Downloads: |pdf| |doc| |epub| |fb2| |illustrations|
In order to ”penetrate” the text (its “inner meaning”) we should take either the author’s position, or the reader’s position who is perceiving the text. But there is also a certain “third way” bypassing the two above positions. It seems to me, that such a third way can be managed only by the one, who has embarked on the path of Cognition.
At the very beginning, everything often seems complicated. But then things are coming rightside up. My last two articles from series 369 (11 and 12), and not only them, triggered a lot of responses, but the main complaint of readers is the complexity in understanding the idea I want to convey to people. It seems to me, the context and its tasks should be perceived as a wholy volumetric structure, which is created in order to “shake up the reader”, and NOT LIMIT one’s thinking, but push in the direction that seems promising. One can see this process as guardianship, at the same time imparting the word a more active meaning beyond its material components of support that are familiar to everyone — the images of “weak old people” or “dull witted youths” who need to be kept going or put into some kind of reliable track of existence, differing no more than a stage of material prosperity that forms the consumer level. Some readers DO NOT UNDERSTAND, they are repulsed and demoralized by “operating with narrowly discrete concepts” designed, as they think, to facilitate the path of seekers and discoveres and it seems that even this is partly honorable — after all, you have first to plunge into the existing scientific directions and schools in which these concepts were born. And, as they believe (and I appreciate the fact that they have their own opinion) — the path turns out to be a painfully roundabout way — mankind has generated so great number of things with its genius minds of varying degrees... the bigger part of the “generated” missed the target and within the framework of the set narrow limitation, and the rest is one-sided and discretely tints some slightly hidden aspects of reality, some other categorically hidden sides and something else, completely unknown to us. But these manifested moments — they are manifested for the contemporaries of the developers and within the framework of their ways of thinking. How good is it now, when, in their opinion, THE PERFECT CLARITY and simplicity are NECESSARY, formed on the basis of realities, and not theories of scientific directions and schools, be they psychological or mathematical, etc.? The readers believe that I am actually proposing to try on (or adopt) someone’s way of thinking. Because any scientific direction that I propose to them, and the concepts that I myself use, are the result of reasoning, in most cases of one person, sometimes with a group of like-minded people with the same thinking strategy, together with the categories that I operate with and form and move towards the intended goal. You can, of course, agree or disagree with this, but I prefer to look at all this as the success of the information that I provide, because the depth of such reflections is a certain success of the personal understanding and understanding of people who began to think like that! And I am very glad that what I have given is NOT ACCEPTED for faith. Faith begins when understanding ends.
I perfectly understand both readers with a similar position, and people who have different and sometimes just opposite position. And I really want everyone to realize that the information I have been giving you, and I ought to give, is not based on authorship, including mine. Because today's unconscious ever being reference to the author (authors — bearers of big names and titles and regalias of various stripes ..), hanging over any idea or information, like a sword of Damocles, initially destroys and fences off the author from the reader, and the ideas — from generation and realization. Then there remains a guideline only for one thing — understanding. This level of awareness and understanding of the information received cannot be compared with anything else. And if a person is able to separate himself from the idea generated by him, and unequivocally put it above everything else that is humanly petty and habitually significant, and NOT IN WORDS, but in actions, this will make his level of perception way deeper and larger than usual, this is the perception above all stereotypes and dogmas. Then at least TWO THOUGHTS are to come into being (I do hope so). The first one — this information is serious enough, and is supposed to be COMPREHENDED, AND NOT just READ. It contains historical examples, documents, and reference material created beyond the framework of modern "science", and a catalog of specific recommendations intended not only for ordinary people, but also for very serious specialists. Without such (and not only mine) information, a lot of decisions become erroneous, which we have often observed over the past 20 years. All the tragic mistakes that are being made nowadays are related to the fact that they “have neither been read nor understood…” thus causing incorrect actions. And this has become a normal and “objective” justification of the actions carried out, or, more precisely, of inactions due to misunderstanding. But this, of course, has its advantages, because the lack of understanding and inaction is clearly expressed today among those “leaders” (or the so-called elite), who I have been writing about, so that their participation (or not participation) in the ongoing could be clear to everyone. This is one of the indicators — WHO AND IN WHAT WAY is able to see (perceive) the quality of information, I have repeatedly been convinced of this. I was lucky to work with managers of different levels: from federal to business structures, etc. I know rather well that today all managers regularly receive analytical reports on various aspects of activities and the reports are very qualified. But, unfortunately, these analytical materials are NOT ALWAYS used, and moreover, they are often not read at all. Those who the reports are addressed to do not have enough time or energy. But these are just excuses. The point is — these “leaders” neither understand what is proposed nor have an adequate perception of the reality. The problem turns out to be not in the inability to study the situation and give recommendations, but in the inability to extract information from these materials, comprehend it and act without error. Similar with the information that I give people in my articles and books. And you should not take offense at me for that. You have to understand and move forward.
The second thought is the following: in order to begin to understand and comprehend, to get into the spirit of the written, it is necessary to offer a technology for working with the text. If you try to understand the text (what I am writing and, of course, not only my texts), then in addition to the practical benefits for organizing your activities, I think you can get pleasure from working with this information, like from a good chess game, which you win. But for this you have to learn to UNDERSTAND THE TEXT. Understanding the text is much more than reading. Education in our country has spread a peculiar and misleading view of understanding. School requirements reduced understanding to memorizing what is to be understood. This can be attributed to ours, and to school, and higher so-called education. The ability to repeat “by heart”, to reproduce completely and without mistakes a certain text was considered and is considered as understanding in most “popular” education systems. At school, poems, formulas for solving quadratic equations, periodic table, etc. are memorized. Everything is memorized — and nothing more.
Reading here is supposed memorizing and acting “within the given information”. And understanding means “going beyond the limits of the information” — working with what is not in the text. The fruits of such education are being reaped today in adult and political life.
I will clarify this with an example that is quite suitable for those who have already come into contact with my works and the information provided by them: I am presenting a series of numbers for understanding: 144; 89; 21; 377. The question is: "Is it clear what this is?"Almost always the answer is: “These are the arithmetic numbers 144, 89, 21, 377” (within the limits of this information) — this is pure memorization, which absolutely DOES NOT GIVE ANYTHING to a person. In this case, the ability to remember, keep in memory and after a while reproduce four numbers to the complete satisfaction of all parties is used — at school and higher educational establishments they give an A-plus. But understanding here is replaced with memorization.
The correct answer: “these are numbers from the Fibonacci series, in which the order is mixed up” (going beyond the information provided — understanding).Understanding allows you to independently arrange, remember, assume in the future, apply in practice what follows from just four numbers. If memory is characterized by randomness, volume, long-term memorization, reproduction accuracy, etc., then understanding has four types, each of which differs according to three criteria, which together gives twelve (!) types of understanding.
The types of understanding, based on the works of A. I. Yuriev, who I completely agree with on this issue, are divided into:
The first type of understanding is “restoration of the destroyed information”. In this case, this is the restoration of the order of the presented number series (21, 89, 114, 377), and then you figure out the missing numbers of the Fibonacci series (34, 55, 144, 233) and indicate the entire series in the correct order — 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, which WAS MISSING in the given information (each number of the Fibonacci series is equal to the sum of the two previous numbers — a regularity). We look at what is happening today from this position — practically all information, including political one, is presented to the society “destroyed” because of its complexity, deliberately or through incompetence. Information on political events is always fragmentary, confusing and can be understood through the knowledge of the laws of their occurrence, which allows restoring their logical order and missing parts. This requires some knowledge from the theory of politics of something similar to the laws of the Fibonacci series. In this case, it can be equated with policy goal setting. But the conclusions will still be incorrect, because there is no understanding of the changes that are taking place and the real information. The political analysts are not capable of this at present.
The second type of understanding is “reproduction of the previous information”. In our example, this is the indication of all the numbers of the Fibonacci series that precede those initially presented: they are 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, which were not directly in this information. Likewise, all political events and organizations have a predetermined history of many centuries. Without knowledge of the law of “predetermination” of specific events, it is unthinkable to correctly understand brief information on current events. The expediency of events and policies can only be understood in such a context. This is the work of a historian in the past. But few of historians have read (comprehended) the works of N. Morozov about this very history.
The third type of understanding is “anticipation of the subsequent information”. Here is an enumeration of the numbers of the Fibonacci series following after 377: 610, 983, 1589, 2572, etc. up to the infinity.
To give a political forecast based on this information directly, without having the key to it (like the law of the Fibonacci series) IS UNTHINKABLE. Politics has its own logic, as strict as mathematical, and there are no events that are not predetermined by some psychological law of their occurrance. In our example, this is close to policy determination. Or, to be more precise, a certain goal vector realized within the framework of the Control System and directly through people with a specific Brain genotype. But all the same — it is just an assumption and nothing more, because there is no understanding of the processes going on beyond the will of people. There is no knowledge of the information which is known by those who have embarked on the path of true knowledge. This is the work of a political futurologist in the future, but, as you can see, it cannot be real either.
The fourth type of understanding is “the implementation of the information presented”. The Fibonacci series is based on the "golden ratio" (division of a unit segment in the ratio of 0.618). It is the universal law of the living and nonliving world, ensuring its stability and harmony.
For example, an aesthetic impression of a person's face is determined by the observance of the ratio of the width of the face to its length, which in the ideal case should be 0.618. The golden ratio should be considered when creating perfect household items, architectural structures. The politics determination is related to this type of understanding, but only in reliance on the true information of the ongoing processes. This is the work of a political strategist who uses the past, present and future of the political process. But it is also beyond the true implementation of the reality today.
In real life, any directly presented information is intended for the practical behavior of the person who received it. Information has only one purpose — it is the toughest and most "invisible" means of influence. Without knowledge of a certain hidden creature of the presented information, the behavior, including political, of its recipient will be simplified and erroneous, a creature as hidden as the value of the ratio 0.618 in nature, geometry, game strategy, search theory, periodization of human life is hidden from NON-INTERESTED READERS, etc.
The numbers of the Fibonacci series are closely connected not only with the solution of quadratic equations and with the "golden ratio", to which the proportions of all minerals, plant and cultural forms are subordinated. There are also understanding criteria that allow everyone to understand the surrounding reality, regardless of the level of education and cultural development. A person takes aesthetic pleasure in the observed connection between numerical laws and the laws of nature, or feels fear if this law is violated, but he does not understand what the matter is. This is an emotional criterion of understandingwhich is used by users of text on tablets, mobile phones, etc. Others know about Fibonacci's law and use this knowledge practically in the creation of architectural structures, in the design of automobiles, in literary work. This is an empirical criterion of understanding for the producers of information, technical, aesthetic systems. Still others, familiar with the theory of numbers of the Fibonacci series, use it to discover more and more of its regularities and consequences from it. This is a logical criterion of understandingfor the designers of political, social, technical and other systems.
It is easy to calculate that there are 12 types of understanding, each of which allows you to take from the text only one twelfth of its content. Understanding is closely related to what you want to know from the text — WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR in the text. You find it and take it and use it, but at the same time 11 of the twelve meanings of the text remain unknown to you, as if they were not in the text. AND THEY ARE — it has been experimentally proven that they are.
All the types and criteria for understanding information by the example of the Fibonacci numbers:
- Restoration of the destroyed information according to the emotional criterion.
- Restoration of the destroyed information according to the logical criterion.
- Restoration of the destroyed information according to the empirical criterion.
- Reproduction of the previous information according to the emotional criterion.
- Reproduction of the previous information according to the logical criterion.
- Reproduction of the previous information according to the empirical criterion.
- Anticipation of the subsequent information according to the emotional criterion.
- Anticipation of the subsequent information according to the logical criterion.
- Anticipation of the subsequent information according to the empirical criterion.
- Realization of the presented information according to the emotional criterion.
- Realization of the presented information according to the logical criterion.
- Realization of the presented information according to the empirical criterion.
All of the above is highly important because the process of thinking, comprehending the content of the text is begins only with its understanding. It must be emphasized that thinking itself, including political thinking, is understood today quite differently from that of ten to twenty years ago. I consider that we have to act trying to clarify and implement the meanings. Thinking is no longer a distant observation, but a practical experiment to discover or realize the meaning, but action — to involve others in the development (everything exists as long as it develops), a meaningful collecting of the whole. The future is not the source of horror and threats, but the PROVIDER OF OPPORTUNITIES. If we act in the logic of development, we have a lot of supporters, and we make the mainstream1 or belong to it. We must be partners in the development, create space for practical experiments. The dominant thing is not to live in total distrust of the world, in the "ring of enemies" (although trust and innocence should not be confused, the latter is not the best guide in life), not to fight with the whole world, but be loyal to it, that is. attentive and cooperative.
Thinking, in my opinion, is the INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY of the action — an important condition for the success of an action. Flexible action, if it is not limited to chaotic reactions to external stimuli, requires an extremely broad vision. Flexible action is impossible without reflection (imagining oneself in a constantly expanding world) and without understanding (knowledge collected in a model). If in an organization or society “the intellectual is restricted in its rights”, then this organization or society are poor builders of the world, rather brakes for it or a part of the panicked crowd rushing after the leaders. This is the heritage left to us within the Old Control System.
Nowadays, when we receive information (it does not matter what is its source), we all have to strive to ensure that understanding becomes the support in the modern concept of thinking, which must be necessarily involved in the process of our own knowledge, in our own research and formulation of the recommendations for our own comprehension and knowledge. This will allow us to avoid the desire to “go” into the so-called esotericism associated with all kinds of teachings and “knowledge” which the Internet, many programs on TV and a great number of published books are full of — and understand the futility of this path. Understanding is not for clarifications, but clarifications are for understanding. Because receiving information is a prerequisite for understanding. These are the thoughts that appear when “reading-understanding” letters from the people who have made their points about what I have written. And I am sincerely grateful to them. Here I tried to give some brief “suggestions” in understanding not only my books and articles, but also N. Levashov’s, as the basis and beginning of New Knowledge, and other Russian scientists, whose information I have relied on for systematic and effective use in practice. The series of articles 369, which I recently began to write and where I think to give facts, opinions, assessments and recommendations about the ongoing today, and of course, including articles 11 and 12, which triggered writing these clarifications, — all this can be represented as a series of numbers 21, 89, 114, 377, but correct work with these texts will allow you to restore the missing numbers 34, 55, 144, 233 (which I have not yet mentioned!), And then those missing in articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13 (which was long ago and what is described in already published books and articles!) and 610, 983, 1589, 2572, etc. (which is to be in the near future!). And what is and what is to be is a separate talk that does not fit in this article.
This is the so-called "secret of layer-by-layer presentation of information", which was used by both Alexander Khatybov and Nicolai Levashov and what Nicolai taught me — you read the text, then reread it and open new and new moments for your knowledge that were NOT OPEN at the first reading, because the Brain WAS NOT READY to accept and comprehend: not the text itself, but the depth of information that the text carries in itself. And the key is plain — reading, comprehending, finding the incomprehensible, which is going to be revealed while the next careful reading with the experience of the previous reading. And with each new reading comes a deeper understanding of the above.
We are going to continue this discussion in the article series 369.
1 Mainstream (English mainstream — “mainstream”) — the dominant direction in any area (scientific, cultural, etc.) for a certain period of time. It is often used to denote any popular, mass trends in art for contrast with an alternative, underground, non-mass, elite direction
| << 012_369 | 014_369 >> |