Alexander Artemov. "Three forces" again

"Three forces" again
Alexander Artemov

Publication date: November 11, 2002

More than a year ago, V.S. Solovyov gave a remarkable report, “Three Forces,” in which he spoke about things that today - and not only in philosophical terms - are becoming close to us. Three forces - East, West and, potentially, Russia - personify three fundamental processes, three aspirations in world development. On the one hand, this is a process of centralization, a desire for unity and unity, for a world where one universal and omnipotent God controls the monotonous and homogeneous mass of his creatures. In this world there is only one individuality, one Law, to which everything that exists is subject. The complete opposite is the desire for personal and multiple individuality, for decentralization and separation, when each entity, regardless of its smallness and frailty, has the right and freedom to build its own world around itself. But world development would be a simple mechanical process if there were no third force capable of breathing life into this diagonal movement between the centripetal and centrifugal poles.

And although Solovyov was not a very good forecaster in the sense of historical predictions, he probably expressed the main idea correctly. Neither the West nor the East will ever be able to defeat each other, because this is not given. Any positional advantage of one of the parties is temporary; an apparent victory explodes the winner from within, demonstrating in the most bizarre ways the very essence, the dual nature of man: the craving for the individual and the desire for the unified.

Even today, the actions of radical Islamists are based not on the power of terror, but on the inner essence of the enemy - on public opinion. Terror intuitively senses weakness, fragility, the ability for internal fracture of deep self-perceptions, a sense of self-righteousness and self-worth of Western civilization. If the breaking point is reached, no military power will save anyone, society will slide down, and not a trace will remain of its confidence and enthusiasm.

We saw something similar - albeit with different driving motives - recently in our national history. But here it is necessary to note one essential property, one feature of the “Russian idea” - its ability to create unnatural things, to embody and realize - albeit temporarily and as an experiment - something that cannot exist in nature. Both the East and the West exist according to natural, mechanical laws. Their victories and defeats are determined, as they say, by the will of Allah and the inevitable determinism of natural physical laws. We are given the opportunity to live according to the will of certain abstract principles, invented by ourselves, which do not always correspond to the objective physical laws and desires of the all-powerful World Soul.

If Soloviev is right, then the collision of East and West is an inevitable and mechanical process of historical movement between the centrifugal and centripetal poles of Unity and Individuality. But Russia, being neither East nor West, lives according to its own metaphysical laws and can initiate some other processes in the world movement, not just mechanical ones. Russia is capable (we won’t say “called upon”) to make history different, but it can also act differently by joining the natural history movement, if only there really is a place for it there.

Be that as it may, Russia has a difficult road ahead. And let there be less and less reason for us to trust and hope for the “special fate” of Russia in the world process, when it will one day - and in the most miraculous way - turn out to be an instrument of God’s Providence in establishing general order and prosperity. We just have to realize that Russia cannot acquire any positional advantages or benefits from its metaphysical freedom. But you will still have to move forward, guided only by your own ideas about history, due to Russia’s lack of a place in the natural historical process.

When Heisenberg, in his work “Physics and Science,” outlined positivist views on living systems, considering historical movement as a type of physical movement, he quite clearly described the attitude of modern systems science to the terms “life” and “development.” If in Solovyov’s time development was considered the prerogative of only a living organism, today the very concept of “life” is no longer limited to biological protein matter, extending to a wide class of homeostatic systems capable of self-organization. This, however, does not completely remove the metaphysical question about the content of life, about the direction and control of the life process. The natural historical process is a type of homeostatic growth within matter, in which one may or may not find other, supermaterial driving motives. At the same time, the possibility of extra-material motivation for movement seems completely obvious, since the physical world may well turn out to be a physically closed, but informationally open system - otherwise its development as a whole would be completely impossible, which follows from the logic and ideas of modern positive science.

All this does not mean, of course, the need to construct history and abandon the natural historical motivation for its material development; after all, the spark of God can be subtly present in the phenomenon of life, ensuring the movement of the world in the right direction. At the same time, from such a position it is impossible to satisfactorily explain the phenomenon of the human mind; it seems to be nothing more than a biological incident, not intended for independent application in historical terms. Be that as it may - and life shows this - there are always driving forces and individual people striving to embody their own will and personal idea of ​​​​"how it should be." The motivation and persistence of these forces is stronger the more viscous the homeostatic swamp in which the natural historical process sometimes finds itself becomes. Unfortunately, we have to admit that it is the “dark forces” that are most successful in their “construction” of history. The rest are quite satisfied with the modest and safe position of observers and critics, which at least exempts them from responsibility for mistakes.

Of course, the impossibility of a positive constructive movement can be explained by many objective factors. But in a situation where the “dark forces” intensify their offensive, society becomes entitled not only to defend itself and its swamp, but also to independently search for a positive path for its further development. Returning to the “three forces” and the role of Russia, we can state: again we have a historical challenge, a reason and motivation to use our metaphysical freedom, our independence in search of a new, no less difficult, but positive path, designed to breathe life and consciousness into the development of humanity.