and efficiency of transmission of hereditary traits in genes and make the manifestation of heredity individually inimitable. In this process the role of spiritual principles inherent in DNA and genes is great. They are in interaction, stimulating and directing this process.
Etymology closely interacts with history, which allows us to make a kind of discovery.
Rome, the capital of Italy, is a city. It is a masculine word, however, when written and pronounced it is called Roma – i.e. a feminine word. The matter is that personification of Ancient Rome was the pagan queen Roma, from it and the name Rome – Roma has gone, instead of from mythical Romola. We believe that for history this is an essential clarification. With the words ‘Arriverderci, Roma’ one says goodbye to the city of Rome as to a woman. This does not surprise anyone.
FV extends to a variety of phenomena, including love, which is a special and permanent discovery, of universal significance for everyone.
For FV, love is a ‘binary’ interaction of material and spiritual principles as attraction and restraint, the unexpected and the expected, the intimate and the open, the individual and the universal, the permanent and the temporary, the new and the familiar, inimitable and repetitive, tragic and comic, pleasure and suffering, accidental and regular, sudden and long, harmony and disharmony, sound and silence, inner and outer, familiar and unfamiliar, visible and invisible, national and extra-national, etc. д. It is impossible to enumerate everything, and it is not necessary. Love is truly inexhaustible in its appearance and expression. And everywhere, always, in everything and in everyone, it is precisely the interaction of different beginnings, ultimately, material and spiritual.
In his ‘Testament’ (1895) Alfred Nobel stated that the Prize in his name should be awarded for ‘the most outstanding work in the idealistic direction’. For Nobel, this ‘direction’ was the recognition and expression of the essential role of the spiritual element (the ‘ideal’) in human life and in the ‘establishment of world peace’. All our WNCs also stand on such principled positions.
For science and life, the most important and significant are the fundamental discoveries that actually, directly and indirectly, contribute to world peace, peace without violence, material and spiritual, which is vital for humanity, each and every one, on our troubled planet.
At the same time, this does not exclude the negative and life-threatening use of fundamental discoveries, especially pseudo-discoveries.
In our report, we have carefully and thoroughly examined the fundamental basis for the existence of discovery and pseudo-discovery. We hope that there will be far more genuine scientific discoveries than pseudo-discoveries. This is what our ‘cautious optimism’ consists of. So be it. Thank you all for your attention and patience, what can we do, science requires sacrifices from us and of all kinds. C’est La Vie.
Once again to everyone here, directly and indirectly, thank you for your attention.
24.11.2023
Paris
