Here and now here

One of the main properties of generalizations is that any of them can always be summarized again. It seemed that the incident of Medvedev was already exhausted how his interviews were taking place and the theory could be continued. Here, in fact, the bosses of the channels, and not the president, already influence.

1. In the article on this topic (" Conversation at the newspaper kiosk"), at the very end, the joint position of the leadership of the channels was mentioned. It is this solidarity that requires the continuation. It was like this:
“Three channels, three bosses. This is how each of them mentioned citizens who, before and after the congress, tried to understand what was happening in the country.
... O. Dobrodeev: Dmitry Anatolyevich, the question, I think that is interested in many political local historians.
... V. Kulistikov: But still, you know, Dmitry Anatolyevich, many were bored simply, intrigue disappeared. True, they did not miss long, just a few hours, because Kudrin’s resignation, which was a complete surprise, occurred. And, you know, they also talk about this resignation of different things.
... K. Ernst: Dmitry Anatolyevich, thanks for this interview. I think that we have deprived, however, the pleasure of a number of picket vests to put forward our versions ... "
So the joint opinion of the leadership of the television channels is that people, sincerely, and sometimes even passionately wanting to understand what and on what grounds are happening in their country, are naive cheburashki that you want what you wanted. They argue as if I understand something about it. There will be an understanding, yeah. "

Of course, there is nothing fundamentally modernized, and there is simply a new one in this situation, but it is interesting that all three leaders of the main channels were considered to be necessary on this item. And they are unlikely to agree, this is something instinctively personal for their posts: they know-others are not and they do not need. The symbol of faith, in fact.

2. Still inadvertently the word "legitimacy" arises. It seems to be pathos, although in fact it is quite working-if, for example, it is applied to this triple point of view to the nature of the coverage of events in the state. Of course, this scheme is completely based on Medvedev’s words : “This is a matter of political expediency, the issue of following the political genre in our country.” But in this case, you can not climb to the origins of opinions. Just curious: how do the leaders of the channels feel the legitimacy of such an approach, that is, manually decide what exactly is right here and now?
Indeed, according to this point of view, part of the population - and this, practically, the entire population, minus the understandable circle of people - should not have a legitimate idea of ​​reality and, as a result, the right to make reasonable judgments.

Such legitimacy, of course, is closed and obvious the question: who is from which side? Moreover, any external speculations (even if they are not fully provided with awareness) of citizens have a much greater combined weight than someone else's knowledge of the situation that is in a closed and almost sacred circle, which for some reason (because there is no point in this) the leadership of the TV channels. Who cares what they really understand there - everything is understood outside as it is understood, exactly this produces a general opinion about the situation. Moreover, not everything is so terrible and in terms of ignorance: who holds this sacred frame, except for the leadership of three television channels? All other media outlets, except for highly specialized for the needs of EP, give a completely diverse picture of reality.

No, well, if MK already holds a round table on how to be with EP, in the sense of how to behave in the elections to minimize its future abuse in the form of postscribes, the work of the admin resource and other stands? There, people seriously reasoned in the strip. Well, MK does not comment on them in the spirit that, you understand what the marginals have conceived here.

3. What was the main Point of the YP Congress that Saturday? Exactly, that the whole background, consisting of reasoning on the topic of Medvedev or Putin, was not declared that was not existed at one moment. In other words, some political line ceased to be continuous, discreteness has strengthened: today. Tomorrow will also be somehow, but you should not wait for any connection with today. From the continuous interval of time in which something matured, folded, and then everything happened to the clear event here and now. It is here, but what happened before and what it is connected with - and do not think, it does not matter. Here it is now and now, and what happened yesterday - there was no more yesterday. Events ceased to have a background. The word "legitimacy" in this case means nothing more than the habit, inertia and just the memory of the absurd word. Of course, there is no need to keep all this prolonged reality of secret connections in the mind. It is not necessary to make forecasts from it.

4. The situation with Medvedev is interesting. How was he so written off? What will happen to some Skolkovo now, not to mention who will come to him to meet him on the topic of, say, all the same copyright or Internet freedom?

But what's wrong with him? He is undoubtedly president. Moreover, the president with a reliable future. Do not immediately remove the president, who became the prime minister at the head of the EP list. And, presumably, through this friendly exchange of posts, he clearly strengthened his relationship with Putin and his team (well, there is a team - purely from the contrary: when it would not be, then as the current premiere, inclined to various forms of leisure, could actually control everything?). And then the time of time is not in favor of the prime minister, so Medvedev is all right potentially. Well, yes, it is not clear what kind of circle of persons who forms the agenda and holds topics, but such a conspiracy operating person is always by the way.

But here and now even this banal reasoning does not work. Precisely because there is simply no duration and continuity in which such reasoning can have physiological grounds and consequences. By the way, in the "elephant" there was such an episode of an interview with G. Pavlovsky :
" In the event that Putin comes to power and dismisses Medvedev, he will have to explain to voters of" United Russia ", how this happened and why.
- I know in Moscow at least three dozen political writers who will write to you an explanation of this in 15 minutes. And they will take inexpensively for it . "

Well, what are 15 minutes, this can be done right there. Moreover, the problem is not in Pavlovsky’s disbelief in the skills of political writers, but in the fact that his reasoning was carried out in a continuous rather than discrete attitude to politics. If you understand that everything is already discrete, here and now, then there is no minute - everything is decided right there, by introducing a new discrete post (very, of course, important). But is it not to create a constitutional assembly in the state, for example? To develop a constitution that meets all the modernization requirements of the moment? The old one is foster: one cannot deal with corruption, or with traffic jams on the roads. Well, who should lead her, there can be no two opinions. Isn't it?

5. But the legitimacy in the version of "here and now" (namely, here and now and now) already representing not even a reflection of a certain tradition that has not existed. Or she’s just a strong -willed act in her part: the legitimity is exactly not to bother with this issue. The game begins in fundamentally changed circumstances. Where and a bunch of questions on the topic - why all these things? Institutions and allegations that everything happens in accordance with a certain institutional and other order? Now even the inertia of opinions that they can all mean something, disappears.

Why are all these imitations in general? All these party programs and strategies, imitation of elections? Moreover, this is not a lyrical exclamation, but a completely rational sensation. Well, yes, there is also a topic that in Russia the government is the only European, so it is, due to fictitious documents and structures, it expects to germinate conditional Europeanism in the country. Representatives of this power (former and current) in Europe are still not assimilated, but function as Arab Sheikhs. Unless, all these scenery serve in order to simulate some continuity of politics at least at the level of dummies. Well, like, KS was yesterday, but today it is also.

6. But there is a practical side of the matter. It is unlikely that the process of converging history to the event has purely Russian grounds. And then the question: who can afford to switch to operating reality in the version of "here and now", which would not destroy the existing structures? Actually, this is a matter of the qualities of the subject that is included in this game. He must have a certain fullness of the past and concepts within himself, otherwise he will be a reflecting hamster from social networks . He must have an instrumentation that allows in this “here and now” to react adequately.

In addition, if this position is turned inside out and see what it means in everyday life, it is clear that the economic grounds of life are preserved. Contracts must be executed, the judicial system should work, well, the elections should also occur. The more alienated from a long background, the stronger the frame should be. which. In turn, it should be neutral and, moreover, not ideological. In Russia, it is not visible, which means - at least from self -preservation - an alternative codification of actions and their participants should arise, or a certain compensatory story will appear. So I wonder where it can arise and for what reason. From where, from what point can the continuity of the process, even if that has a first of all, has a psychological meaning. It is continuity, since the reality of applied codification is not believed at all.