Feodor Shkrudnev

Downloads |pdf| |doc|

The present is a door open in both directions:

into the shadow of the past

and into the light of the future.

We are used to thinking that we live in the present — a narrow strip of time dividing the past from the future. However, the present is not a fleeting moment; it is a permeable fabric woven with the shadows of what has been and the projections of what may come. It is not confined to a frame, nor does it end with perception. The present is open: it flows through us, opening passageways to what has not yet happened, and to what has NOT GONE. To truly see, one must go beyond the sensory and allow thinking to become a gaze through time. Modern science claims that only the present moment truly exists. The past is gone, the future has not arrived — therefore, only the "now" has true existence. Why is this so? Science, as a rule, does NOT PROVIDE an answer to this question. It seems to assume the truth is too obvious to require explanation. Just as, once, it seemed self-evident that the Sun revolved around the Earth. This was accepted as indisputable. all one had to do was look at the sky. However, the cast-iron confidence in the visible lasted until new observations, mathematical calculations and deeper LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS came into play. Then it became clear: the truth was the exact opposite — it is not the Sun that moves around the Earth, but the Earth around the Sun. A similar revelation will sooner or later confront that science which still clings to the NAÏVE IDEA of the moment as the only reality — as if the world consists of separate frames of film, and only the one currently projected onto the screen exists. This view resembles the logic of a small child who, by covering their eyes, believes that if they SEE NO ONE, then no one can see them either. To expand the horizons of perception, one must overcome blind faith in the sensory as the ONLY SOURCE of truth. On one hand, the senses indeed register reality — they give us what we call "experience" and "immediacy." However, on the other hand, the senses are not the ultimate ARBITER OF TRUTH. Intellectual, speculative comprehension possesses no less a power of fixation, and its potential encompasses depths and scales beyond the reach of the senses. The senses show us only ONE FRAME, torn from the stream. The mind, on the contrary, can observe the WHOLE FILMSTRIP, see the structure, recognize patterns and divergences. The world is not a film reel where frames follow one another in a fixed order. The world is more like a field, a plane saturated with multiple parallel and intersecting trajectories. It is an endless branching of paths, each of which can be chosen. Most people live like locomotives moving along predetermined rails, routes dictated by sensory perception and social programming. They don't turn off, they DON'T THINK, don't choose — they follow. That said, the person who steps off the rails finds themselves in an open field. Here, one can go anywhere, choose any path — even one that seems fantastic or impossible within the boundaries of ordinary imagination. Creativity, breakthrough, true freedom — all these are born not in the groove, but at the intersection of thought and intuition, where the senses NO LONGER DICTATE truth, but become one of its facets. It is precisely in this state that a perspective opens in which the once-unimaginable becomes possible.

Following the example of the ancients, one must abandon the idea that SENSORY KNOWLEDGE holds the status of truth in the full sense of the word. It is more accurate to recognize that data obtained through the senses constitute practical knowledge — useful, applied knowledge suitable for solving specific tasks in everyday environments. YET IT IS MISTAKEN to draw conclusions from this information about higher-order entities — metaphysical structures, the foundations of being, and ultimate meanings. Such a limitation of the sensory is not a denigration of it, rather the ESTABLISHMENT OF A BOUNDARY to its applicability. Yet the opposite extreme — the ABSOLUTIZATION OF THINKING as the sole source of truth — is equally harmful. This is the trap once fallen into by Aristotle, whose thinking was powerful but untested. He asserted that a stone thrown into the air first moves in an arc and then suddenly falls straight down once its motive force is exhausted. His mind drew a conclusion — logically coherent, but incorrect. Only centuries later did Galileo, trusting in experience, show that a body subject to gravity and inertia moves along a continuous curve — an arc — and DOES NOT EXPERIENCE a sudden break. This is a classic example of how truth eludes both purely sensory and purely speculative comprehension when they are disconnected from each other. True knowledge is born on the edge — in the tense synthesis of intuition, experience, and thought. None of them provides the whole alone, each is essential as part of the living act of cognition.

As a more precise analogy, let us imagine ourselves... as a television set. It may sound almost comical, yet, within this simplification lies an important insight. The entire space we inhabit is permeated by countless vibrations, waves, and frequencies. Each frequency CARRIES ITS OWN information, its own image of the world. What we perceive as "objective reality" is merely the reflection of a specific wave to which our "consciousness receiver" is tuned. We consider this image to be the only possible one—simply because WE DO NOT SWITCH the channel. If we change the frequency of perception, a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT image appears on the screen of our consciousness. And now there is a different reality, different patterns, different logic — just as obvious and indisputable as the former. At one frequency there is a world where in an apparent three-dimensional structure a circle, when combined with a triangle, produces a square. This pattern is soon recorded by the observer, and, anticipating the connection of figures, he "logically" expects a square. Causality, consequences, rules — everything is consistent and logical, yet only within THIS FREQUENCY. At another frequency, with a different set of initial data, a circle plus a triangle does not yield a square, rather, perhaps, green smoke. And the viewer of that reality likewise recognizes a repeating pattern¹, forms predictions, logical connections, and explanations. For them, it is just as natural and undeniable that a circle and triangle produce green smoke as it is for the first that they produce a square. Now imagine an infinite number of such "channels," each one a complete world, with its own causality, logic, and truth. On every frequency — countless receivers, countless "televisions" with "viewers," each of whom considers their own image to be TRUE REALITY, and their logic to be universal. These viewers, organized into societies, are convinced that what they see is OBVIOUS AND UNQUESTIONABLE. They have no doubt in the reliability of their sensations, nor in the correctness of their logic. After all, to them, it is entirely "reasonable" for them that a circle plus a triangle yields green smoke.

Thus, is born a COLLECTIVE CONVICTION, shaped into dogma — and from that dogma, a limited horizon within which everything seems absolute, and beyond which "nothing exists." And then one day, in this world of "television truth," a VIEWER APPEARED who, driven by boredom or curiosity, decided to open the casing of their receiver. With no particular goal, more from inner restlessness, they connected two wires — just like a child’s experiment. And suddenly, the screen came to life and began speaking on a different frequency. A new image appeared — not better or worse in quality, JUST DIFFERENT. A reality equal in richness but radically different in content. Frightened, they recoiled, disconnected the wires, and the receiver once again tuned to the familiar signal, the usual channel where everything was logical and predictable, where the circle and triangle once again produced green smoke. However, the unsettling sense of wonder didn’t let go. After some time, overcoming fear, they REPEATED THE EXPERIMENT. And again, found themselves in an unfamiliar reality. This time, they began to look more closely at this "different video," and as they grew accustomed to the unfamiliar, they discovered that in this system, when a circle combines with a triangle, a geometrically structured volume — a square — emerges. This contradicted their understanding, shattered ALL LOGICAL frameworks that once seemed unshakeable. Everything they had known felt powerless here, and the new DID NOT FIT into their mind. It wasn’t just a different picture — it was ANOTHER LOGIC OF BEING, a different foundation of meaning. Driven by what they had seen, they told other viewers about their discovery. Those whose televisions had always been tuned to a single frequency, who had NEVER CONSIDERED that the receiver had an inside. The reaction was predictable: they were CONSIDERED INSANE. What they spoke of wasn’t just impossible — it OFFENDED COMMON SENSE, undermining the very foundation of the collective worldview. For many, it was a disturbing disruption, and in defense, they rejected even the POSSIBILITY OF THE EXISTENCE of another signal. From here, two scenarios are possible. Either society rejects its pioneer, labeling them dangerous and sending them into isolation — in the modern world, perhaps to a psychiatric clinic. Or they find others, equally restless, equally THIRSTING FOR DIFFERENT frequencies. Together they open their receivers, rewire the circuits, tune to new frequencies — and a NEW COMMUNITY is born, a new system of perception, a new logic. Thus begins the great REVOLUTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS — not through violence, but through the retuning of perception.

This interpretation of reality — as a multiplicity of overlapping frequencies and logics — is surprisingly close to the frontiers of modern science, especially to theories born from quantum physics, astrophysics, and informational cosmology. Increasingly serious consideration is being given to the simulation hypothesis — the idea that the universe is not a "thing in itself," rather a process, a program, a computational environment. And the deeper science dives into the structure of the "real," the LESS MATERIAL it becomes. The phenomenon of matter is a classic example. Not long ago, matter seemed dense, tangible, and primary. However, as science has probed deeper into the structure of substance, it has found not solidity, but emptiness; not substance, but relations, fields, probabilities. The result: matter, as the foundation of the world, has vanished. What remains is the formula: "matter consists of non-matter" — a statement bordering on paradox, yet confirmed by experiments. Science, once striving for solid ground, now finds itself in an OCEAN OF ABSTRACTIONS. This is an eternal pattern: the potential of anything is revealed only when the frame of perception changes. The ancient Chinese, possessing gunpowder, saw it merely as a beautiful spark — they viewed it as an element of celebration. Europeans, operating within a different ontological frame, saw in that same gunpowder a force capable of altering the course of history. From fireworks, they made rifles, triggering the collapse of the feudal order and the rise of capitalist dominion. The same IS HAPPENING TODAY. Mystics and esoteric thinkers, like the ancient Chinese with their gunpowder, gaze upon reality sensing something majestic, yet FAIL TO COMPREHEND its transformative potential. They see sparks yet do not realize they are holding the explosive material of ontology² in their hands. The true breakthrough will not be made by those who admire the picture, but by those who TRY TO DISASSEMBLE it, to examine its structure and ask what exactly it does to the observer’s reality. When new researchers arise — not merely spiritual seekers, nor only physicists, but thinkers asking fundamental questions of existence — they will discover that the "fireworks of consciousness" conceal a mechanism. And then will begin the transition — an ontological shift. We will stand at the threshold of a new stage, not because of a new invention, rather because the logic of perception itself has changed. Let's not waste time criticizing the "Papuans," who have learned to rub amber against fur and rejoice at the accidental sparks of electricity, believing them to be miracles. Let them keep playing with phenomena, UNAWARE of the structures behind them. We must return to the essence. And the essence lies in this question: how can we comprehend a world that is full of contradictions — not logical or empirical, but ontological? How can thinking, which arose within this world, grasp what lies BEYOND IT — if it itself is a product of the world’s internal laws? Old thinking is powerless here. Like a television locked onto a single frequency, it can only think in terms of familiar patterns. Is another way of thinking possible? Is there a mode of thought that can perceive contradiction as a form of wholeness rather than a logical error? If so, then it is precisely that which will be the key to the next reality. Let us begin with a simple yet often forgotten thesis: thinking DOES NOT EXIST in a vacuum. It is a continuation and expression of the laws by which the world in which it arose is structured. Our way of thinking is not universal — it is contextual³. It is molded by the form of the reality we perceive as fundamental. Had we been born and developed in a world with different structures, different fields, different connections — we would possess different foundations of logic, a different frame of reference, a different mode of thought. We would think differently, because BEING ITSELF would be different. In this sense, the classic formula "being determines consciousness" appears valid. Consciousness is a product of its environment; it grows from the soil of the world, not suspended above it as an abstract observer. What then of what modern science is revealing? Particularly quantum physics, where consciousness seems not merely to reflect, rather TO SHAPE REALITY. The act of observation is not passive; it is an intervention capable of altering the outcome. In this new horizon of understanding, consciousness becomes not a consequence of being, rather, ITS CONDITION. This is the reverse formula: CONSCIOUSNESS DETERMINES EXISTENCE. An obvious contradiction arises — yet only if we insist on separating them. If we instead abandon the dichotomy and recognize that being and consciousness are not two separate origins, rather two sides of one whole, then the contradiction disappears. It is not that being determines consciousness or consciousness determines being — THEY CO-DETERMINE each other. Like the right and left sides, which only exist together and are meaningless without their mutual alignment. This is not synthesis in the sense of compromise; it is the restoration of wholeness fractured by ANALYTICAL THINKING.

True understanding does not require choosing between poles, but rather recognizing their INSEPARABLE INTERDEPENDENCE. Only then can we comprehend a reality in which the boundaries between observer and observed are fluid, and thinking does not merely reflect the world but ACTIVELY PARTICIPATES in it’s becoming. From this follows an important conclusion: our CONSCIOUSNESS IS MULTILAYERED. On the surface lies reason, intellect — the outer layer that operates by the laws of formal logic, follows cause-and-effect relationships, and manipulates digital structures. This thinking — rational, analytical, linear — is a product of a world ruled by causality, repetition, comparability, and measurement. Like a computer, it calculates, compares, and delivers judgments. However, beneath this rational shell lies a DEEPER SPACE. There we find intuition, imagination, fantasy, poetry, insight, creative anticipation. These layers of consciousness are prereflective, free from rigid structures, and DO NOT FIT into the digital grid of logic. They are like waves of different frequencies, appearing in flashes, associations, dreams, and inspiration. Yet living in a world built on the laws of causality, we find ourselves in a condition where reason reigns supreme. Rational thought, as the representative of external logic, has self-appointed itself as the measure of truth. Everything that CANNOT be confirmed by logic is deemed an illusion. Anything that doesn’t fit into the "if A, then B" scheme is declared frivolous, unreal, and fiction. Thus, a SIGNIFICANT PART of consciousness is repressed, marginalized, discarded as "unreal." Who says that reality is only what is logical? We’ve already seen: in a world where "circle + triangle = green smoke," anything outside that formula is not just false — IT IS NONSENSE. A square, as a result, is impossible for them even in theory — it doesn’t exist within their logic. And yet, it may be entirely real — on another frequency, in a different system of relations. So too for us: all those images, ideas, and intuitive flashes that DO NOT FIT into the existing causal grid do not lose their ontological significance. They exist — because they can be REGISTERED BY CONSCIOUSNESS. What does not exist is only that which cannot be registered on any level — not by thought, nor feeling, nor image, nor insight. Therefore, anything that can be perceived — exists. A product of imagination, artistic vision, fantasy, or dream is not an "illusion" rather a FORM OF BEING. It may have its own density, its own logic, and its own consequences. These are real channels of other frequencies, other realities, which in our current mode of thought simply haven’t been granted "official broadcasting." To deny reality to something solely because it CANNOT BE REGISTERED by the five senses is logically And yet THAT IS EXACTLY what we usually do. By default, we dismiss everything that doesn’t fall within the visual, auditory, or tactile range. This shortens our horizon of vision, narrows the spectrum of the possible, locks us in a cell of the obvious. On the one hand, this STRATEGY IS DAMAGING. It limits our perception of reality, preventing us from accessing its subtler, deeper, or transcendent levels. We cut down our own consciousness to fit the external grid — and we lose freedom, scope of comprehension, and fullness of being. However, on the other hand, this narrowness is necessary. It is a condition of survival. Without a filter that narrows perception to align with the laws of the physical world, we COULD NOT orient ourselves within it. We wouldn’t survive in a material environment if our psyche constantly registered unfiltered images from other frequencies. Ignoring the laws of gravity in favor of illusory visions could literally lead someone to walk out a window following a pink unicorn. This is what both saves us and limits us. Thinking, as we know it today, has formed within this middle register of being — in a world where the laws of logic and causality operate with sufficient stability, where things have stable forms and actions produce predictable consequences. This is the world of ORDINARY VISIBILITY, the "domestic universe" in which our senses and reason evolved. This layer of reality became our natural home, and our thinking — a product of this home. Its structure is a copy of the surrounding environment. That said, as science and consciousness have developed, humans have BEGUN TO BREAK THROUGH the limits of the middle world. They have penetrated downward — into quantum substance, where familiar forms vanish — and upward, into the universe, where scale and paradox shatter earthly certainty. In these extreme layers, familiar thinking starts to break down: it encounters contradictions, paradoxes, non-localities, and — as before — seeks to ignore them. Where logic FAILS, it does not adapt, rather, it activates defense mechanisms: it silences, redefines, brackets out. Just like in the past — when abstractions clashed, Reason either distorted one or suppressed both, just to preserve the integrity of its worldview. This kind of thinking acts like a gatekeeper of order — yet it increasingly becomes a narrow gate through which the whole can no longer pass. A vivid example of all the above is the remarkably persistent and troubling phenomenon we encounter daily — THE FUNCTIONING OF STATE BUREAUCRACY. Nearly all of society instinctively feels something deeply distorted within it: the actions of officials provoke widespread irritation, disapproval, distrust. We sense something abnormal, corrosive, undermining the foundations. And yet — WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND why this happens. We see symptoms, we don’t reach the source. The reason for this lack of understanding lies in the fact that we continue to think within the logic shaped by the "middle world." We do not allow for the possibility that the phenomenon may have deep roots beyond the scope of rational-political or economic analysis. We DO NOT ACCEPT the broader frame described above: we don’t allow ourselves to switch to a different "frequency of understanding." We expect officials to behave logically, rationally, in the public interest — and we’re baffled when we encounter indifference, greed, or mechanical formality. We are surprised, yet continue thinking within the same "television channel."

The occasion for my reflection in this direction was the Presidential Decree of the Russian Federation dated 25 August 2023, N^o 639 "On Bringing Certain Categories of Persons to the Oath."⁴ This document prompted me to ask a simple yet fundamental question: Why, at such a critical moment for the country, amid growing instability, are officials — from the lowest to the highest levels, endowed with state authority — not brought under an oath? Why are the bearers of state power NOT formally and symbolically bound to what can be called the CORE OF STATEHOOD — swearing an oath of allegiance to the Motherland, to the Law, and to the People? This question cannot be answered while remaining within the boundaries of everyday thinking. There, only superficial explanations emerge: legal technicalities, historical particularities, political expediency. Yet they are all excuses that DO NOT GRANT access to the essence. To understand why the apparatus of power has become deformed and how it turned into a machine that has nearly completely lost its orientation toward the public good, one must go beyond old conceptual frameworks. What is needed here is a different kind of thinking — thinking capable not only of seeing what is on the screen, but also of perceiving what lies behind the transmission, what initiates it, and what sustains it.

The current Constitution of the Russian Federation was adopted in 1993 — in a different historical context: with different market realities, a different political structure, and a different societal condition. Today, three decades later, it is clear that the country is living under new coordinates. According to the fair opinion of many — including the President of the Russian Federation — certain provisions of the Basic Law require alignment with the present challenges and the strategic goals of the state. An analysis of these PROPOSED AMENDMENTS to the Constitution reveals a desire to strengthen state institutions, enshrine social guarantees, and reinforce sovereignty. In this historical moment, there arises the opportunity to complement the package of changes with another amendment, EXTREMELY IMPORTANT for the genuine affirmation of the bond between the state and society. This amendment could be introduced into the block of articles and aimed at addressing three key objectives:

1. Voting activity – in order for the People of the Russian Federation – the Bearer of Sovereignty and the only source of power (Article 3 of the Constitution) – to take part in the voting with CONSCIOUS RESPONSIBILITY and enthusiasm, they must see in the Constitution not abstract technical amendments, rather the realization of their expectations. Amendments must not only reflect the will of the state; they must also INSPIRE SOCIETY.
2. Interest in changes – it is necessary to include an amendment — both substantive and symbolic — that emphasizes: individuals vested with public authority under the Constitution are engaged in NOT JUST administrative activity, rather in SERVICE TO THE PEOPLE. Such wording elevates the status of public service to the level of a moral mission, restoring its spiritual and civic meaning. This will help reestablish respect for state institutions and attract worthy and responsible individuals to them.
3. Perception of the amendments – in order for the changes to be perceived NOT AS mere technical adjustments, but rather as a step toward moral consolidation, it is necessary to establish: a) a MANDATORY PUBLIC OATH for all public officials whose powers are defined by the Constitution — spoken aloud, publicly, and signed; b) the text of the Oath must be written in such a way that its fulfillment becomes a source of public respect, and its violation — grounds for NATIONAL CONTEMPT. The Oath must serve as a moral filter and a symbolic barrier: it cannot be spoken insincerely by anyone who is NOT TRULY READY to serve the people in the fullest sense.

Bottom line: What is at stake is not merely amendments to the text of the Basic Law; rather, it is a RECONNECTION OF STATEHOOD to its source — the people. Through such amendments, the Constitution can gain not only renewed relevance, it can also rearticulate the moral foundation of public service: not power for status, rather service for trust. Not a mechanism, rather a mission.

In 2016, following a meeting of the Anti-Corruption Council, President Vladimir V. Putin approved a directive (I will quote the official wording of the directive here):

1. To inform individuals holding state positions of the Russian Federation, positions in the federal civil service, positions in state corporations (companies), foundations, and other organizations established on the basis of federal laws, as well as in organizations created to fulfill tasks assigned to federal state bodies — whose appointment and dismissal are carried out by the President of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Russian Federation — and other positions provided for by Russian legislation, about the necessity of timely and proper fulfillment of their obligation to report, in accordance with the established procedure, any personal interest arising in the performance of official duties that leads or may lead to a conflict of interest;
2. To ensure the provision of methodological assistance to the individuals mentioned in subparagraph "a" of this paragraph in the preparation of the relevant notifications concerning the emergence of personal interest in the performance of official duties, which leads or may lead to a conflict of The deadline is 1 March 2016;
3. To submit, in accordance with the established procedure, proposals for: the introduction of an oath- taking procedure for state civil servants and the establishment of disciplinary liability in cases where violations of this oath are identified; Deadline – 1 April 2016

Responsible: S. B. Ivanov

THE DIRECTIVE WAS NOT FULFILLED.

Attention must be drawn to a troubling fact: the directive of the President of the Russian Federation, set forth in the decree on bringing certain categories of individuals to the oath, has still NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED. The reasons for this may vary, but the most likely explanation appears to be INTERNAL RESISTANCE. Not open or overt resistance, rather covert, veiled — manifesting as inaction, formalism, and attempts to simply "silence" the issue. This resistance comes from those who, in fact, should have been the first to speak the words of loyalty to the state and the people. This UNWILLINGNESS TO TAKE THE OATH is deeply symptomatic. It points to a desire among a significant part of the state apparatus to remain in the shadows: to avoid publicity, to escape accountability, and to preserve a status of unaccountable executors, precisely at a time when the call is for service. This drive toward unmanifested presence is, in essence, a confrontation with both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution, which affirms the sovereignty of the people as the source of power and declares public service to be a duty, not a privilege. The attempt to avoid the oath is not a minor formality or a passive protest — it is a DEEP REFLECTION of an entrenched corporate order, in which state power is severed from the people and functions as a closed system. The oath, by contrast, breaks this closure. It demands open ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY — personal, moral, and public. And that is why resistance to the oath is not a minor bureaucratic issue; rather, it is a clear signal: there still remain forces within the system of power for whom the word "service" is empty, and the people — merely passive spectators, rather than the source of legitimacy.

The failure to implement the presidential directive on introducing a mandatory institution of the oath is NOT a mere administrative delay. It is a factor that has significantly weakened the effectiveness of the constitutional amendments already adopted. Without the oath as a moral-legal anchor, the amendments remained on paper: formally approved, but NOT INTEGRATED into a living system of action. As a result, both the implementation of Presidential Decrees and the state's acquisition of the integrity aimed at by these reforms are hindered. Today, the initiative voiced by State Duma Deputy Speaker Pyotr Tolstoy — that more extensive amendments may be needed to the current Constitution than those made in 2020 — is NOT ONLY a correction of legal formulations. It is a chance to align the Basic Law with the actual behavior of officials who are obligated to serve the state and the people. That said, this chance WILL NOT be realized as long as a void remains between the words of the Constitution and the actions of officials. This void must be FILLED BY THE OATH — as an act of uniting law and personal responsibility. At the same time, the oath must not be reduced to a list of job description items — that would be a path to profanation. The text must include SOLEMN FORMULAS that express not legal accountability, rather it must be an INTERNAL COMMITMENT, a moral choice made consciously and publicly. The words of the oath must be real words — not formal phrases, rather an expression of personal maturity and inner readiness to serve. They must be such that the person uttering them feels: they are NOT JUST assuming a position, they are becoming someone who takes responsibility before the people and History. Violation of such an oath must entail not only administrative consequences; there must also be moral ones. It should lead to a loss of public trust, the collapse of reputation, and moral condemnation. Only in this way will the oath become NOT A PROCEDURE, rather a threshold that separates a mere performer from a genuine public servant.

The words of the Oath are NOT JUST a text. Throughout history and across all cultures, a true Oath has contained the weightiest words a person can utter aloud before others. These are the words: "I swear," "Duty," "Honor," "Conscience." These terms do not belong to the realm of bureaucracy or office jargon. They are words that awaken the INNER JUDGMENT within a person, that summon personal responsibility, that compel one to look directly into the face of their own Conscience. The power of these words is so great that for many, they become unutterable — quite literally. There are many people who are physically UNABLE to speak them aloud before others, knowing what follows: not just the judgment of those present, but also facing your own inner emptiness. but a confrontation with their own inner emptiness. For to say: "I swear by my honor and conscience to serve the people," is to invite the people — and one’s own conscience, to be witnesses to the entirety of one's future life.

This is precisely why the texts of oaths in many countries and historical periods have been hollowed out: they began to be replaced by technical formulas, lists of duties, and dry instruction points. The oath was turned into a regulation. This is easier — both for those who give the oath and for those who receive it. However, in that simplicity, the essential is lost: THE SACREDNESS OF THE MOMENT in which the word binds the person to their duty.

Meanwhile, the people are waiting for a real Oath. Not a text written by lawyers, but words that inspire trust. The people can feel falsehood — and recognize authenticity. They do not demand perfection, they DEMAND SINCERITY. And when a person, taking office, stands before society, looks the people in the eye, and says: "I swear with honor, conscience, and duty to serve my people and my Motherland" — that is the moment when state power once again BECOMES HUMAN — alive, accountable, and worthy.

The key words of the Oath should be:

— Honor: the concept sworn upon by those taking the Oath. It is "a reward bestowed for virtue," and is understood by the oath-taker as a guarantee of their good name and reputation, their loyalty to their word and duty. Honor grants the strength to carry out one's responsibilities through all hardships and blows of fate. To be Stripped of Honor in the case of oath-breaking is to be deprived of one's good name and reputation through various forms of disgrace — physical acts, verbal condemnation, or symbolic gestures.

"Officer's honor from the times of Peter the Great —

A symbol of courage, the spirit of the officer,

"I have the honor!" — the country’s bastion in essence,

Duty and service — a noble career.

It is the right to lead in an unequal fight,

And the shoulder offered to a friend in need.

Honor — like the banner of Victory in parade’s stride.

"I have the honor!" — as a symbol of heaven.

I have the honor — for the glory of the Motherland!"

Duty — sworn by the person taking the oath — is not an abstract or rhetorical concept. It is a CONCRETE MORAL OBLIGATION to the people, to the country, and to future generations. By uttering the Oath, the individual affirms: "My actions will proceed not from self-interest, not from career ambition, not from fear — rather from duty." This is the essence of the Oath — not just a formula; it is an expression of the inner foundation of service. Taking the Oath voluntarily, in accordance with the Constitution, means that the person VOLUNTARILY TAKES UP the moral burden of responsibility. They are not coerced or compelled — they make a choice. And by this choice, they declare to society: my actions from now on are measured, and that measure is not only the law, it is also the duty, which defines the MORAL PERMISSIBILITY of my conduct. Violation of this duty is not merely a technical breach — it is the COLLAPSE OF THE FOUNDATION. The one who breaks the Oath not only fails the state — they destroy their own legitimacy as a bearer of power. In such a case, PROFESSIONAL DISQUALIFICATION follows, not only in legal terms, they are primarily ethical. Such a person loses trust — not as a private individual, but as a subject of state function. They BECOME UNSUITABLE for performing any tasks involving state responsibility, because they have shown that their word means nothing. A state in which duty is spoken aloud and where its breach brings reputational and public consequences is a state founded on trust. And trust is the only currency that DOES NOT DEVALUE with changes in power or era.

"True duty is not for bread alone,

Not truth or justice to be shown,

Not for the glory or command,

It asks no loud or noble brand."

– Conscience: when a person entering public office SWEARS BY THEIR CONSCIENCE, they are offering not just a promise, rather an assurance of the existence of an internal moral mechanism capable of governing and guiding their behavior. Conscience is not an external overseer, it is an INTERNAL JUDGE, constantly comparing what is done to what ought to be done, action to norm, intention to ethics. An oath on one’s conscience means the person acknowledges a DUTY OF SELF-CONTROL — they do not wait for external condemnation because they are capable of stopping, reflecting, and reassessing on their own. Conscience is NOT AN ABSTRACT category, but a living corrective force that keeps one from straying off the path even when no one is watching and no report is required. It is the ability to act not from fear rather from Honor. The absence of conscience (consciencelessness) is NOT JUST a personal flaw — it is a societal danger. A CONSCIENCELESS PERSON is one who has lost internal control, no longer aligning their actions with moral norms. In dealing with others, they rely not on respect, but on manipulation; not on trust, but on domination. They recognize no "us" and "them" — everything is just a means to an end. They may wear the mask of kindness; however, behind it lies contempt for human closeness itself. Such a person is incapable of true love because they lack the capacity for respect and sincerity. One cannot trust this kind of person — and more importantly, NO ON WILL trust them: not the people, not colleagues, not time. Because they lack the foundation required of anyone in a position of public responsibility. Conscience is not weakness. It is the ONLY GUARANTEE that makes power safe for society.

"No matter what sorrow may threaten,

Or where danger may await,

Let your conscience be unshaken,

Day or night, never abate!

We live unready for dying,

And so, forget our shame,

Yet like a silent Madonna, conscience

Waits at every crossroad, unnamed."

I am convinced that based on all of the above, it becomes clear: the institution of the Oath is NOT A FORMAL procedure and not excessive symbolism, rather it is a NECESSARY LINK in restoring trust between the state and society. It is a moral-political act that gives service true meaning and makes power transparent, accountable, and morally restrained. The introduction of the MANDATORY OATH for civil servants is not a matter of political will, rather a demand of the times, a challenge that must be answered. Society longs NOT FOR COSMETIC reforms, rather a reboot of the meaning of public service. People want to see not a faceless bureaucratic mass, instead, they want to see those who consciously take on a duty, swear by honor and confirm the existence of conscience. And until these words ARE RETURNED to the center of state practice, any modernization efforts will remain incomplete, unconvincing, and internally vulnerable. The state does not begin with laws; it begins with the personal responsibility of those who enforce them. It is precisely the Oath — spoken aloud, with awareness of duty, with internal readiness — that can become an act of a NEW SOCIAL CONTRACT. And if that happens, we will be able to say that not just a reform has begun, it is a renewal of the very essence of power. Power not as domination, rather as a service. Not as a privilege, rather as responsibility. Not as a structure — rather as honor.

¹ A pattern (from English pattern — model, template) is a scheme or a set of templates that can be used for various purposes. It may refer to a graphic template in design, a recurring behavioral model, a standardized method for frequently encountered tasks in programming, or even a template used in technical analysis.

² Ontology is a term with two main meanings: first, in philosophy, it is a branch that studies phenomena as such, the nature of being and existence; second, in computer science, ontology refers to a method of systematically describing a domain of knowledge using a conceptual schema.

³ Contextually — means that something depends on the context, that is, on the surrounding circumstances, words, or sentences.

⁴ Those who are interested can review it on the official website: http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/document/0001202308250004.