What is will, what is bondage? Femme fatale.

Her fate was not easy.
On May 8, 1926, a daughter was born into the family of Lieutenant General of Artillery Konstantin Romanovich Myshkov.

In 1947, immediately after graduating from the Shchukin School, Ninel Myshkova made her film debut in the adventure film by A. Fainzimmer “For Those at Sea,” based on the story of the same name by Boris Lavrenev.
But after this debut there was a 4-year downtime. The actress was prevented from filming by the ups and downs of her personal life.
Many creative intelligentsia visited the Etush house. Composer Antonio Spadavecchia also visited them. Author of music for the same film “For Those at Sea”, as well as for the wonderful fairy tale film “Cinderella”. Antonio was 19 years older than her, but she fell in love and left Etush for him.
But this marriage also turned out to be short-lived. In 1953, Ninel Myshkova met cameraman Konstantin Nikiforovich Petrichenko. He was also older than her, but by 11 years.
They immediately got married, and in 1954 their son Konstantin was born, who later became a famous diplomat.

In these years, she did not appear in films often, and mainly in fairy tales.

In 1952 - "Sadko"
In 1956 - "Ilya Muromets"
In 1957, Myshkova starred as Lida in the film novel “The House I Live In” by Lev Kulidzhanov and Yakov Segel, after which success came to her.

She starts playing a lot in films. One of her memorable roles is Marya the mistress in the fairy tale of the same name by Alexander Row in 1959.
On the set of the film “Hello, Gnat,” Ninel Myshkova met director Viktor Illarionovich Ivchenko, who was also 14 years older than her...
Three years later, in 1965, the director began filming an adaptation of Alexei Tolstoy’s story “The Viper” and for a long time could not find an actress on main role. Here he remembers Ninel Myshkova.

She was already approaching forty, but she still looked just as beautiful. In addition, she was one of the first in the Soviet Union to undergo plastic surgery. But, unexpectedly, Ivchenko’s longtime friend, cameraman Alexey Prokopenko, opposes Myshkova’s candidacy. They have worked together for a long time, however, in the conflict between Myshkova and Prokopenko, the director takes the side of the actress, and someone else works as a cameraman in the film.
Viktor Ivchenko fell madly in love with Ninel and honestly admitted this to his wife. His son couldn't stop him either. His ex-wife could never forgive him for this. She didn't even come to his funeral many years later...
But before that, Ivchenko and Myshkova had six years of cloudless happiness. In all his subsequent films, he starred only her. At the same time, he literally created films for her, subtly feeling the character of the actress.

Chapter 12

Many of them, before they made a pact with Chaos, were people. Now they have become freaks both mentally and physically...

Michael Moorcock. Lord of Storms.

Ideology is always in a state of more or less acute confrontation with science.

One of the cornerstone postulates of classical liberal teaching: “the existence of the highest truths of the mind, accessible to the efforts of the individual’s thought, which should play the role of guidelines in the choice between good and evil, order and anarchy.”(Chapter “Liberalism” in the political science dictionary). European science was based on this principle, which became a powerful productive force and incredibly accelerated progress, contributing to the victory of liberalism and its spread across the planet. The grateful heirs rethought their ideological heritage in exactly the opposite way.

The drama of von Hayek’s final work, “Detrimental Conceit,” lies in the stark contrast, on the one hand, with tradition ( "the habit of following rules of conduct", "principles, institutions and practices determined by traditional morality and capitalism") and, on the other hand, "constructivist rationalism", from which socialism, hated by the author, is derived.

“Man became a thinking being thanks to the assimilation of traditions - that is, what lies between reason and instinct. These traditions, in turn, originate not from the ability to rationally interpret observed facts, but from habitual ways of reacting... Following traditional practices - in that they create a market order - are definitely not consistent with rationalistic requirements... We will be able to imagine the situation more clearly... by admitting that our traditional institutions are in fact incomprehensible..."

The famous economist, not without internal struggle, nevertheless decided on recognition, which I especially recommend to respected opponents - all those who do not agree with the interpretation of neoliberalism as a religious teaching.

"There is no quite suitable word in English or even German that can accurately reflect the specificity of the extended order or how far the way it operates from the requirements of the rationalists. The only appropriate word, “transcendent,” has been so abused that I hesitate to use it. Literally, however, it does mean something that goes far beyond our understanding, desires or intentions and our sensory perception... This is especially striking when the word is used in religious significance, as can be seen from the Lord’s Prayer, which says: “Thy will (i.e., not mine) be done on earth as it is in heaven,” or from the Gospel, where the following statement is found: “You did not choose Me, but I chose you And he appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain" (John 15:26)"(emphasis by von Hayek).

On the other hand, what is “Detrimental self-confidence”? "The influence of rationalism was indeed so deep and pervasive that, in principle, the smarter educated person, it is all the more likely that he (or she) shares not only rationalistic, but also socialist views... People of intellectual professions for the most part are socialists..." I emphasize: "socialist"- not necessarily a supporter of Mao or Fidel Castro. "Socialist agitation" von Hayek finds in Albert Einstein and Gordon Childe, the greatest archaeologist of the twentieth century, who significantly changed our ideas about the evolution of human society precisely from an economic perspective.

The last thing I want is for my own comments about von Hayek to sound disparaging. I am in no way trying to equate the venerable Austrian professor with the exhibits of the liberal panopticon (A. Adamsky, B. Paramonov, etc.), in whom, in addition to ideology, we will find quite deep, well-founded and, I beg your pardon, rational conclusions: for example, about how are planned and spontaneous correlated in people’s activities; about competition between human communities, about “cultural evolution,” etc. So the epigraph from Moorcock does not apply to him. But since the subject of this study is, after all, ideology, we are primarily interested in this component.

And here it is surprising how accurately, sometimes almost verbatim, von Hayek reproduces another, much earlier author - famous critic Enlightenment and Great French Revolution Edmund Burke. “Prejudice is useful, eternal truths and goodness are concentrated in them, they help the hesitant to make a decision, they make human virtues a habit, and not a series of unrelated actions,” - wrote Burke in 1790, defending the foundations of the monarchy, aristocracy and the established church from "cliques" of "theorists" And "professors", which "attribute enormous value to their rational projects, without respect for the modern state structure."

"All the attractive illusions that made power magnanimous, obedience voluntary, gave harmony to the various shades of life, inspired feelings that decorate and soften private life - they all disappeared from the irresistible light of reason. All the veils that decorate life were cruelly torn off; all sublime ideas, borrowed from the reserves of morality, which possessed hearts and were intended to conceal human shortcomings, were forever discarded. They were declared ridiculous, absurd and old-fashioned."

Burke-1790: “People doomed to drag out a life of hard work in darkness are monstrously deceived, instilling in them false ideas and vain hopes, making real inequality even more bitter, because it is impossible to get rid of it." Hayek-1988: " The requirements for these(market - I.S.) processes were fair or had other moral qualities, feeds naive anthropomorphism... Under such a system, the successes of some are paid for by the failures of others, who made no less sincere and even worthy efforts: the reward is not given at all for merit... I do not believe that the widely accepted the concept of "social justice" describes some possible state of affairs, or at least makes sense at all."

In his anti-revolutionary pamphlet, Reflections on the Revolution in France, Edmund Burke defends property. He sees her intact "law of nature" and at the same time "moral lesson". Violation of the laws of nature and morality threatens "the greatest evil". Wed. from Hayek: " moral standards (including, in particular, our institutions of property, freedom and justice) are a certain additional gift that has been endowed on a person cultural evolution" The difference is that Burke is referring to the feudal property of the princes of the blood and archbishops, which is being encroached upon by the liberal bourgeoisie.

"The wind goes to the south and goes to the north..."

It was easy and natural for the liberal of that time to appeal to reason, speaking on behalf of the third estate against the privileges of the degenerate aristocracy and church feudal lords, who themselves did not believe in God or the devil, but instilled ignorance and prejudice among the people in order to more accurately keep them in obedience. Such privileges really could not have a rational justification - only references to "transcendental tradition", inaccessible to the mind.

Today, the place of the princes of the blood is taken by financial oligarchs, and the episcopal sees are taken by figures in the mass media and show business. The right of Soros or the Cherny brothers to take the savings of hundreds of thousands of honest workers offshore is as provable as the right of Marie Antoinette to lose France at cards. And the liberal of the late twentieth century, willy-nilly, is forced to borrow their specific argumentation from the worst opponents of liberalism.

All repeats. Closing the circle, the tail bites the overly smart head. "The Monarchy as a Delegation of the Divine Will" from the followers of the very church that once paid with thousands of lives for their proud refusal to participate in the imperial cult. Respectful references by the theoreticians of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation to Ivan Ilyin and Solonevich. Militant anti-intellectualism among liberals...

The more noticeable the contradictions between dogmas and life and among themselves, the stronger the irritation against “clever people.”

If you are really against the death penalty, then why are you killing Yugoslavs? If everyone is required to pay taxes, then what is “offshore”? Why do you formalize votes of no confidence in scientific knowledge in articles and monographs (and not in shamanic dances) and sign them with academic degrees? Etc. and so on.

Before the owners" open society"the same problem arises that once faced their predecessors from the Central Committee of the CPSU. Specific scientists are needed to solve specific problems, but science as such is incompatible with ideology, and social disciplines are simply destructive. Hence: the focus on “narrow specialization.” Ideal a scientist is someone who knows everything about the 16th chromosome, has heard a lot about the 15th, and vaguely remembers that Shakespeare is Baz Luhrmann's assistant.

Hence the persistent “reforms” of scientific methodology. I emphasize: not the “editing” of individual fragments: “such and such a king should be praised, but don’t mention that one at all!”, but a deep distortion of the principles by which individual fragments-bricks are put together into a building.

Here it is necessary to stipulate that science is not a collector of information, but a system of knowledge. As Alexander Tarasov rightly noted, "capitalism is trying to replace the category knowledge with the category information. However, this is not the same thing. Scientists, artists and society as a whole own knowledge, while information can also be owned by a private owner as a commodity (a bureaucrat, for example, traditionally owns it as a commodity namely information). False knowledge, as we know, is not knowledge at all. And false information can be no less valuable than true." The knowledge system is built according to certain rules, which are precisely called the boring word “methodology”. What distinguishes an amateur from a professional is not that one knows less and the other more, but that the former does not master the methodology. Therefore, it is easier for him to discover new “physical phenomena” (like “telekinesis”) based on testimony, “ Slavic writing"under King Minos, etc. Naturally, the methodologies of different scientific disciplines differ significantly (since the subject and methods of its research differ). But if we take the basic principles research work, as they are presented, for example, by the medievalist V.B. Kobrin (in the article “Where did we crush the butterfly?” and in the final chapter of the book “To whom are you dangerous, historian?”), then both the biologist and the physicist will gladly subscribe to many statements. This is precisely what distinguishes science as a whole as "sphere of human activity" from ideology. Moreover: I will take the liberty of asserting that both a theatrical review and a judicial essay should be built on the same methodological principles... And why, in fact, is such a review needed, in which the assessment of the performance is known in advance to the author - or is prescribed to him editor? What kind of justice can a judicial essay according to the method of S. Dorenko contribute to (chapter 4)?

In real science, methodology is inseparable from ethics. It's not a compliment. This is simply a production necessity. The expression “honest scientist” is tautological, since a “dishonest scientist,” that is, a falsifier, is not a scientist at all: "bad person unable to selflessly serve the truth"

"Only science seeks pure truth, wrote Ernst Renan, - Only she gives accurate evidence of the truth and is strictly critical of methods of persuasion.".

In the 90s, I can note three attacks on science. The first two affected only social disciplines and left a mark quite comparable to the achievements of the 1948 VASKhNIL session in biology. The third disease became generalized from the very beginning.

1. We have already discussed the “cultural approach” in detail in Chapter 7.

2. The “civilizational approach” requires a special discussion. He approached history and sociology under the banner of the fight against the “formational approach”, which meant the boring Stalinist (not Marxian) “five-member system”, the one that obliged society to develop from the primitive communal system to slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism... Unfortunately , what was proposed in return turned out to be worse, not better. And the fact that advocates of the “civilizational approach” are still not able to define what “civilization” is - A. Tarasov counted 42 (forty-two!) competitive definitions - is not so bad. After all, there was a lot of confusion with the formations. The main problem is that the “formational approach” had a scientific basis, albeit distorted by ideology, overly specified and schematized. As productive forces grow (and this, in turn, correlates with the absorption of more energy from environment- an objective natural scientific criterion) society goes through certain stages of development. Then one can argue about the definition of specific stages, about the role of the subjective “human factor” in accelerating or slowing down this process, etc. But the question was posed completely differently. In order not to bore the reader with 42 definitions, I will refer to A.Ya. Gurevich - for a lecture in which he outlines the essence of various cognitive models presented in post-Soviet historiography. Gurevich has the word " civilizational" has a synonym - "relativistic". "...Each community (culture, civilization) is a unique structure, a unique phenomenon. According to the relativistic point of view, it is wrong to ask which of these structures is better or worse, more progressive or reactionary. They are different. And each of them, apparently, is a certain integrity that satisfies some fundamental requirements of people living (or who have lived) within this integrity. general view, an approach to history that we have recently begun to call “civilizational”

Thus, firstly, progress as such is “cancelled”; secondly, the unity of the human race and the civilization it creates, which is divided into a great many (42 or more, as many as they please) immiscible streams; thirdly, any historical patterns, that is, history ceases to be a science, but turns into a shop of antiquities - not a museum where the exhibits are systematized, but a shop. Or in a collection of jokes. And if we, by definition, are not able to understand and evaluate other “civilizations,” then what is the point in studying Ancient Greece or Japan of the Tokugawa era? And yours too native Russia 500 years ago? Just idle curiosity.

One collects beer labels, another plays computer shooters all day long, the third studies the feudal war of the 15th century. The listed activities are of equal value. "It is wrong to ask which is better or worse."

Also "it is wrong to ask which is more progressive" - human sacrifice or their ban; slave trade or freeing slaves; Nazi Third Reich or Roosevelt's New Deal. They are neither better nor worse, but simply "different", there is not and cannot be any general evaluation criterion.

"Civilizational approach" collapses historiography back many centuries - as if chemists were resettled from modern institutions to the laboratory of Paracelsus.

As for the ethical side, long before the current campaign, an exhaustive description "relativism" gave by V.B. Kobrin. “Such a position, in my opinion, contradicts the very essence of history... Probably, our human dignity and moral sense would be insulted if we knew that four centuries later a historian would only try to “understand” the Nazis, without condemning their crimes. This is the right Should we deny justice to those who lived and suffered four centuries before us?“A historian has no right to be indifferent to the people of the past. He cannot help but feel sympathy for them. If he is indifferent to their joys and troubles, to their successes and sufferings, then, of course, if he has intelligence and hard work, he will be able to write a lot of useful and even valuable research on specific issues, but will never be able to solve large, cardinal problems... Often we can condemn actions, but not those who committed them, understanding the conditioning of certain actions that are unattractive to us by the peculiarities of time and upbringing.But "Do not justify, under the pretext of expediency or the general cruelty of the age, extrajudicial murders, mass executions, wars of aggression, treason and betrayal. Otherwise, we will cease to be people... By expelling morality from history, we inevitably expel it from modernity."

In my opinion, the judgments of our wonderful medievalist are of not only intra-shop interest, but affect everyone who studies human society, ancient or modern: economics, legal relations, art. Of course, personal opinion, even the most authoritative one, is just an opinion. Everyone has the right to have something different. But then it should be formulated honestly. After all "relativism"- not just a fashionable innovation or some improvement in research methods. This is a radical break with the entire humanistic tradition in science (and more broadly with " cultural opposition" Soviet times), demarcation precisely on those issues that were fundamental not only for V.B. Kobrin, but also for S.B. Veselovsky or A.A. Zimin. In the dispute S.B. Veselovsky with Stalinist ideologists "relativists" end up on the side of the latter.

Immorality "civilizational approach" It also manifests itself in the fact that it constitutes a ready-made theoretical platform for nationalism and racism. Emotional aphorism by Rudyard Kipling" West is West, East is East, and they will not move from their place..." long before Last Judgment receives a kind of scientific justification. I emphasize: if there were objective data confirming the natural inequality between peoples or the organic “incompatibility” of different cultural traditions, they should be taken seriously, regardless of possible political conclusions. But the fact of the matter is that the experience of history speaks of something completely different. Gentiles, aliens, “yellows”, “blacks”, joining the “non-existent” progress, are able to do everything that quite recently (on a historical scale) was considered the prerogative of a white Christian man (and if we look a little deeper, then a white Christian nobleman origin). Thousands of pages were covered in their time with justifications for German Nazism or Japanese militarism through a special “mentality” to which these peoples were supposedly doomed from birth. Some authors viewed it as a gift from the gods, others as a congenital deformity. But a few years have passed since 1945 - and where is this “mentality”? What is the special “Nordic character” of a German in comparison with, for example, a Belgian or a Dane? Of course, mutual understanding of cultures requires a lot of effort. But there is no law that prohibits it. In Singapore, three “civilizations” (Chinese-Confucians, Hindus and Muslims) live and work peacefully, and in Rwanda one is self-destructing.

When Edward Radzinsky writes about Stalin that "as befits an Asian, he was in everything - a slave before his master" or LDPR deputy Alexey Mitrofanov justifies Saddam Hussein by the fact that "in the East a leader must be tough"- this is the “civilizational approach” to pure form. Only science has nothing to do with it.

3. The so-called "postmodernism". “So-called” - because if in the two previous cases it is at least approximately clear what we are talking about, then here we can only shrug our shoulders. Having read hundreds of books and articles, I still could not understand what it is with the letter “p” and on what basis it is unclear what is being elevated to "main stream modern philosophy, arts and sciences."

My favorite cultural studies dictionary says the following:

"In political culture, P. means the development of various forms of post-Utopian political thought. In philosophy - the triumph of post-metaphysics, post-rationalism, post-empiricism. In ethics - posthumanism of the post-Puritan world, moral ambivalence of the individual. Representatives of the exact sciences interpret P. as a style of post-non-classical scientific thinking "

That is, to all scientific terms, known to the author"definitions", the prefix is ​​mechanically added "fast", which turns into an inarticulate interjection, like the word “damn” and other, rougher linking words in the lexicon of postpersonalities pouring the next bottle.

School textbook" Modern world" (an approximate analogue of the old "Social Science") for some reason includes "P." in the section of architecture.

"Postmodernism is present in all types contemporary art, but he showed himself most clearly in architecture... Architectural forms of past centuries and the beginning of our century are deliberately combined in contrast with elements of functionalism. This emphasized eclecticism is elevated to a creative principle...".

Since when did eclecticism become " creative principle" and a direction, especially a new one? VDNKh - what a masterpiece" postmodernism"?

Mikhail Epstein's article is called "The Origins and Meaning of Russian P." Turns out, "communism is postmodernism with a modernist face...", and since "V Russian civilization there is an intention of self-erasure, self-destruction, transformation into conventional signs - “traces”, representing an endless delay or absence of its signified...", Russia turned out to be the most P. country - "ahead of the West precisely in this postmodern quality." Hello from "civilizational approach". AND "a new sowing of Russian culture has risen, which is fully mature and is being reaped right now - postmodern culture."

It is a pity that the fruits of such a rich harvest are not named. However, it's my fault. On page 179 one specific writer appears - D. Galkovsky, "understanding a lot about poetics." He gave Russian culture 90s "novel treatise" "Endless Dead End". Isn't this the same treatise where 1937 was announced? "the happiest in the last hundred years of Russian history... The pigs fell into the abyss"? The choice of Mr. Epstein is symptomatic (from the point of view "moral ambivalence"), but one example, even such a vivid one, is not enough. By the way, the cultural dictionary also reports about "the flourishing of P.'s artistic practice."- and without a single confirmation at all. In private conversations, journalists who insist that “P” still exists most often refer to Umberto Eco’s novel “The Name of the Rose.” The work is truly unconventional, since it combines two genres: detective and historical novel. But what does that have to do with it" communism with a modernist face" and other scientific nonsense? The Strugatsky brothers also combined two genres - a detective story with a science fiction novel ("The Beetle in the Anthill"), and Mikhail Bulgakov in "The Master and Margarita" - three.

G.S. Knabe: “Tendencies that are usually designated by the name of postmodernism with its absolutization of personal independence and the denial of everything that recreates collective connections and unites people, including the rationality of the logic of provable truth, i.e. science in its own, literal sense of the word...”

It is clear that this can only happen in psychiatric clinic: there "denial of everything that unites people" called autism (although "absolutization of personal independence" echoes some infallible truths already known to us from other chapters).

To get at least some kind of understanding, let’s take a source that is both a monument to “p” literature and theoretical work, designed to explain what it is. Boris Paramonov's essay is called "P. The End of Style", and the author himself is a columnist for Radio Liberty of the US Congress. For this very essay, Paramonov received the Zvezda magazine award.

"Democracy is postmodernism. In turn, democracy is a special, well-defined type of culture, taken in the extremely broad sense of the term - as a way of life, as a style. Democracy as cultural style- this is a lack of style, not at all even not eclecticism of the Alexandrian type. The style is opposite and contraindicated to democracy."

(So ​​after all: there is " style" or not?)

In addition: 1. "P" "has a political dimension"; 2. "flora and fauna provide a lesson in postmodernism"; 3. "Pushkin is a postmodernist"; 4. "Francis of Assisi is extremely postmodern"; 5. "p" - "rehabilitation of brothels. And most importantly - a clearer consciousness that there are no brothels at all."

Here are some more deep thoughts from Mr. Paramonov:

“What do (postmodernists) sophists, Alexandrian eclectics, medieval buffoons, romantics of the 19th century, Pushkin, Timur Kibirov have in common? What they have in common is “Jewishness.” Jew is the generic name of a postmodernist, a person without style... I have long been thinking about writing an article under entitled “The Jew Pushkin,” but so far I’ve only written about Woody Allen.”

“This fascism, of course, is purely aesthetic, like Leni Riefenstahl’s, but after all, the latter served Hitler and no one else. Or rather, Leni Riefenstahl and Hitler are of the same breed, artistic. Fortunately (unfortunately?) for Paglia, in America There is no Hitler and never will be, and until the end of her days she is doomed to cast pearls before swine."

(Pay attention to the specific democracy of this gentleman, who feeds at the expense of the very American taxpayers whom he calls "pigs").

"Stalin destroyed the (constructivist) style of early Bolshevism, replaced it with the eclecticism of socialist realism - and thereby outlined the prospect of freedom... In hindsight and with hindsight it is clear that this is where the new Russian freedom began: when brigade commanders were renamed colonels, and people names Yakir, Uborevich, Gamarnik, Kork, Vatsetis, Putna were replaced in the army by people named Vatutin and Konev, Vakhromeev and Yazov."

Holding back nausea, I turn to purely academic conclusions. The burden of proving a hypothesis falls on those who propose it. No one is obligated to refute unsubstantiated allegations. If “postmodernism specialists” are unable to explain what it is, it means that the subject of their studies is of the same kind as "the basic economic law of socialism"(on which money, bonuses and titles were also made). None" main direction of modern philosophy, art and science" The letter "p" does not exist in nature.

What exists? Frank, undisguised verbiage as an alternative to supposedly outdated “positivist” science. Final destination crusade against the reason proclaimed by liberal ideologists:

"P.'s mentality bears the stamp of disappointment in the ideals and values ​​of the Renaissance and Enlightenment with their faith in progress, the triumph of reason..."(Culturology. 20th century.)

"P. is a state of culture that replaces the New Time and throws into the past the “modern” project, which was based on the values ​​of realistic knowledge, individual self-awareness and rational action, counting on own strength conscious self-organization of humanity"(M. Epstein)

Since the imposed dogmas do not have a convincing justification - neither from a rational nor from a moral point of view - it is advantageous to pretend that reason and morality do not exist at all.

Academician V.L. Yanin is equivalent to Boris Paramonov: both write texts consisting of letters.

A "our 'adversarial theory of justice' never asks what the truth is."

What is true, what is not true... what is good, what is evil... what is will, what is captivity - it’s all the same.

These are the words that the heroine of the fairy tale film Alexandra Rowe mechanically repeated while under the influence of evil spell. Nothing less than bewitched dear scientists, if they limply agree to the role prepared for them (for example, historians will tell tales about ancient emperors at night, freely competing in the matter of entertainment with the masters of the “new sramaturgy” and artistic exhibitionism). They bow down to international patrons of the arts because they give their money - that is, not their own, but taken from Indonesia and Thailand - not only for Lysenkoism, but also for real science. Only for some reason Lysenkoism is becoming more and more every year, and science is becoming less and less. Judging by the textbooks (see the corresponding supplement to the newspaper "First of September"), this sad trend is simply striking.

A special book was dedicated to the fate of science in the 21st century Round table"in Nezavisimaya Gazeta, to which both professional ideological workers ("culturologists" - "political scientists") and scientists who restructured their " discourse"under the party line.

Read carefully, dear colleagues. And don't say you weren't warned; or that the problems you encounter in your field of knowledge are caused by someone else's personal “stupidity” or “unprofessionalism.” Or other coincidences of circumstances, purely individual and not having a common cause.

M. Ratz: "Most of The troubles that we have today in Russia and throughout the world are the product of that same scientific rationality. Or, as I would say, the unjustified expansion of science into areas where it has absolutely nothing to do... Now I am reading a book where there is a correlation between modernist and postmodernist ideology. In the section on culture. The opposition between modernism and postmodernism is discussed there. These are indeed all burning topics. And they need to be seriously discussed, and more than once.(really, what else should you spend time on? - I.S.) Because we will still cry with this traditional classical science and the unpredictable and uncontrollable consequences arising from it, like the Chechen or environmental ones...(in other words, it was science that inspired Dudayev to secede)... The new concept must replace one type of scientific rationality with many various types rationality."(I wonder how big it is" a bunch of"? And what will happen if Mr. “Deputy” himself in the accounting department is awarded a fee in accordance with some unconventional "type of rationality"- for example, a penny per ruble?)

V. Rozin: “As a cultural scientist, I draw your attention to an interesting phenomenon: we are probably burning out the last portions of scientific fuel - reckless interest in understanding nature and the world. But maybe, in fact, we have already lost it. We are more interested now - and thank God, perhaps ! - other things."

(which "other things" found outside "nature and peace" ?!)

L. Ionin: “She, science, has led herself into a dead end... Many worlds or, if you like, polymundia, from my point of view, is that this polymundia will appear due to the fact that science will narrow its boundaries...”

Presenter: " Where will people then turn for a panacea?(I focus on the substitution: "panacea" It is not science that is trading, but completely different departments)

G. Kopylov: " In a variety of sociocultural institutions. A scientific activity, as a result, perhaps, it will stop altogether, because the energy that drives the scientist - the energy of searching for truth - will dry up. Vadim Markovich has already spoken about this... As an analogy: 150 years ago the leading form social life and understanding was religion. And what happened to her now? She lives in her place. Religious thinkers write books about how religions can live in a secularized world. That is, religion is looking for its own forms of existence. And it will be the same with science. There will be their own "priests", their own "temples of science", laboratories like monasteries - in a socially alien world."

L. Ionin: “My answer to the question “Where should I turn?” is absolutely real case. There is a House of Culture "Meridian" in Moscow. And there on the notice board there was a schedule posted: rock band such and such is performing at such and such time, rock band such and such is performing at such and such time, and in the corner there was a neat piece of paper: “Wednesdays and Thursdays at 18.00 - practical lessons on reincarnation"... There are, in the end, religious cultures and all other fundamentalisms. They are a sign of a new era. Recognition of their legitimacy and competence is a sign of a new era. It is not that they are backward, underdeveloped, but simply that they are different. .."

An interesting contradiction between content and tone: it seems that Mr. “political scientist” is defending the rights of religion over science, but with demonstrative disdain: "and all other fundamentalisms..." In reality, of course, there is no contradiction. Priests, like scientists, belong in the subcultural zoo. In the cultural center, where on Wednesdays and Thursdays "practical classes on reincarnation."

So that those who will determine the fate of humanity do not get in the way.

It is even more interesting that only one person (!) from the Areopagus collected by Nezavisimaya Gazeta - Professor, Doctor of Technical Sciences Boris Kudrin - dared to object on the merits. Although the naked eye can see that she is eloquent " polymundia" half a newspaper is based on "givens", all falling from the same fruitful ceiling.

Why has science exhausted itself? What facts support this - except "books where there is a correlation between modernist and postmodernist ideology"? In what specific ways has scientific knowledge failed—and in comparison to what? Astronomy - compared to astrology? Or scientific medicine - with “extrasensory perception”? Or maybe B. Paramonov turned out to be capable of some discoveries that D.S. never grew up to in his mind. Likhachev? What are these discoveries? That Lermontov is Jewish and Pushkin is Chinese?

The ethics of modern liberalism are built on the same wretched model.

Popular in liberal media literary critic Mikhail Zolotonosov formulates its “golden rule” from his, excuse the expression, specialty:

“Novels of a new type began to appear, not engaged either by ideology or even by traditional ethics and therefore destroying what was previously called the humanistic tradition... Completely unbiased essays- neither ideologically, nor ethically..., that is, in the exact sense of the word, free... The meaning of the text lies in the text itself. My hypothesis: as we move deeper into the 21st century, there are more such works, the truth about a person will be revealed with more and more directness, at first it will seem like cynicism, and then people will get used to it."(highlighted by M. Zolotonosov).

It seems like pretentious idle talk. What's happened " unconventional ethics"? And why "humanistic tradition" in the past time - "formerly called"? And what else could it be "the meaning of the text lies" if not in the text itself? In wrapping paper, or what?

But Zolotonosov’s idle talk is very clear "biased by ideology." "Freedom" And "the truth about man" they are located on the other side of good and evil.

I hope that readers have already noticed that other characters in this book, in different voices and on different occasions, repeat essentially the same formula: “the market system is not characterized by any ethical principles...”; “We will have to leave aside the question of “what is good and what is bad”; “Did you make money, transport drugs? God knows, I don’t care”; “people themselves are of no interest to anyone” and so on. What a staff member of the American propaganda department is promoting "Hitler of the artistic breed" And "new Russian freedom" in the person of Stalin, characterizes not only the employee himself and the institution for which he works. This is a natural manifestation of the general "moral ambivalence".

Some might say that the idle theorizing of professional chatterboxes poses no immediate danger. And “liberal fascism” is just a polemical metaphor.

However, the facts (of which only a small part are collected in this book) indicate something completely different: the position "beyond good and evil"- not just demagoguery; it directly determines practical policy.

A liberal is different from "a terrible Bolshevik security officer in a leather jacket with a Mauser" because “he doesn’t shoot personally. He creates conditions for mass death of people. Moreover, not his political opponents... but simply the weakest, those who cannot resist...”(Alexander Tarasov, his own emphasis).

But if you really want to exercise your hands yourself, this is also not prohibited.

Aphorism by NATO representative Jamie Shea about the pilot who shot at a column of Yugoslav refugees "with the best of intentions, as befits a representative of a democratic country"will probably one day go down in the history books.

While working on the chapter on drugs, I discovered a description of another interesting experience. Enthusiasts of the so-called “methadone therapy” (see Chapter 8) injected experimental drug addicts with the powerful drug methadone during pregnancy, and then observed what was born. "The effect of maintenance doses of methadone on pregnancy and newborns has been carefully studied. It has been shown that in women whose condition has stabilized, pregnancy proceeds normally while taking maintenance doses of methadone. However, a newborn whose mother takes maintenance doses of methadone may experience opiate withdrawal symptoms , however, they are treatable..."

Dr. Mengele's experiments continued "with the best intentions, as befits doctors from a democratic country". The results have been published. And they did not cause not only protest, but even mild bewilderment.

1. Political science. Encyclopedic Dictionary. M, Publishers, 1993, p. 154.

2. Hayek F.A. Detrimental arrogance. M, News, 1992, p. 137, 116.

3. Ibid., p. 42, 125, 127.

4. Ibid., p. 93-95.

5. Ibid., p. 105, 42.

6. Burke E. Reflections on the revolution in France. M, Rudomino, 1993, p. 86, 73.

7. Ibid., p. 80, 54.

8. Hayek F.A. Cited. op., p. 128 -129, 19.

9. Burke, p. 113 -115

10. Hayek F.A. Quote cit., p. 93.

11. Tarasov A. Superstatism and socialism. - Free Thought, 1996, No. 12, p. 94.

12. Kobrin V.B. Where did we crush the butterfly? - Book Review, 12/22/1989; Who are you dangerous to, historian? M, Moscow worker, 1992.

13. Ibid., p. 190.

14. Renan E. The Life of Jesus. M, Ed. political literature, 1991, p. 37.

15. If my colleagues - natural scientists add to my list, I will be only glad.

16. Tarasov A. Youth as an object of class experiment. -Free Thought, 1999, No. 11, p. 40.

17. Gurevich A. Ya. Culture of the Middle Ages and historian of the late twentieth century. - History of world culture. M, RSUH, "Open Society", 1998, p.254.

18. Kobrin V.B. Ivan groznyj. M. Moscow worker, 1989, p. 6.

19. Kobrin V.B. To whom are you dangerous, historian?, p. 216 -218. See also: Smirnov I. Ethics of history in the journalistic and popular works of V.B. Kobrina. - Problems national history and culture of the period of feudalism. Readings in memory of V.B. Kobrina. M, RSUH, 1992, p. 20.

20. Radzinsky E. Stalin. Vagrius, 1997, p. 83.

21. TVC. Baghdad myths of Saddam Hussein. 02/10/2000

22. Mankovskaya N.B. Postmodernism. -Culturology. XX century. Dictionary. University Book, 1997, p. 349.

23. Panteleev M.M., Savateev A.D. Modern world. M, MIROS, 1999, p. 243

24. Epstein M. Origins and meaning of Russian postmodernism. - Zvezda, 1996, No. 8, p. 176, 187, 188.

25. Knabe G.S. Fundamentals of the general theory of culture. - History of world culture. M, RSUH, Open Society, 1998, p. 83.

26. Paramonov B. Postmodernism. End of style. - NG, 01/26/1994.

27. Mankovskaya N.B. Quote op., p. 348.

28. Epstein M. Cit. op., p. 187.

29. Round table of the application "NG-science" - NG, 02/16/2000.

30. Zolotonosov M. Mercy of the 21st century. - Moscow News, 2000, No. 23.

31. Tarasov A. A very modern story. A feminist is like a stripper. M, Norma, 1999, p. 40.

32. Official actions of the APA. Statement on Methadone Maintenance Treatment. Quote from: Bulletin of the Association of Psychiatrists of Ukraine, 1996, No. 1, p. 27.