The triumph of twists

Each of us has several biographies with our historical truth, fun or sad, successful or failure, good or bad. A person is arranged as a multidisciplinary collective farm in which a small “I” plays not only his original role, but also has a specialized biological function in the structure of general physicality. In this “mini-colle”, each role strives not only to act on the outer scene of the collective life and get bodily pleasure from his game, but also to get a “correct” moral and ethical assessment for these actions. A good performance is followed by pleasant physiological sensations and a sense of moral satisfaction, for unsuccessful - discomfort and guilt. Different self -esteems are that invisible biosocial feedback tool, which unconsciously regulates events inside and outside the person.

Everything seems to be clear, but why did Vladimir Mayakovsky write the answers to the child’s question: “ Kroshka the son came to his father, and asked the baby:“ What is good and what is bad? ”Maybe because the poet himself, as Ivan Bunin wrote in his“ Cursed Days ”, was prophetically nicknamed by the idiot Polyphemovich? Maybe the tragic finale of Mayakovsky’s history was just due to the fact that he could not find an adequate answer to his own question?

Yes, this is exactly so-and is explained in the logic of the results of perennial studies of the biosocial norm and mutations using the technology of egoscopy and (or) Internet flowering of Ullad. The communicative life of people fits in only eight models: four direct and four mirror models of evaluative biosocial judgments about something and about someone. Direct judgments-good about good and bad about the bad-indicate that a person has normal ethical rules for his personal sensations "what is good and what is bad" (10-30% of schoolchildren and teachers). For example, I am doing a good deed, I feel good, my soul sings and I am satisfied with me. Or vice versa: I do not like it, I talk about it and I will not do it, a point.

Two illogical options between them are good about bad and bad about the good-bibosocial mutations are marked (50-80%). For example, I do a good deed, I’m talking about it, and they thank me, but for some reason I feel some kind of discomfort, confusion and fatigue after that. Or, conversely, I make a “pile”, but inside me “dancing and sings” biological and ethical pleasure like “how I have given you”! At the basis of confused models lies the bioethical syncretism (indefinite) of the physiological reactions of "joy" and "grief" with the predominance of any one of them to events, diametrically opposite in moral significance. Mirror models are similar to these judgments, but they are truly turned over in the models of "joy" and "grief".

Ruthless secular and religious leaders with a different scale of historical achievements grow from twists

An unconscious model of inverted basic sensations, emotions and feelings regarding the results of doing “good” and “evil”, namely: a person receives physiological pleasure and joy when he does something bad to other people, and vice versa-he can do good deeds from the inside, because they are accompanied by obvious bodily discomfort and resentment. These are biosocial twists, and the share of such moral freaks is detected among schoolchildren at 5-10% and 1% among teachers. Agnia Barto in the poem "Snegier" (1939) amazingly described this false type of adherents, forced to turn contrary to their physiological gut to achieve the goal:

It was difficult to live in the world

And, in truth,

I endured these torment

Just for the sake of the bullfinch.

... Mom was very surprised:

- What is the matter with you, tell me the mercy?

Maybe you are sick with us?

You did not fight on the weekend!

And I answered with longing:

“I'm always like that now.”

... I sought stubbornly

I tinned on it for nothing.

“Miracles,” said mom

And I bought a bullfinch.

... I brought him home.

Finally he is mine! ..

I will admire them

He will sing at dawn ...

So, you can fight again

Tomorrow morning in the yard?

Ruthless secular and religious leaders with a different scale of historical achievements grow from the twists. It is believed that there are patterns of historical processes whose sacraments can be recognized. However, it is known that history does not teach anything, and its lessons in no way affect real events. Why so? Because all biographies are regulated in three interconnected contours: 1) linear-revervation, 2) circular-spiral and 3) mobius. The last type of management is known as the path of moral absurdity in the algorithm "The road to hell is covered with good intentions."

Anatomically and physiologically a person is arranged in accordance with this irrational paradigm of the regulation of material and social statuses and processes. The mobius canvas of system management is formed by emotions, culture, religion, laws and moral attitudes. On the front side of this canvas, rationalized patterns of social assets are openly “embroidered”, and in the wrong sector, intuitive motivations of obtaining the pleasures of the biological level are secretly acted, and these interconnected meanings are measured by the power of their internal and such influences.

In fact, in a continuous historical process, three fundamentally different circuits for managing social motivations with different levels of moral will and degrees of influence on real events interact. It is only natural that periodically the priorities of managerial relations are confused, and then the “heroes” from the group of natural carriers of the fourth - the main contour of social processes are accidentally pushed into the historical scene from the bowels of the chaos that arose.

So who wins and what? In history, biosocial twists win. They are carriers of "original humanitarian sin", which, by religious tradition, should be understood not as a crime, but as a psychological and moral abnormality. Their naturally turned the will of moral sadism (Ivan the Terrible, Hitler, Stalin and many similar personalities) attracts to itself and "absorbs" a lot of moral mutants into a muddy funnel with the help of supposedly spiritual "bastards". To satisfy their turning over, passionate twists in the paradigm of their experience synthesize new structures of power and politicians differently than they are.

The opinion of Nikolai Svanidze is true that "in our history, just, as it turns out, the main villains are the most revered, memorable and respected characters." For this objective reason, in undeveloped democracies, the irrationally arranged pattern in the form of a blurry restriction of the historical time of the triumph of the hedonistic imperatives of biosocial twists wins.

The purpose of the author’s opinion is to report to readers of information that there is already an instrumental recognition of the biosocial norm and anomalies tested by know-how. What and how to do it is the theme of another conversation.

Georgy Yuryev is the main researcher at the Humanitarian Expertise and Bioetics sector of the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Medical Sciences, Candidate of Psychological Sciences, Family Psychotherapist of the highest category