The International Conference "Dialogue of Civilizations", held on September 3-6, 2003 on the Greek island of Rhodes, made a somewhat contradictory impression.

The Forum was certainly successful in terms of the high emotional mood of its participants, their civic position and sincere concern about the current situation in international affairs. At the same time, the scientific content of the conference left a feeling of vagueness and vagueness, which also affected the final document adopted by the forum participants, which, however, will be finalized and clarified. Perhaps the biggest drawback of most of the reports made at the conference by religious figures, scientists and politicians was their somewhat idealistic attitude: they repeated attempts to present civilizations, religion, spirituality as the antipodes of globalization, consumerism, a unipolar world, hegemonism and the growth of violence on the planet.

This juxtaposition, although not thought out at the conceptual level, looked somewhat artificial, which can be said about the main report made at the forum by a well-known Indian scientist and public figure J. Kapoor, who has been publishing an interesting magazine "World Affairs"in Delhi for several years.

J. Kapoor believes that the cause of the current ills of humanity is "an excess of technology and science" (especially, as he said, "materialistic science") in the life of society. In his opinion, during the Renaissance and the spiritual rise of man in the West and East in the middle of the last millennium, spirituality (religion), philosophy and culture played a much greater role than now. This made the world of that time more harmonious. In my opinion, we can only partially agree with this provision. Moreover, such an understanding of the main problems of the modern world is not a sufficiently reliable basis for developing positive ideas and concrete proposals for improving the international situation.

One of the main reasons for the many difficulties that humanity faces at the threshold of this millennium is precisely the opposite - the lack of fundamental scientific knowledge in the socio-economic and political fields. Most of the disciplines used by scientists, politicians, and businesspeople are still applied ^.1 This area is replete with dogmas - old and new. Unfortunately, most of our social disciplines are not only applied, but also covertly ideologized. There is a lot of antrocentrism in them, often barely covered by the convenient and not very binding epithet "humanitarian".

And now about S. Huntington, whose well-known work "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order" (1997), which can be briefly translated as "Clash of Civilizations", seriously provoked the forum participants, although, it would seem, it has long received an exhaustive assessment, including in the magazine " Vostok"("Oriens"). It could be said that Huntington's shadow lingered over Rhodes during these September days.

I would venture to note that the widely popularized (and popularly written) work of S. Huntington can hardly be classified as scientific, even by a stretch of the imagination. Therefore, its serious critical analysis was hardly appropriate from the very beginning. First, the title of S. Huntington's work does not make clear the subject that the author is engaged in. It would be possible to understand the book as an application development if the title was "conflict" and not "Clash". We have conflictology as an applied science. From it, for example, it is known that not always internationalization of the conflict, excessive dramatization of its course can be useful due to the removal of responsibility from the direct participants. Just as harmful in practice can be an excessive crisis attitude, excessive media alarmism, etc. But S. Huntington easily steps over these "little things", he has, I repeat, not a "conflict", but immediately a "clash" - something from boxing. Secondly, scientists have no right to trust the work of policy practitioners and diplomats (developers of foreign policy).-

¹ The possibilities of modern applied sciences can be judged by the attached half-joking comment " Riki-Tiki-Tavi...".

page 172

including S. Huntington). The professional duties of the latter are very often directly opposed to the work of a scientist and even to some extent to the human essence, since they require hiding certain facts from the public, as well as direct misinformation of the audience, "probable enemy", etc. Therefore, we are forced to assume that the actual state of political affairs on the planet after some time perhaps historians will find out (this would be an optimistic forecast) or archaeologists (not the most optimistic forecast) or representatives of other worlds (optimistic-pessimistic forecast).

Good abstractions and clear, consistent scientific definitions tend to make humanity's existence easier. But this does not mean that the introduction of the category of civilization, which became popular (and therefore immediately became impoverished theoretically) largely because of the work of S. Huntington, is necessary for the analysis of international relations. Working with "civilizations" in this area is fraught not only with theoretical dangers arising from the principle of economy of thought. It is not for nothing that the thrifty Chinese in the last quarter of a century have done very well without "civilizations"and" new thinking".

There is a political danger of excessive application of the civilizational approach. Presenting the world as a set of "horizontal" civilizations, such as Chinese, Indian, Western European, North American, Russian, etc., we run the risk of excluding individual countries from this set - due to the uncertainty of their civilizational position, small size, and the mixture of existing cultures, ethnic groups, etc. by using the term "civilization", we, among other things, undermine the foundations of the UN's activities, which, fortunately, does not yet have this term in its main documents. Meanwhile, almost all participants of the forum spoke about the need to strengthen the role of the UN.

I do not rule out that the modern world in general is better represented as three very large social aggregates or (excuse the conventional term) "vertical civilizations": political and ideological (the first), business (the second), and creative (the third). The former thinks planimetrically-clearly, quickly, and flatly. This is the elite. The second is known stereometry-cube, ball, prism. These are simpler people-businessmen, artisans, farmers. The third "civilization" can work with complex bodies: a statue of Venus, an airplane fuselage, etc. These are very simple people-architects, engineers, designers, sculptors, etc.

The fate of the planet, as we see, is decided clearly, quickly and flat-minded people. They easily dispense with abstract thinking and are very receptive to new phrases invented by their advisors. A triangle doesn't contradict a square. Is it possible to prove this to politicians? I hope. The fact that a cube (for example, in Mecca) does not contradict a sphere (for example, on earth), - modern politicians, ideologues and the military may not be able to prove it right away. They, I repeat, think quickly, clearly and flatly-with a map of the area, the number of voters, the time of the campaign, etc. But the fact that complex and largely contrived contradictions are reconcilable is easier to prove to businessmen and craftsmen, designers, architects, etc. You can not, of course, immediately move the statue of Venus from the third" civilization " to the first. It is risky to start a conversation about civilizations with politicians in general. This is a gross theoretical and practical mistake of the creative intelligentsia. The problem for humanity, perhaps, is whether the second civilization will understand the third. And it is time for some modern politicians to do at least something concrete, or better yet, to refrain from decisive actions-with the hope of eventually migrating to the second "civilization" or at least earning its partial trust. The main danger for humanity is in the first, political and ideological "civilization" - decisive and fast.

S. Huntington's" Clash " is an exaggeration of the threat, possibly very harmful to humanity. Take a look: they exaggerated the threat of " resource scarcity "(reports of the Club of Rome in the 1970s) instead of eco-friendly management: as a result, they created a fierce struggle for resources. Do you need them in such quantities? We haven't defined this scientifically in relation to the current situation. Similarly, S. Huntington's" Clash": it is clearly fraught with a more fierce struggle between peoples and states than is necessary from the point of view of freezing or better - reducing the level of conflict. It is dangerous to even mentally exceed the limits of the necessary defense. And absolute security for one or more countries in the era of globalization is simply unattainable.

page 173

In addition, "Clash" is an explicit or implicit invitation to continue the ideological struggle or, more simply, the "cold war". Americans are no less ideological and religious than other nations. Their belief in their own technological, scientific, informational and similar superiority is in some cases blind. Just as naive are the thoughts about the possibility of a unipolar world. The history of mankind regularly refutes this kind of idealism and romanticism. But it is unlikely that the United States should already be accused of "fascism", which A. Kless (Luxembourg) did not fail to do at the forum, clearly agreeing to another ideological brawl.

Therefore, in order to improve the parameters of the dialogue of "civilizations", it is quite acceptable to think about such a simple thing as partial de-ideologization of the planet in the form of rational collective action. The most accessible and effective approach here is a sharp increase in the political and informational representation of science, which I, unlike J. R. R. Tolkien, was able to achieve. Kapoor, it seems, is completely minuscule. Let's compare it, for example, with the representation of the Vatican. When the Holy See recently asked the heavenly Office for rain for Europe, the whole world found out. And shortly before that, Pope John Paul II blessed the departure of an armed congregation from his home country to Iraq, where it rained even less than in Europe last summer. The heavenly chancellery refused to allow rain, perhaps seeing some contradiction in the activities of the Holy See. As a person with a certain amount of Polish blood, I would like to ask: what did the Poles forget in Iraq?

Science, of course, does not contradict religion. Both of them have a huge field for joint activities. In Indian idealism, there is a colossal cognitive potency. This country has given us the practice of nonviolence as a winning political action, as well as a generous and harmonious attitude to nature. "Look around you," this ancient civilization whispers to us, " and listen carefully. And don't make any sudden moves. You might scare some pregnant fly to death." By the way, the idea of transmigration of souls may well be considered as a scientific intuition, which has not yet received a conceptual design.

Returning to politics and science, it should be noted that we still do not have any scientific concepts, but simply generally recognized ones. These include "human rights", "totalitarianism", "freedom", "terrorism", "democracy", "aggression", "intervention", "interference in internal affairs", "information aggression", "ideological war", "anti-terrorist coalition", "humanitarian intervention", etc. What is behind these symbols? Their meaning is vague.

Therefore, the real policy of many countries is not scientifically justified, and in some cases it contradicts scientific conclusions, because it cannot clearly formulate its goals and means. One might even suspect a worldwide conspiracy of politicians. But excessive suspicion is, I repeat, a dangerous thing. Therefore, they should be discarded, considering that scientists can still agree with politicians - on simple and clear issues, including those related to the disclosure of information available to politicians. Which, unfortunately, is still a rarity. The current situation needs to be overcome by throwing out the superfluous and taking the new - especially not formulated-extremely carefully. And while understanding that science-based policies cannot be global.

Of course, we need not only science and religion, but also a good human feeling. One of the forum's leaders, V. I. Yakunin, said this very well, recalling at the end of the conference the need to look at the world through the eyes of children as well. Let's add that such a symbol can be the little Prince Exupery. It's time to clean up the planet after all. To do this, we will need Japanese grace and fierce Russian arguments, German thoroughness and French lightness, Scandinavian neatness and English humor, Texan simplicity and Chinese tenacity. Etc.

I repeat: the human dimension outweighed the forum's scientific achievements. Maybe it's for the best.

page 174

comments:

Riki-Tiki-Tavi in the context of the dialogue of civilizations

Let's try to analyze the well-known short story "Riki-Tiki-Tavi" by D. R. Kipling with the help of modern interdisciplinary approaches and the development of the principles of the "dialogue of civilizations". As the subject of research, we will choose the characters of the story. We will focus on the mongoose-cobra dialogue and its meaning.

Approach one: ethical and tactical. Using this approach, it is established that Riki-Tiki-Tavi completely eliminated the likely threat in a preventive and particularly savage form. If you remember, the penultimate act in this operation was biting off the head of the last cobra in front of its mother. It should be noted that the valiant mongoose had previously informed Nagaina of the deaths of the other children and, in addition, had violated the memory of the widow's late husband who had been killed with his help. After that, the demoralized widow was also eliminated. Short human rights, gender and legal notes are possible here, which we will refrain from because of the complexity of the methods of these too elastic sciences. Yes, we will remind, before the main operation, Ricky managed to deal with the"little snake Cartwright".

This requires a comment from the field of ethology - the science of animal behavior. In nature, mongooses (wyverns) do not eat large snakes, they feed on smaller animals (mice and small rats) from their "civilization", a class of mammals. Cobras don't eat cobras. Probably for ethical reasons. In general, snakes eat very sparingly and can go without food for more than a year.

Approach two: environmental and economic. It can be stated that as a result of the above-mentioned ethical and tactical operation, the reproduction of a valuable (delicious) nutritious product, as well as excellent natural raw materials for the pharmaceutical and leather industries, was stopped in the area under consideration. It is also necessary to mention the sanitary and hygienic aspect: the products of the tactical operation were not properly disposed of. For reference: according to the latest scientific data, wyverns are supposedly carriers of the most dangerous disease - acute respiratory syndrome. In view of the above-mentioned reduction in the food supply in the area under consideration, it is possible to assume an increase in the mobility of a potential vector of the disease, devastation and infection of neighboring areas.

Approach three: financial. Paradoxically, in the name of the idea of protecting private property (foreign investment, the territory of a representative office - not everything is clear here) uninsured property was reduced (article "live animals"). Perhaps it was not on the balance sheet of this household, which means that "unrecorded stocks" were affected. Spent ammunition, probably on the balance sheet. As a result, the capitalization of this farm has decreased. A negative market reaction is possible.

Approach four: historical and biographical. Some of the participants in the dialogue belonged to an ancient aristocratic family. Their behavior was distinguished by some signs of nobility. First, they killed reproducible, usually old and sick mice that they ate in the least painful way, close to the possibilities of modern euthanasia. Secondly, they invariably warned potential large opponents of their presence by hissing, as well as by holding a defensive pose and blowing up their hoods, even with some threat to their personal safety, when they appeared in proximity that threatened both sides. It is worth noting that cobras (as well as snakes in general) are among the most defenseless animals, having neither claws, nor wings, nor shells, etc. At the same time, according to some (not entirely scientific) sources, it was the snakes who were entrusted with the protection of the so-called paradise.

Approach five: diplomatic and vocational education. Taming mongooses in order to eliminate snakes means deliberately creating a layer of professional killers (killers), possibly followed by a steady change in their gene structure as a result of producing offspring. The nature and scope of moral incentives and material rewards for recruited and trained mongooses has not been established.

page 175

Preliminary conclusions. Thus, the rapid analysis carried out shows that the story of the Nobel Prize winner in Literature, J. R. Kipling, contains signs of approval of activities aimed at violating the natural laws of nature and society in the form of educating economically and environmentally irresponsible professional murderers. Even a rapid analysis of the problems of contacts between civilizations at the level of development closest to humanoids (mixed socio-biological: the family of a British official and a mongoose) reveals some typical features of the thinking of the literary elite representing "Western civilization" and having, judging by the circulation of publications of the mentioned author, a rather strong influence on the formation of socio-psychological attitudes of a certain part of humanity including children.

Conclusions for the theory of security and dialogue of civilizations. While in India and the tropics in general, before entering the bathroom, you need to: 1. Turn on the light. 2. Open the door. 3. Inspect the room. 4. Do not immediately run for a gun (this is the fourth and most important rule in the dialogue of civilizations). 5. Don't trust mongooses. They may not know the snake language and are therefore unnecessarily suspicious.

Permanent link to this publication: