Feodor Shkrudnev

Facts cannot be trusted because it is unknown whether they are facts or not.

I am not hinting that they have become banal and that they are what is called "fake news," because this is known to many people. But this applies not only to "fake news" information from the mass media, it applies to everything in general, as it is drawn from vast repositories of information in the clouds of the Internet. Today, the network stores all sorts of information – what is true as well as what was made up two minutes ago, and in a tricky way. And what was true yesterday is rejected today, but NO ONE bothered to publish this refutation, i.e., to tell everyone – "... there have been discoveries that reveal that a chair is no longer a chair, but a watermelon."

Every person, being only a part of the objective reality, has only his own personal characteristics, which is called "subjectivism". In the public life of people, it is the subjectivity of researchers, scientists, and developers that is the source of new knowledge and skills in culture. But it is also the main source of errors arising from various limitations and insufficiencies of the subject. If someone expresses an opinion that DOES NOT COINCIDE with the generally accepted, dominant one, then quite often he is criticized with the words: “Well... That is only your opinion...” However, in the vast majority, those who criticize others for having their own opinion prefer NOT TO THINK about the meaning of this opinion and how appropriately and proportionately the objective course of life events is expressed in it, and what specifically the subjective opinion is wrong about.

The time of the reflection has come. Painful reflection –whether I live right or wrong, and, in general,  why I live, love, work, suffer, worry ...What is all this for? What is happening and how to accept all this? The results of the events happened recently will excite society for a long time to come. Before our eyes, records were set for “changing shoes” by many media and bloggers who carried information to us, convincing us of its reliability. Moreover, all this happened with no any sense. The assessment of the events is fleeting and hasty at all levels for the sake of some certain moments of today, and NOT the SITUATION as the whole.

At the beginning of research (learning), a person always faces the question: - What is the goal that I want to achieve? When the goal is determined, you have to decide which way you are to choose and what should be taken with you, what kind of difficulties can be encountered, and what languages you will have to use. But along with simple and easy to understand questions, there might arise questions that NEVER CROSSED YOUR MIND.

In our time, full of daily changing events, people make a lot of attempts to present a civilization picture of modern Russia. But, in general, such initiatives DO NOT HAVE a true systemic judgment, but more often represent a generally recognized conjunctural stencil, as a kind of paradigm that has been forced to absorb the WHOLE COMPLEX of “natural historical” circumstances that fit in people, which require a targeted mandatory orientation towards the search for enemies and the guilty, and not the OBJECTIVE POINT in the ongoing before our eyes.

In something you like, you exaggerate the pros and downplay the cons. And, on the contrary, you exaggerate the cons and downplay the pluses if you do not like something.

It is impossible to convince a person of what he SUBCONSCIOUSLY DENIES. This applies even to science. As Max Planck said, science develops from funeral to funeral. The bearers of the old do not give way to the new, not because they see some faults, but because they do not like it.

For more than thirty years, we have been creating certain societies, focusing on certain ideas that provoke more and more amazement over the years. But after all, no one removes them from the agenda. The idea of rebuilding the world seems to most people to be an EMPTY FANTASY, not because they consider the goal unworthy or see logical errors, but because the scale confuses them. So an ant — it will take the matter seriously only within the framework of its anthill. It WILL NOT COME UP with the idea of activities outside its home. The same way people evaluate the ongoing today with domestic, commercial ... maximum — political benefits (which is the same commerce).