How to become a dragon

Ksyusha Sobchak’s conversation with Katya Gordon on the air of the largest radio station in Russia with the followed by a studio brawl and a network intrigue, without a doubt, became a large media event. However, it was interested in the point of view of how the show-media-environment is arranged. After all, whatever one may say, it is she who forms the social context around us. Including around intellectuals. Moreover, Ksyusha Sobchak openly challenged the Russian intellectual community represented by Katya Gordon. The question of how to relate to this, thus, transforms into the question of how to live with it. The problem of communication between Russian subcultures in the past two decades is quite acute. The Russian -speaking writing environment is seen aggressive and fragmented. Mutual ears of dirt or mutual ignoring only exacerbate the confrontation, which is steadily rolling to the war of all against all. And half -bastards, while this is the Cold War, is much less pleasant when the irritants of language circuits "resulting" in burning cars or representatives of national minorities beaten to death.

In this sense, the action of Ksyusha Sobchak can and should be perceived as a very serious reason for thought about the place of the intellectual in modern society. A traditional and favorite thoughtful form of social escapism, that is, leaving the catacomb bed of his esoteric language, is not a solution to the problem, but its comforting imitation. And if writers and artists, simply by the nature of their activities, are forced to “work with modernity”, then scientists, humanities and philosophers, pretend that such does not exist, in any case, does not exist as an object that is worthy of analysis. At the same time, defending his right to escape from modern social problems, refusing to understand what is happening around, the humanities fall into a gross mistake, casting doubt on their professional suitability. Without giving an explicit report on his position regarding what is happening “here and now”, the analyst cannot withstand the necessary distance with his historical object. It turns out that the researcher, say, literature of the 19th century simply lies to himself and others who does not live today, but in the 19th century, synchronously the object of his study.

The blog and - wider - the network environment to some extent helps to overcome this dangerous methodological error. The analytical reaction to any event should be almost immediately, which allows you to start a professional conversation and evaluate what is happening in terms of a certain tradition of understanding linguistic shifts in a social field. I will point out the analysis closest to me in the language of the description, made in the hot pursuit of the "event" discussed by the Israeli philosopher, known as the HRR_UND_KNECHT LJ, who, with his characteristic brilliance , lays out the duel - Gordon in the lacan .

Not forgetting about the Lacan, I would interpret the dialogue of two media fihur in a slightly different refraction.

Both participants prepared for a conversation. As it became clear from the conversation, Ksyusha Sobchak studied the articles and broadcasts of Katya Gordon, that is, she studied the linguistic contour adopted by Katya, a kind of intellectual output to the shocking of the intellectual. I advise you to read, see and listen to Katya itself in order to make some idea of ​​the degree of this shocking. Katya Gordon, respectively, also had an idea of ​​the linguistic circuit of Ksyusha Sobchak, a cult hub, for incomprehensible reasons that got into a media factory. Already at the beginning of the conversation, Katya decided to partly use this language in order to be "closer to the people." Needless to say, the long -standing and ordinary failure tactics of the Russian intelligentsia. Deep roots that teach the most harmful.

So, interlocutors approach the dialogue, armed with each language weapon of another. Rather, the phantom that they built for themselves. Obviously expecting that, using someone else's language, they will be able to beat the opponent, retaining their own language contour inviolable. That is, they simply use the language as a hammer or mop for instrumental-operational purposes. However, the language is not harmless in its use. Language is the transformation mechanism - Mutabor! Each word is magical, changes the world, starting with the speaker. The dragon called this very dragon. This is how it happens.

Katya speaks with Ksyusha, imagining in the place of Ksenia, thereby inevitably falling deeper and deeper into what she should stay from the declared intellectual status away. Katya begins almost from this. Somewhat embarrassedly gives out a homework: “In each of us there is a little Ksyusha Sobchak,” thereby recognizing, against the background of a clear denial, that there is this same imaginary habalka in it. To which Sobchak does a brilliant move: “Do not flatter yourself. In some it is not at all,” indicating at the same time that she, Sobchak, is not what Gordon thinks of her, and that her language possession was marked by a greater degree of freedom, that she is better. That her language is more successful. Thus, Sobchak transfers arrows to Gordon (who is studying whom here), and in addition, puts it in the "ponspicuous" position. Sobchak has a verification mechanism that turns out to be valid for Gordon. Her weak attempts to put charity as a criterion are divided into the language that she herself is forced to use while playing in the media sex. This criterion is money, the financial success of the project. Gordon is substituted inconceivably, unprofessional, it immediately confirms that she classifies itself as a “atonement”. Sobchak does not miss this ball, as, however, not a single ball in the whole conversation. Gordon is lying. Gordon does not consider himself a “trouble” and “underput”, but, forced by the language role accepted by himself, turns out to be both. Sobchak constantly indicates her lies, incriminating, including the fascist division of mankind into categories with a priori assessments. So Sobchak puts in place the Mason, which imagined itself, which has imagined itself, which in fact is completely helpless, pulled out of the sink of its intellectual and blessing discourse. Katya is faced with her own real, with her might and most supplanted into the unconscious essence, which she tried to use allegedly at the distance, but could not stand the distance and ended up in the very center of her unconscious, her "Udorobskami complex". What Katya said about women-fools who lose all signs of intelligence in a skirmish happened to her.

But how? And so that Gordon, saying in words that there is something from Sobchak, in fact refuses to believe it, refuses to reflect it. She does not take into account the figure of the observer, but the same Ksyusha, standing behind and above her "I". Therefore, Katya speaks with stamps, uniform stamps, which do not become less stamped because they are allegedly developed in an intellectual Masonic bed. Gordon believes that she “put” Sobchak that she studied, “creamed” her, giving himself it to himself to assume, and that Sobchak could think about her. Not constructing an external look in relation to itself. Anyone who thinks that only he is watching, and nobody is behind him, and there is a real clinical schizophrenic. The same “real king”, according to the lacan, who is no less insane, believing himself as a king than the madman claiming the same in the house for the insane ones. But Sobchak, in his real "star", knows that she is observed that she is under microscopes and telescopes, she has an idea of ​​how others can see her, the same intellectual Gordon. Sobchak knows more and deftly switches the modes of languages ​​on this knowledge, manipulates, controls the situation. In the second half of the conversation, the triumphant Sobchak allows himself to switch to the language of the Khabalka, but as if with a grin: I have learned from you, a fool. And again he returns to a neutrally calm tone against the background of an increasingly losing face, which she, as it turns out, has never had, Katya Gordon.

Very instructive. It would be interesting to trace how far and deeply the dialogue of Ksyusha Sobchak in the regime of intellectual analytics could have been conducting. Unfortunately, Katya Gordon, having lost herself, simply did not allow her interlocutor to show whether that “face” has or not.

The foregoing does not exclude the fact that I believe the project "House" Ksenia Sobchak is riding of exceptionally harmful moronism. Why - this is another question, to which we are moving. Here I recall the story "Cut off!" Vasily Shukshin. The difference is that we are dealing with a much more complex and exquisite example.

What is charisma

Sobchak won the discussion with a superinteal, simply destroying the rather, by the way, an ideologically interesting project - an intellectual sex bomb. What arguments did she manage to win? This is very important to understand, because the confrontation between the book, elitist culture and the culture of the popular, massly and radically divides society, not only the Russian, of course, into camps hostile to each other. The fact that once in the 19th century was formulated as the problem of the people and intelligentsia, at the moment, has acquired several different forms. In the previously called "people", noticeable and influential leaders - pop stars, which even sometimes can speak on occasion, have grown and grew up. We will finally listen to the fact that they can inform us and incriminate us.

As it becomes clear during the conversation, Sobchak specially came to the studio to enter into a polemic with a person whose views are alien to her ideologically. First of all, this applies to the aspirations of the intellectual (and we are free to read this is wider - intellectuals in general) to drive everyone into a certain framework, to limit (age, for example, a target -group, educational qualifications). Sobchak categorically against such segregation, openly calling this strategy fascism. And you won’t argue, isn't fascism? Segregation according to some completely unexpected signs - a pure Chinese classification in Borges. We often laugh at the American concept of political correctness, requiring some, from our point of view, the absurd recognition of rights that we see as advantages, disabled people, women, marginally believers and national minorities. The statement of the American: "We do not have a segregation by age" - causes an explosion of laughter in the Russian quite intelligent audience. Ksyusha, in fact, suggests looking at this problem from a slightly different angle of view - from the standpoint of personalization of these components, these funny ones, only on the basis that we use others (success, academic status, educational qualifications, etc.), category. “No need to attach me,” she says. By the way, Katya Gordon managed to pronounce this word “put” (“I put you”) that one could clearly hear how scientific discourse was implemented in the Argo of the kids.

Sobchak consistently insists on his multiplicity and elusive incomprehensible individuality from the definitions. Why did you get the idea that you know what Ksenia Sobchak is? And in parallel states that in general all people are different. That there is no need to row everyone under one definition. Ksyusha is just a virtuoso of dialectics. Here she says: "What kind of fascism is to classify people." And here she says: “Just don’t have to mix everything, let's“ Paphos ”separately, and“ ordinary people ” - separately.” That is, she sorts concepts, not people. She works with her tongue, does not judge people, but languages. And this is not the court “according to concepts”, which is accepted in the boys, namely, a politically correct multicultural approach. In my opinion, rhetorical work is brilliantly done. And not only rhetorical. Liberal-democratic (yes, liberal and democratic at the same time) linguistic pathos is also difficult to overestimate. I will subscribe to every word.

Thus, we see that Ksyusha Sobchak is a person, of course, linguistically gifted. It is so quickly to build your polemic, it is so brilliant and instantly reacting to the balls presented to her - this is really without the fools of charisma.

The question is what Ksyusha Sobchak spends on his undoubted charisma.

The "house" was and remains a crumbling moronic project. Well, let's say, moronic for my thought contour. Therefore, I can’t make money. I cannot fall into moronism. And this is not the envy that Sobchak discovers "at a time" in Gordon, trying to make himself "star" on what it is impossible to do on - on genuine thought. This is a simple statement of the regretted fact that money is made, but I can’t. And so linguistically gifted Ksyusha can. So we get that she better speaks a language than me. She can even afford regression. And get out of it at will. This is the power! And this is the secret of her "star". Ksyusha Sobchak is not good in terms of glamorous, and not by glamorous, standards, she does not have any specific artistic talent. She is a pure case of "celebrity" in general. Her strength in an instant language reaction, in a linguistic flair, in a free switch of linguistic modes.

The problem here is moral order: those who are reproduced in morons under "Dom -2", the property of Ksenia Sobchak to go out and enter the outline in the contour. They remain there. Prisoners of "House-2".

This is similar to the charisma and popularity of the cord. The cord, of course, is a talented professional of the language, even ironizing over certain modes of the language. A cord parody of a gopot in its two simple language turns. The cord, at the concerts of which intellectuals and this gopot may collide. But unlike intellectuals, Gopota listens to the cord "in all seriousness" identification, without shifts and puns. Their cord acts as a prophet. So we get that the cord with his texts and his charisma reproduces and extols the linguistic contour of those over which he allegedly ironizes. Reproduces those who supply him with material for a terrible parody. It remains only to regret that he, with his mind and talent, guessed to be born in the country where the only worthy material for his work is the gopot animated by this work. He became, for a long time already became their dragon.

Such a “Prophet”, I would define it as a “dark tricster”, is able to enter a certain world, clearly below his linguistic abilities and capabilities, or, even worse, to put the primitive inhabitants to himself, to become the leader of the simpletons, and to periodically slip into another world, leaving the savages to jerk off on glass beads. And this is immoral. It is about this that it says: "Woe to the one who seduces these small ones." You are smarter, you are better, you just have no right not to give your best to those for which you are responsible by your example. The basics of such a world rest on the temptation, on the attractiveness of an idol. He himself is the foundation of his own world, or rather, Mirka, even a large enough, “House -2”.

The dark tricsters who make money for idollatria, in blind imitation, in the rally of the crowd in their name, that is, make money on the boobs and dodging, just such seductors. They say: "I am better than you, carry your money here!" Rather, "W.E.": you can coconuts and bananas, but you can rewards and titles. And so they can deftly impose the world for them to others that they are seduced by other things. Therefore, simpletons and carry victims on the altars of idols, by blindness of faith that this world is the best. Pure "opium for the people." The Idol action scheme on the crowd is strikingly resembles a narcotic or religious dependence. Dark trickers simply do not say why, than they are better, how to achieve it. They are not a teacher, but only examples for imitation. It is impossible to become a god in this system, you can only endlessly imitate, repeat. It is the mechanism of non -reflecting, paradoxically, the repetition of the repetition is condemned to the fans to "downstream". If you repeat, and do not study in a polemic, in a dialogue, in doubt, then you are doomed to never become yourself, that is, God.

Often dark tricsters do all this not by malice, but also, in turn, by ignorance, because they themselves do not know what the joke is. It is difficult to demand from an idol that he would not be, - absurd. Idol, as a rule, from early childhood begins to train himself and others on such manipulations. He himself does not realize the report, as he succeeds. Applies unconsciously. And then Idol is even a greater hostage of its really unique language contour than we, not idols. Because in response to the question: "Why?" - He replies: "I am pleased, I wonder, I need money." “I”, albeit a multi -sided, but morally unreflected in this multidisputed, becomes a collective unconscious. And in the end he flows into his own complex. The complex of your own name.

The described complex, IMHO, is a crime against intelligence and its main task - self -development of an individual person, which cannot develop in isolation from the entire society, from all of humanity. That is why each person’s action should contain a conscious and open declaration: "Why am I doing this." Let Sobchak and like it give a clear answer why they do it. Именно это должно стать предметом дискуссий и интервью со звездами. Они несут ответственность за тех, кому подают пример. Пусть отвечают как Авторы за то, что создали, то есть за свои креатуры.

И Шнур, и Ксюша рискуют, очень рискуют, а вместе с ними рискуем и мы жить в том мире, который они воспроизводят.