Prof. Prof. Santi Jayasekera, and Prof. Andrei N. Iezuitov
‘Philosophy of Interaction’: Theory and Practice
Dear colleagues!
As you know, any science has its theoretical and practical basis as a philosophical foundation.
Historically, ontologically and epistemologically, theoretically and practically, the traditional philosophical concepts have already exhausted themselves: in all kinds of materialism and idealism, dualism and agnosticism as one-sidedly limited. In a fundamentally new way, effectively and truly universal, is able to solve the problems currently facing theory and practice, ‘Philosophy of interaction’ (PI).
For a relatively long time there has been an opinion, and in essence a very simplistic one, concerning the relationship between theory and practice: practice provides theory with material, theory, having processed it, returns it back to practice.
In fact, the interaction between theory and practice is much more complex, multifaceted, multivalent, and even bizarre than is commonly believed.
Let us begin, as we have done so many times before, with etymology. The wise judgement of R. Descartes never gets old: ‘Explain the meaning of words, and you will save the world from half of the misconceptions’. Let us turn to him once again.
Theory (from the Greek theoría – observation, research) is considered as a generalisation of the experience of social practice; a set of statements generalising practice, forming a science. Such an understanding of theory, from the point of view of PI, is inaccurate. Theory not only generalises what is already known from practice, social and personal. It itself makes discoveries and paves new and promising paths for practice, both social and personal.
Practice (from Greek praktikos – active, active) is considered as the activity of people aimed at creating by them the conditions necessary for their existence; the techniques and skills of such activity obtained in the process of teaching them; the source and criterion of true knowledge. Such a definition of practice is also inaccurate for PI. ‘Activities’ and “conditions of existence” are material and spiritual in nature, and practice not only “exists”, it develops, materially and spiritually, and is not the sole criterion of the truth of scientific knowledge. Theory can be learnt and mastered to varying degrees. Theory reveals and explains the essence of some real phenomenon, material and spiritual. Practice finds in theory the confirmation of the rightness and significance of what it really does, in one way or another, using theory, determining the nature and direction of the practice itself.
Theory, corresponding to reality, confirms the truth of practice. Practice corresponding to reality confirms the truth of theory. Such is their epistemological interaction.
There are reasons to say that theory is to some extent practical, and practice is to some extent theoretical.
The famous physicist L. Boltzmann believed that ‘there is nothing more practical than good theory’, and the brilliant artist Leonardo Da Vinci was convinced that ‘practice must always be built on good theory’. ‘Good’ in this context means corresponding to reality. In principle, both theory and practice should correspond to it. Theory and practice interact with each other materially and spiritually. At the same time, the theory is dominated by the spiritual beginning, while the practice is dominated by the material beginning. Inaccurate and one-sided definition of theory and practice and the interaction between them leads to serious mistakes and errors in science and not only in it, negatively makes itself known, materially and spiritually, in the life of mankind, everyone.
What, we ask, is the real interaction between theory and practice, and how it is possible and necessary to overcome contradictions and inconsistency between them.
This interaction is very diverse and even unpredictable, playing a very significant role everywhere, material and spiritual.
The interaction between theory and practice is vital for humanity, for everyone.
The interaction of different beginnings should not be confused with the confusion of different beginnings, theoretical and practical, as beginnings that are not entirely clear and comprehensible.
Theory and practice convince us that the simplest explanation is the most probable. ‘Philosophy of Interaction’ strives for the greatest possible simplicity and accessibility of the explanations it offers, so it is the most consistent with reality.
The PI has no particular political leanings and attitudes, its main theoretical and practical goal is world peace, a world without violence.
It is generally believed that a fundamentally new concept passes through three stages in its scientific perception: it cannot be, there is something in it, how can it be otherwise. Such stages are also passed by the PI, which affirms the reality of the spiritual beginning, existing outside and independent of its perception, its universal and constant interaction with the material beginning, directly and sensually perceived and partially passing into the material beginning.
To all appearances, the PI is approaching the third stage of its interpretation.
It is fundamentally important for the PI to theoretically and practically propose and justify the definition of the spiritual beginning as a quantitatively significant real phenomenon. The spiritual beginning cannot be created (at least not yet). And it is quantitatively measured indirectly. At the same time, the spiritual beginning assumes its positive and negative orientation. In essence, the spiritual beginning represents the difference between the assumed quantitative indicator and the real-immediate measurement of the real phenomenon. The complex assumption can be made in a variety of ways: formally, audiovisually, etc. The real phenomenon is then directly measured and found to be quantitatively greater than the assumed measurement of it. The difference is a quantitative indicator of the real-quantitative expression of the spiritual beginning, which in principle is inherent in any real phenomenon, although to a different extent.
This process can be preliminarily modelled, most likely on a mini-model, and then extrapolated to a quantitative-real phenomenon.
Organic interaction of theory and practice with the dominance of spirituality is especially vital to take into account in extreme situations, when there is a real threat to the existence of humanity, everyone and everything.
As is known, in the first half of the 80s of the last century there were very tense relations between the USSR and the USA. Each country really expected a nuclear attack on itself and was preparing to attack the other country itself.
In the city of Serpukhov (Moscow region) a special centre was established to detect in time the launch of American ballistic nuclear missiles towards the USSR. The Centre had a special system ‘Oko’ for long-range detection of such a launch. The launch signal it received was instantly transmitted to the Centre, which was obliged to immediately make its decision to launch its own nuclear ballistic missiles and to transmit its decision to the highest level for the final practical decision to launch its own nuclear ballistic missiles towards the enemy.
On 25 September 1983, Lieutenant Colonel Stanislav Petrov, 44, a high-class specialist, was on duty at the Centre. At 00:15, the special scoreboard flashed the inscription: ‘Go! Ballistic missile in the air.’ Then the inscription: ‘Missile attack.’ The alarm was repeated twice. According to instructions, Petrov should be immediately retaliated and give his decision to launch his own nuclear missiles. Petrov procrastinated. He knew that a retaliatory nuclear strike would be irrevocable and it would be impossible to get the missiles back. So Petrov waited an agonising 18 minutes without giving the command to launch his own nuclear missiles. After 18 minutes, he reported: ‘I consider this a false alarm. There are no missiles.’ Some time passed and it was reported that it was a false alarm. It was simply that the Soviet computer monitoring the missile launches had been hit by the reflection of a sunbeam from a mirror that existed at the range where the missiles were being launched. It was a very difficult moment and very challenging for Petrov. A high-class specialist, he realised that a mistake could be made in the practical operation of the tracking system and in its very design. He was also internally determined to preserve world peace and was not in a hurry to give, in fact, a command that could lead to the death of all mankind. This is fundamentally important to note. It was the man who did not give such a command. The fact is that this issue is fundamentally important. If an artificial digital intelligence (now it is legalised) had been monitoring the state of missiles of a possible enemy, it would have immediately given a command to launch its own nuclear missiles upon receiving such alarming information, and then there would have been a catastrophe for all mankind. That is why one should be very cautious about the application of ‘digitalisation’ and ‘artificial intelligence’ in the military field. In the military field, as in other fields, man cannot be replaced by any ‘digitalisation’ and artificial intelligence. Man is irreplaceable. It is man, who is infinitely peace-loving, who can save the world from a military catastrophe, even in the most extreme situation.
At present, nuclear conflict in the world is particularly real, and we do not see people like Petrov. There are not a few apologists for the outbreak of nuclear war and the real nuclear threat is growing.
The most surprising and yet significant thing is that Petrov did not earn any gratitude and was reprimanded by his command for not immediately recording the information he received in a special journal. A year later he was sent to the reserve without being promoted to his former rank and, as was the custom. Petrov settled in Fryazino near Moscow, where he quietly and lonely died in 2017.
In the West, Petrov was honoured by the UN as ‘The Man Who Prevented Nuclear War’ and other high international awards. In the USSR and Russia, nothing, and he was not mentioned at all until 1993. Now in the Russian Federation, Petrov is again silenced and not mentioned in any way about his heroic deed that prevented nuclear war.
Moreover, at present, in fact, the most ‘reliable information about the massive launch of means of aerospace attack on our country’ is considered to be information obtained by various technical modern means (‘artificial intelligence’, ‘digitalisation’). They instantly give the command to launch nuclear missiles from the side of the Russian Federation. Petrov’s experience has been completely forgotten, and for nothing. Such forgetfulness is dangerous for humanity.
Not only that, a Special Short Range Station with a special detector has already been created near Moscow, which should, on the alarm signal received from the detector, independently launch nuclear missiles at a possible nuclear enemy, even if there is no Minister of Defence and Chief of General Staff in the Kremlin, and, directly, there is no one to launch the missiles. The launch is automatic and mechanical, instantaneous and irreversible, and cannot be stopped. Such a start of a nuclear war turns out to be impersonal, it has no specific culprits, the devices are to blame. This does not make mankind feel better. The threat of nuclear war only really intensifies.
It should be borne in mind that any theory, in order to become practically necessary in principle, must contain the discovery of a new one, which is practically effective and useful to people materially and spiritually. At the same time, there is a certain measure of historically determined practical application and practical significance of various discoveries. Actually eternal and enduring theoretical discoveries are practically significant Archimedes, Hypatia, Pythagoras, D. Bruno, W. Garvey, N. Copernicus, D. Watt, M. Lomonosov, A. Lavoie.
The theoretical discoveries of I. Newton, I. Kepler, B. Pascal, F. Fulton, V. Roentgen, K. Tsiolkovsky are still functionally and practically stable.
The theoretical and practical discoveries of Democritus, Euclid, T. Brahe, P. Laplace, C. Linnaeus, etc. have already been surpassed to a certain extent.
In fact, the theoretically and practically important discoveries of F. Lebon (gas lighting), D. Papen (steam engine for ships), R. Arkwright (spinning machine), K. Schapp (air telegraph) have ceased to operate. It is also necessary to take into account that modern discoveries may not be eternal at all, but theoretically and practically applied for a certain period of time. Here we need the most consistent and serious historicism when approaching various kinds of discoveries, theoretically and practically significant.
From the point of view of PI, some discoveries considered indisputable can also be reconsidered.
Nowadays, any discovery is rushed to be declared ‘fundamental’. It is necessary to understand and explain, theoretically and practically, how strong and durable the ‘foundation’ itself is and to what extent it corresponds to reality as an interaction of material and spiritual principles.
Thus, D.I.Mendeleev believed that ‘the magnitude of the atomic weight determines the character of an element, as the magnitude of a particle determines the properties of a complex body’. At the same time, A.N. Butlerov was sure that ‘the chemical nature of a complex particle is determined by the nature of elementary constituent parts’.
As is known, ‘magnitude’, ‘weight’ and ‘body’ are material phenomena. Thus, for Mendeleev, the constant ‘magnitude of absolute weight’ precisely as a material beginning ‘completely’ determines the ‘material nature’ of an ‘element’ as a ‘material quantity’. In turn, the ‘material particle’ entirely ‘determines’ precisely the material ‘properties’ of the complex body of the material phenomenon. All this is a consistent ‘material monism’, essentially excluding the spiritual beginning and therefore making scientific ideas about the microcosm (theoretically and practically) one-sidedly limited. In Butlerov’s understanding, ‘nature’ includes a spiritual beginning, and this spiritual beginning organically interacts with the material beginning in each element and its constituent particles. Butlerov turns out to be more accurate and perceptive than Mendeleev. Elementary particles really represent the interaction of material and spiritual beginnings, with a significant role of the spiritual beginning.
‘Complex body’, as an interaction of material and spiritual principles, has spiritual properties, they are real, and they cannot be disregarded.
By the way, Mendeleev himself did not reject ‘nature’ in principle. He admitted that his doctor N. Pirogov ‘could immediately understand my nature’, i.e. he understood the spiritual state and spiritual well-being of Mendeleev himself.
Spiritual beginning in certain conditions is capable to a certain extent to pass into the beginning of material, noticeably increasing it, and thus change the value of the atomic weight of the element. It has been noticed that in some places on our planet, where, as PI believes, the spiritual beginning is especially active, the atomic weight of the element increases noticeably.
The element has new properties, material and spiritual.
Mendeleev’s ‘Periodic System of Chemical Elements’ is thus, in atomic terms, mobile-evolutionary, stable and simultaneously changing as the interaction of material and spiritual principles in the elements. The concrete-practical significance of the ‘Periodic System’ becomes in its application more diverse and multivalent.
Butlerov owns a judgement, fundamentally important and permanently significant for the theory and practice in science: ‘facts, not explained by existing theories, are the most valuable for science, from their development should be mainly expected its development in the near future’. It is FS that develops and explains facts not explained by the various theories currently existing. This is to be expected in the development of science in the near future.
It cannot be overlooked that in the modern world there is quite clearly observed local militant-demonstrative obscurantism as an attempt to theoretically and practically replace and substitute science with religion. ‘Clericalisation’ of science is unlikely to benefit it. History has already shown and proved this. The FS does not directly interfere in a process that is clearly negative for genuine science. Let history deal with it both theoretically and practically.
Substitution and substitution of ‘artificial intelligence’ or ‘Higher Intelligence’ for cognition of reality by human mind are equally pseudoscientific and futile, theoretically and practically. The absence of one’s own intelligence cannot be concealed by either ‘artificial intelligence’ or ‘Higher Intelligence’.
Religion in fact does not stabilise human community, spiritual and material, at all, but disrupts and even destroys it, theoretically and practically, actually justifying violence, materially and spiritually, in its own interests, material and spiritual.
The appeal of science to the explanation by a ‘Higher Intelligence’ of what science itself cannot understand and explain with its own intellect means that such science recognises its own philosophical and intellectual impotence. Traditional concepts really cannot understand and explain from their positions already existing and especially new real phenomena. This can be done, theoretically and practically, by PI.
The so-called ‘prophetic dreams’ as their direct communication with the ‘Higher Intelligence’ are attributed by scientists themselves as a great discovery. In reality, this is a clear psychic anomaly and composed hindsight, not a truly fundamental discovery.
Strange as it may seem, the modern cult of ‘digitalisation’ is objectively correlated with such a medieval doctrine as ‘Kabbalah’ (from Hebrew – mysterious, enigmatic), which gave a special meaning to ‘digital’ as the basis of all things.
In fact, ‘numeral’ denotes quantity (number of things), not their essence. The spiritual beginning, functionally significant, is very poorly represented in ‘digit’ (signs).
Among modern apologists of ‘digitalisation’ there are people who inwardly gravitate towards ‘kabbalistics’. History sometimes repeats itself in its most diverse variants, seemingly quite unexpected.
‘Digitalisation’ can be a kind of aid in mechanical and pre-programmed operations, but not a hegemon in science and not only in it. There is even talk of ‘digital development’. What this means is not at all clear: what exactly is being developed and how exactly it is being developed.
The apologists of ‘digitalisation’ have already invented some ‘crimes’ of man before ‘digitalisation’. In fact, the mechanical replacement of human beings by ‘digitalisation’ is a crime against humanity, everything and everyone, which violates and destroys the natural, material and spiritual life of people. The mechanical replacement of human beings with ‘digital’ is a crime against humanity.
PI believes that such a phenomenon and concept as the ‘Great Silk Road’ should be clarified theoretically and practically. It is now used by many people without any thought. Historically and etymologically, it is more accurate to speak of the ‘Great Silk and Velvet Road’ as a trade route. The point is that silk fabrics in the broad sense included silk velvet, technologically close to silk, but not identical to it. The birthplace of silk and silk velvet was India. From India, silk and silk velvet travelled to China and from there through Central Asia and the Middle East to Europe, where they were in great demand, both materially and spiritually. Not without reason they used to say: ‘silks’ – ‘velvets’, ‘in silks’ – ‘in velvets’. There were common in both fabrics (thread of silkworm caterpillar, structure) and special in silk velvet (pile, density, thickness, weight). Silk velvet, as a special type of silk fabric, has a sacredness, visually and tactilely perceived.
This has been the case for centuries, and such a way is now being revived.
It is intended, theoretically and practically, to become again the ‘Great Silk and Velvet Way’. It is important to clarify this now, both theoretically and practically, in order to avoid all sorts of misunderstandings.
At present, there is a view of history as a continuous, uninterrupted process from ancestors to modernity. FW, in principle, does not agree with it. History is the interaction of various forces, material and spiritual, their interaction, material and spiritual. In history there can be a kind of stops, gathering of certain forces and even retardation, with general progressive development as interaction of various forces, material and spiritual.
Ancestors are also very different. As it is said, in ancestors one should love their valour and be ashamed of their vices.
Contemporaries prefer to choose the most convenient, especially for power, ancestors in order to keep political power in their hands at the moment and for the future.
In fact, the position of historian M.N. Pokrovsky is confirmed: ‘History is politics tipped into the past’. Nowadays, politics is ‘tipped into the past’ very abruptly and zealously. Real history does not tolerate violence against itself either theoretically or practically. It has its own laws and its own course of time. Man can speed it up or slow it down, but he cannot change it, no matter how much he would like to.
Knowledge and application of previously unknown potentially carries a danger, material and spiritual, for a human being. In-depth theoretical cognition of energy-destructive possibilities of quantum, practically inexhaustible, can lead to creation of ‘quantum bomb’, in comparison with which hydrogen bomb of any energy-destructive power will be a toy. It is necessary, therefore, believes IP, strict and constant public control over the theoretical study of the quantum and especially the practical application of its energy, which can become vital for mankind, each and everyone, to establish a world without violence. The work is already underway and can be actually completed in the foreseeable time, and then the tests….
Historical experience shows that when cognition of previously unknown atomic energy began, it was not assumed that the atomic bomb would later be created on this basis. This should not be forgotten or disregarded in our days, theoretically and practically.
In war, any lie is destructive to man, especially when it comes to the seemingly ‘unafraid energy of nuclear weapons’. We are seriously and optimistically assured that ‘non-strategic nuclear weapons’ (missiles) of only 50 kilotons are not at all dangerous to civilians. Such weapons are designed to target individual military command centres, various firing points, military enterprises, and certain concentrations of military personnel. All of this is a blatant lie and not for salvation, but for perdition, a ‘lie of omission’. Let us remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The power of the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima was supposed to be 5 kilotons of TNT, but it turned out to be 15 kilotons. There was an additional and significant transition of the spiritual beginning of nuclear energy into the beginning of material-destructive. The nuclear bomb, dropped on Nagasaki, was planned with the power of 7 klt of TNT, its real power turned out to be 22 klt. There was a significant addition of nuclear energy. The combined power of the two atomic bomb explosions was 37 kilotonnes. It is difficult even to imagine what real consequences a nuclear explosion with a power of 50 klt. would have, and it is not known with what increase of its nuclear-energetic destructive power. One should not deliberately deceive oneself and other people. This is fraught with the inevitable death of many peaceful people and explosive workers themselves, who use nuclear weapons. This is the actual theory and practice.
PI believes that it is wrong to equate, theoretically and practically, as is now often the case, terrorism with an armed attack from outside one belligerent country on another belligerent country during their hostilities.
Terrorism, in essence, is a conscious and life-threatening practical action by one person or several persons (a cell) within astate, carried out by its own citizens or citizens of another country, directed against the existing state regime in the country where the terror occurs. There is terrorism organised by one state inside another state hostile to it. In this case, everything happens inside, not outside.
Terrorism cannot be genetically and functionally territorially external. External is the territory on which terrorism can take place. This territory can be temporarily seized by one country from another country. All the same, the essence of terrorism as actions from within is preserved. Terrorism has its own objects (subjects) by means of which it is carried out (weapons, explosive devices, etc.). Terrorism does not yet possess missiles. The source of terrorism is a strike from within, not from outside. This is theoretically and practically significant. The more precisely someone is defined as a negative phenomenon, the more precise and effective will be the measures applied against him.
Even J. Rousseau believed that ‘by nature people are not enemies of each other at all’. It is in the nature of people to interact with each other, material and spiritual. It is really delayed and even disturbed by individual and socially significant factors.
Any war is unnatural. It can be avoided. Everywhere and always the way to interaction is open. There would only be good will to it. Nature supports people. And people are called to live up to their own peace-loving nature.
In medicine, ‘digitalisation’ as ‘artificial intelligence’, theoretically and practically, turns a human being into a circuit on a computer screen. This circuitry is treated by various doctors. If the treatment is unsuccessful, the individually unique person himself is to blame, because he does not fully conform to such a scheme, which is considered to be universally universal. This is life-threatening for the individual, theoretically and practically. Its treatment requires the interplay of the general and the particular in the treatment of human beings.
In connection with ‘artificial intelligence’, there is increasing talk and writing now about the ‘domestication of humans’. In essence, this means that, like a domestic animal, man will mechanically receive from the ‘artificial intelligence’ everything that is materially necessary for man, all material goods, and man will not have any material concerns regarding his material existence. At the same time man will be completely deprived of all spiritual identity and all initiative, spiritual independence and free will. This is a kind of addition to the ‘domestication of man’, theoretically and practically, to the transformation of man into a robot. Man is unlikely to want practically to be ‘domesticated’ in this way.
Experiments are currently being planned at the NIC supercollider, from which breakthrough results for science, theoretically and practically significant, are expected. In this case, a practice is proposed without sufficient theoretical justification. There is already a very instructive precedent of a similar and negative nature. When designing and creating the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) it was not taken into account that when elementary particles are accelerated in the LHC they undergo a partial and noticeable transition of their inherent spiritual energy into the material energy, which significantly increases the materially destructive effect of the energy of elementary particles on the material structure of the LHC. This led to various kinds of accidents in the LHC and disruption of its operation.
It was necessary, considered and considers PI, to preliminarily check on the LHC model the measure of real transition of the spiritual beginning of energy of elementary particles accelerated in it to the material beginning of their energy, taking into account the real difference between the assumed energy and the real, quantitatively measured energy. The real energy will be greater than the calculated-assumed energy. This theoretically and practically should be provided also at designing of the supercollider NIC.
PI believes that energy, about which much is being written and talked about nowadays, can and should theoretically and practically create especially effective energy as an interaction of inherent material and spiritual beginnings. In this case it is necessary to take into account in advance that the spiritual beginning of energy, minimodelling such a process, largely and noticeably passes into the material beginning of energy, quantitatively increasing the practical efficiency of energy in general.
At present, some astronomers intimidate people that in 2029 a large asteroid ‘Apophis’ will collide with the Earth, which will cause great damage to the Earth, material and spiritual. For the FV, such intimidation of people is theoretically and practically unfounded. The 2029 date is very tentative and can be changed at any time. Asteroid ‘Apophis’ is an interaction of material and spiritual principles. And the spiritual beginning in it is very large and influential. The Earth, in its turn, is the interaction of the same principal principles and its spiritual beginning is also very great.
As the history of astronomy shows, precisely because of its fundamental spiritual community with the Earth and its inhabitants, no cosmic body, if it collided with the Earth, did not cause it serious damage. Asteroids and meteorites of various sizes, falling to the Earth, did not kill a single person and fell in deserted places.
Moreover, the asteroid Apophis will pass at a considerable distance from the Earth and will not cause it any damage, material or spiritual.
Wars are much more dangerous, materially and spiritually, for the Earth than various kinds of asteroids and meteorites. Scaremongering about a cosmic catastrophe cannot hide the real danger of nuclear war from people. No alleged cosmic catastrophes neither theoretically nor practically can be compared to it.
Modern medicine pays exclusive attention to the fact that transplantation (material and surgical transplantation) of various internal organs from a deceased donor to a living recipient noticeably changes the recipient’s character, his predilections, tastes, etc. A certain external and internal likening of the recipient to his donor takes place.
Various explanations of this phenomenon are offered. Some scientists believe that in this case a part of the donor’s soul moves into the recipient’s soul. Others see it as a manifestation of ‘cellular memory’, which moves into the cellular organism of the recipient.
PI offers its own principled explanation.
Internal organs of the donor and recipient and organisms of the donor and recipient as a whole represent the interaction of material and spiritual principles. In this case, the spiritual beginning plays the most important role in the functioning of internal organs and the organism as a whole, especially when the spiritual beginning partially passes into the material beginning, noticeably strengthening it. This gets a noticeable manifestation in the external appearance and spiritual qualities of the donor and the recipient.
When the internal organ of the donor is transplanted into the recipient’s organism, it enters into material and spiritual interaction with the material and spiritual beginnings inherent in the recipient’s organism.
In this case, the spiritual beginning of the donor’s organism, visibly passing into the material beginning of the recipient’s organism, and thus strengthening its real manifestation, stimulates a certain similarity, material (external appearance), and internal (spiritual properties) between the recipient and the donor. The spiritual compatibility of the organism of the donor with the organism of the recipient is of fundamental importance. In a deceased donor for some time remains really effective his spiritual beginning.
So far the determination of spiritual compatibility is carried out by trial and error. Spiritual incompatibility leads to rejection of the donor’s internal organ from the recipient’s organism. Such are the theory and practice in the field of transplantology, from the point of view of the Philosophy of Interaction.
A very delicate and intimate question concerning the surgical change of sexes, male and female, and the legality of such an operation, is being discussed with particular sharpness and intense emotion in the world at present. This phenomenon has already practically affected a number of countries.
In this case, practice is clearly ahead of theory, as no philosophical explanation of the practice is given.
‘Philosophy of Interaction’ will attempt to provide one.
For PI, everything, in one way or another, related to sexuality is spiritually significant. Sex is organically linked to love through the inherent spirituality of both phenomena, which is dominant in love and visibly present in sex. Realistically, there is ‘spiritual lust’ and ‘spiritual orgasm’.
In the origin of life through the interaction of the different sexes, spirituality plays a significant role. It has already been established that the ovum for its fertilisation itself chooses from millions of spermatozoa one spiritually close to it.
The gene is a carrier of the spiritual beginning inherent in a certain sex. At the same time genetically internal spiritual-sex belonging of a person may not coincide with his materially expressed external sexual features. The spiritual beginning, which is very influential and active in a person, plays a determining role in his/her gender self-perception in relation to his/her own external sexual features, by which the gender of a person is officially and generally accepted. The inconsistency of a person’s inner, spiritual and sexual self-perception with external sexual signs is painful for a person who has to hide and suppress his inner sexual dissatisfaction. On Earth, according to statistics, there are millions of such people, more than 10. They are really tormented, hiding their torment in every possible way and raping themselves with it.
Surgical intervention actually relieves people from such torments and opens for them a real way to natural sexual pleasures and joys of love. This is vitally necessary for man. Such a principled interpretation of a theoretically and practically very difficult question is proposed and justified by PI. This question remains open for further and serious scientific discussion.
It has already been noticed that in sports there are masculine women and feminine men, more often women. This phenomenon causes various levels of public rejection and condemnation. No explanation is given for it. The PI will try, in principle, to provide one, which will, as the PI hopes, help athletes and sports judges themselves to correctly assess this real phenomenon.
Some female athletes, having by nature external and materially expressed signs of one sex, internally, spiritually self-perceives themselves, also by nature, as people of the other sex. Their known masculinity is really manifested in their external appearance and inner state. In male athletes their special spiritual-gender self-perception determines a certain femininity in their external appearance and internal state. The discrepancy between the inner spiritual and gender self-perception and the material external expression of their sexual characteristics causes such athletes various kinds of discomfort and even suffering. Athletic performance is recorded on the basis of an athlete’s external gender expression. His inner spiritual and gender self-perceptions are not taken into account, which is negative, externally and internally, for the athlete. PI sees nothing immoral and even less criminal in this. Human nature is very quirky and multifaceted. It has to be really reckoned with. Nature was, is, and will continue to be paramount to man. It is necessary to try to establish a certain interaction between the internal, spiritual and gender self-perception of the athlete and his external, materially expressed gender image. This is not an easy thing to do, but it is necessary for both sport and the athlete.
It is time for man to stop any violence, material and spiritual, theoretical and practical, against himself, self-violence that contradicts his own nature. Violence is a real phenomenon, manifold and multivalent, material and spiritual.
It should be emphasised that violence, material and spiritual, theoretically and practically, can occur in politics both ‘on the right’ and ‘on the left’. It is necessary to stop all violence, ‘right’ and ‘left’, in the name of the vital interests of humanity, of each and every one, and to create a world without any violence, material and spiritual, ‘right’ and ‘left’. No violence will save the world. Only co-operation will save it, theoretically and practically.
The Eastern wisdom, according to which secrecy is a dangerous weapon for despotism, has never become obsolete. If everything is classified, the people will have speculations with facts, which will present the cases much worse than they are in reality. The authorities need to expose some trifles themselves, concealing the main vices of their system. So it happens in our time, but without any positive results.
Neither theoretically, nor practically it can be recognised as justified to state losses during the war in manpower and equipment of only one warring party and to completely ignore such losses of the other party fighting with it, as if it does not have them and cannot have them. This is an obvious incongruity and also a ‘lie of default’, which cannot be hidden neither theoretically nor practically.
Modern sciences are theoretically and practically threatened by a real danger. The idea is gaining ground, according to which the state funding of science is put in direct dependence on how much the state and its budget directly technologically need this or that scientific research. This danger is especially great for the humanities, which do not directly technologically serve the state and its budget. Science is multifaceted and multifunctional, theoretically and practically. Science as a whole can and should serve to promote a world without violence.
Currently, a wide variety of definitions of culture are offered, essentially eclectic and vulgar-sociological. FV gives its fundamental understanding and explanation of the essence of culture.
For FV, culture (from Latin cultura – creation, cultivation) is a purposeful spiritual activity of a human being, which has a material expression. In culture the material and spiritual beginnings organically interact. Material culture is dominated by the material beginning. In spiritual culture (artistic) – the beginning of the spiritual. In principle, believes PI, there are no any cultures, sovereignly distinct in nature, genetic and functional. It is accepted that there are cultures: bourgeois, socialist, religious, national, etc. In fact, it is the interaction of the general and special in culture, the specific (special) use of the invariable nature of culture (general), for various purposes, its original spiritual purposefulness. The purposeful use of culture is socio-historically and ethnically conditioned. The purposes and purposefulness of culture can be very different. At the same time, the very nature of culture theoretically and practically remains common and unchanged for all cultures, no matter how they are called. This is the universality and universality of culture, theoretical and practical.
Modern humanity, each and every one of us, vitally needs a culture that is peaceful, materially and spiritually, theoretically and practically.
N. Roerich, the creator of the first and so far the only International Treaty for the Protection of Cultural Heritage in history, was convinced that the ‘Banner of Culture’ can and should be the ‘Banner of Peace’ all over the world.
The interaction of different cultures, material and spiritual, materially and spiritually, can and should fully affirm, materially and spiritually, a world without violence, material and spiritual.
Even I. Kant in his treatise ‘On Eternal Peace’, which he worked hard on for many years, came to the conviction that one nation has no right to change the way of life according to which another nation wants to organise its material and moral existence. In fact, this means the philosopher’s recognition of the vital necessity of ‘eternal peace’, material and spiritual, for all peoples and the rejection of any war of one nation against another nation. It is important to specify exactly what kind of ‘way of life’. After all, it can be aggressive and militant. In its existence, war cannot be avoided in principle. There can and should be interaction, material and spiritual, between theory and practice, in the name of their affirmation of ‘eternal peace’, peace without violence, material and spiritual.
There is another interpretation of ‘eternal peace’ in history. German Field Marshal Moltke claimed: ‘Eternal peace is adream, and not even a beautiful one, because war is a link of the divine universe. Without war, light would wallow in the simplest materialism.’
Tellingly, workers at a German printing house refused to print a special book entitled ‘The Future of World War,’ declaring that ‘war must have no future.’ Unfortunately, their call was not and is not justified. History takes all sorts of twists and turns. There are also modern supporters of Moltke’s views. This should not be forgotten. History should always be remembered both theoretically and practically, not to forget about the real threats existing in it.
The words of Prussian King Frederick II, a convinced authoritarian-self-authoritarian in theory and practice, are relevant in our time: ‘If you like a foreign province and you have enough power – occupy it immediately. Once you do, you will always find enough lawyers to prove that you had every right to the conquered territory.’ These words, which sound truly relevant, should not be taken, either theoretically or practically, as some kind of programme of action.
We know such a fundamentally significant episode in the history of diplomacy. Russian, as they called him ‘velvet chancellor’ A.M. Gorchakov and German, as they called him ‘iron chancellor’ O. Bismarck confronted each other in diplomacy. At the same time, Gorchakov could be the ‘iron chancellor’ and Bismarck could be the ‘velvet chancellor’. Figuratively speaking, sometimes the ‘velvet chancellor’ Gorchakov took off the ‘velvet glove’ from the ‘iron fist’, and Bismarck put on the ‘velvet glove’ on the ‘iron fist’. Not without reason they say: ‘velvet all, but there is a pity’. In the confrontation between the two chancellors, Gorchakov won the diplomatic victory as an adamant supporter of peace without violence.
From the point of view of PI, all philosophies that preceded it were in principle one-sidedly limited, in the material and spiritual sense, in interpreting the nature of society and man.
The eminent Russian critic V.G. Belinsky wrote: ‘The more one-sided the opinion, the more accessible it is to the majority, which likes the good to be invariably good and the bad to be bad, and which does not want to hear that one and the same subject should contain both good and bad. FV is, in principle, devoid of any unilateralism. For her, the specifically ‘good’ and the specifically ‘bad’ are in interaction and can be in the same subject, partially and visibly passing into each other and reinforcing one of the beginnings, materially and spiritually.
For FV, ‘good’, in other words, ‘good’ is everything that, in one way or another, really contributes to the establishment and development of the interaction of material and spiritual principles in human life. ‘Bad’, in other words “evil” – is everything that, in one way or another, violates and destroys the interaction of material and spiritual principles in human life. Different measure of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ has the most different concrete expression and manifestation.
We conclude our report. PI has long ago and repeatedly emphasised and stressed that for successful theoretical substantiation of the practical significance of a particular real phenomenon it is necessary to interact in understanding and explaining the beginnings that form it.
PI is accessible to everyone and anyone. It is possible and necessary to accept it voluntarily and consciously in accordance with one’s own thinking and reality, which theoretically and practically represents at all levels and in all manifestations exactly the interaction of inherent material and spiritual principles, which can pass partially and visibly into each other, remaining sovereign. This process is familiar to every human being and can be perceived and understood quite easily, without much strain.
It must be borne in mind that there are various theories that do not correspond to actual practice, and practices that do not have sufficient theoretical justification. ‘Philosophy of interaction’ proceeds from the fact that theory and practice can and must always interact, and interaction corresponds to reality as an interaction of inherent material and spiritual principles.
In the modern world, philosophers increasingly feel the need for its universal governance. It is the idea of interaction of material and spiritual beginnings that can become the basis of such management, material and spiritual.
In his Testament A. Nobel spoke about awarding the Prize of his name to ‘literary works of idealistic direction’. In this case, ‘idealistic direction’ does not mean ‘idealistic’ from the word ‘idealism’, i.e. the writer’s adherence to a certain philosophical direction. For Nobel, the ‘ideal’ was a life without war, world peace. The word ‘idealistic’ therefore meant for him the commitment of writers to the cause of peace as an ideal of the writers themselves, which can and should be actually realised and to the realisation of which they call for in their works. Not without reason, in fact, the first Nobel Prize related to literature was awarded by Nobel himself to the Austrian pacifist writer Bertha von Zutner.
The work of our XVIII WSC, as well as of all previous WSCs, takes place in accordance with A. Nobel’s Will and is aimed at promoting peace in the world. Different theories and different practices are in organic interaction and are intended to promote a world without violence, material and spiritual. I hope that our WSC will be an active participant in that endeavour.
One last thing that needs to be said, and perhaps the most important theoretically and practically at the present time.
We all live now in a truly special external and internal, material and spiritual condition. Nuclear war is a real and frightening threat to life for all of us. Nuclear war can start suddenly, at any moment and in many different places on our planet.
And that is what the PI believes is the most real danger to all of us right now.
The warning of the outbreak of nuclear war as a mass attack by nuclear missiles, and even non-nuclear missiles, of one country on another country is entirely entrusted these days to the devices based on ‘artificial intelligence’ and ‘digitalisation’, which are stubbornly considered to be the most reliable and most trustworthy. From the PI point of view – this is a very life-threatening illusion.
A primary and massive nuclear missile attack, launched on a random alarm, is not ‘deterrence’ or ‘defence’ at all. It is, in fact, an unjustified attack and blatant aggression. A mass nuclear attack cannot be stopped, the deed is done, and the consequences are dire.
The devices that warn of the outbreak of nuclear war are ultra-obedient to the programme laid down in them in advance, which they are ordered to carry out rigorously: to catch and, as early as possible, begin their rise of a foreign missile, nuclear and non-nuclear, and immediately send their own nuclear missile in the direction of the enemy. There is and can be no hesitation, no reflection, no doubt on the part of the device. It is actually a soulless and in principle not reasoning machine, and the machine can be wrong in its suspicions and calculations. This has already happened, and the command to take off its own nuclear missile in case of a mistake made by the machine, it is not able to correct and cancel itself. This can only be done in a timely and realistic manner by a person who constantly controls all the actions of the machine announcing the alarm. Let us remember Petrov’s truly heroic deed, which has already been mentioned. Now in principle a similar situation is aggravated. Only man can save mankind from a seemingly complex in appearance but real in its essence nuclear strike on mankind, no matter from which side. At present, there is no continuous monitoring of any action of the nuclear warning machine.
This means that a nuclear nightmare could indeed begin on Earth at any time and in any place. It is unpredictable and unstoppable. In such conditions of ‘nuclear depression’ the most positive and vital human actions are not very spiritually uplifting and inspiring for the person who performs them. One can make all kinds of plans, put forward and make all kinds of decisions, propose all kinds of projects, declarations, platforms, manifestos, etc. The nuclear sword of Damocles hangs over all of them and over their executors. The ‘thread’ on which it hangs is getting thinner and less strong.
It follows from this that only by really and completely eliminating any threat of nuclear war looming over mankind, and by establishing on the whole Earth, theoretically and practically, complete peace without violence, material and spiritual, can all the plans, programmes, decisions, proposals, etc., developed by mankind for itself, be actually, happily, cheerfully and successfully executed by people. It is necessary to remember about it always and everywhere, everyone and everybody, especially those who have nuclear weapons in their hands. No bunker will save us.
This is the main and central problem facing humanity now, theoretically and practically. All other problems, of which there are many, are derivative and dependent on it. It is time for mankind to take effective measures against the nuclear war that really threatens it. It is not too late.
It should be said that both theoretically and practically we live as long as science lives, as long as we live, science lives. Let’s try to live together longer and befriend each other, theoretically and practically, and our WSC will surely help us in that.
For the work of the next XIX WSC World Scientific Congress (2025) is proposed the following theme: ‘The structure of modern science: traditional and new, common and special. This topic is very topical. There is much to talk and argue about. Science can and must serve the cause of world peace, contribute to the creation of a world without violence, material and spiritual. The date of the XIX WSC can be determined in the working order.
Thank you all for your attention and patience. What can you do, science requires sacrifices, and they ultimately prove to be justified.
22.11.2024
