Case 13-7 (Universal Values)
May. 17th, 2019 11:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vit_rI went trough the university education during the creative time of destruction. The Soviet Empire unexpectedly collapsed, the Communist Party lost its leading role and the education system was in disarray. It was clear that the technical disciplines could be taught further without adjustments to the new capitalistic ages but at the same time everybody understood that the Marxist ideology must be replaced with something more trustworthy.
This was the only time when the professors did not received instructions from above and could decide by themselves what they can and must teach. Professors gave us the knowledge that they considered important and students asked them for information that was interesting or promising. If something did not passed into a standard program, it was enriched with "experimental" or "additional" courses.
Our philosophy seminars were held by a young optimistic man. He was a veteran of the war in Afghanistan where he had received a hole in his chest what he perceived very philosophically. This was the time of honesty after many decades of lie and he had described his experience, his emotions and his conclusions without boasting or complains.
The theme of his doctoral dissertation were the universal values. Fortunately the comrade General Secretary Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev had declared that the right goal of the Soviet people must be not the communism but the democracy and the European values. Consequently the theme turned to be hot and the thesis defense was very successful.
After this achievement was officially fixed on paper the philosopher had written a paper that explained why the idea about universal human values is wrong. He had reached this conclusion a bit earlier but was forced to wait until all bureaucratic processes for his academic degree were finished.
As a man who was forced to kill to survive he did understood that there are a lot of cases when the space for agreement is too narrow and nobody will be granted with an opportunity to widen it to find something universal for all participants of the dispute.
We were enlightened with the new capitalistic opportunities. Almost all former communistic ideologists and former anti-communistic dissidents were sure that universal values were essential for the new partnership between former unfriendly systems. Unfortunately our philosophy professor could not, or would not prove his conclusions in details. We had remembered his explanations only as an interesting alternative point of view in the arguments about the course into the future .
Now I understand that he was absolutely right. A way too often I had seen the conflicts between moral values that were incompatible by the core. Discussions about common interests are meaningless in such cases and you have to use something more reliable to stop your opponents from destroying you and the things that are dear for you.
Unfortunately most people who could use this knowledge for the good believed in the idea that the former head of the dissolved country and the dying Communist Party had declared as a course into the future. The attempt to build a socialistic society with a human face had failed miserably. The former communists and the future capitalists could not agree on the main topic: the existence of each other. A friendly peace between the former oppressed dissidents and the former oppressors from KGB turned to be a delusion for the first. In many cases this delusion was deadly. The implanted European values did not survive on the ruins of socialism because they were not compatible with the urge to use dishonesty for own advantages, the unwillingness to understand opponents and many other widespread habits. The result was not a modern democratic state that would surpass the ineffective socialistic empire but an ugly aggressive kleptocracy that until now parasitically eats the inheritance of the Soviet Union and the mineral resources of the remaining territory.
The second wisdom that our philosophy professor had explained to us was the understanding that an exit from a hopeless situation is placed before the entrance and the best way to solve any moral dilemma is to act before you are locked in a situation where you can only choose between bad and worse.
This knowledge had helped me many times and was one of the reasons why I had left the state that was unable and will not be able to unite forces that simultaneously push it into the future and into the past.
This was the only time when the professors did not received instructions from above and could decide by themselves what they can and must teach. Professors gave us the knowledge that they considered important and students asked them for information that was interesting or promising. If something did not passed into a standard program, it was enriched with "experimental" or "additional" courses.
Our philosophy seminars were held by a young optimistic man. He was a veteran of the war in Afghanistan where he had received a hole in his chest what he perceived very philosophically. This was the time of honesty after many decades of lie and he had described his experience, his emotions and his conclusions without boasting or complains.
The theme of his doctoral dissertation were the universal values. Fortunately the comrade General Secretary Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev had declared that the right goal of the Soviet people must be not the communism but the democracy and the European values. Consequently the theme turned to be hot and the thesis defense was very successful.
After this achievement was officially fixed on paper the philosopher had written a paper that explained why the idea about universal human values is wrong. He had reached this conclusion a bit earlier but was forced to wait until all bureaucratic processes for his academic degree were finished.
As a man who was forced to kill to survive he did understood that there are a lot of cases when the space for agreement is too narrow and nobody will be granted with an opportunity to widen it to find something universal for all participants of the dispute.
We were enlightened with the new capitalistic opportunities. Almost all former communistic ideologists and former anti-communistic dissidents were sure that universal values were essential for the new partnership between former unfriendly systems. Unfortunately our philosophy professor could not, or would not prove his conclusions in details. We had remembered his explanations only as an interesting alternative point of view in the arguments about the course into the future .
Now I understand that he was absolutely right. A way too often I had seen the conflicts between moral values that were incompatible by the core. Discussions about common interests are meaningless in such cases and you have to use something more reliable to stop your opponents from destroying you and the things that are dear for you.
Unfortunately most people who could use this knowledge for the good believed in the idea that the former head of the dissolved country and the dying Communist Party had declared as a course into the future. The attempt to build a socialistic society with a human face had failed miserably. The former communists and the future capitalists could not agree on the main topic: the existence of each other. A friendly peace between the former oppressed dissidents and the former oppressors from KGB turned to be a delusion for the first. In many cases this delusion was deadly. The implanted European values did not survive on the ruins of socialism because they were not compatible with the urge to use dishonesty for own advantages, the unwillingness to understand opponents and many other widespread habits. The result was not a modern democratic state that would surpass the ineffective socialistic empire but an ugly aggressive kleptocracy that until now parasitically eats the inheritance of the Soviet Union and the mineral resources of the remaining territory.
The second wisdom that our philosophy professor had explained to us was the understanding that an exit from a hopeless situation is placed before the entrance and the best way to solve any moral dilemma is to act before you are locked in a situation where you can only choose between bad and worse.
This knowledge had helped me many times and was one of the reasons why I had left the state that was unable and will not be able to unite forces that simultaneously push it into the future and into the past.
no subject
Date: 2019-05-19 12:52 pm (UTC)That value is called "force". If 2 incompatible value system come into conflict, they one whose owners posses more power for the "enforcement" will be applied.
The so called "live and give others to live" aka "tolerance" is only possible when all conflicting groups has enough power to defend their "in-group" values, but not enough power or enough restrain, to not enforce their values in other groups that defend their "in-group" values.
All the preaching that "force should not settle any argument", may work only when the rest of the values are shared by the arguing sides. When dealing with groups that don't share these values -- this is a sort of wishful thinking that will only cause harm to the bearer of this value.
I'm reading the memoir of Panin (prototype of Sologdin from the "In the first circle") in this very moment, and he has a chapter where he says that "мир это одна большая пересыльная тюрьма"
no subject
Date: 2019-05-19 04:47 pm (UTC)All the preaching that "force should not settle any argument", may work only when the rest of the values are shared by the arguing sides.
Всё гораздо печальнее. Вот тут про это писал ещё в 2016. Но это только вершина айсберга.
no subject
Date: 2019-05-19 05:16 pm (UTC)Насчет силы, и её недостаточности -- весь вопрос в определении силы.
Наверное правильнее употреблять слово насилие, совершаемое или физически, или с использованием подручных юридических и т.д. средств.
Изучая историю столкновения вашей семьи со швейцарской системой, очевидно, что обе стороны прибегают к "насилию" в том смысле, что вынуждая чиновника/директора/соц-работника что-то сделать, вы используете систему законов, которым они вынуждены подчиниться из страха что-то потерять.
И та сторона тоже совершает действия используя свою силу и подчиняя вас, а вы боитесь быть высланы/что снова арестуют ребенка/за свое здоровье и т.д.
Ненасильственное убеждение, это когда стороны-участники конфликта находят формулу и набор дальнейших действий, и действуют согласно этим договоренностям не из страха санкций, а по убеждению, что действуют правильно.
Любая другая сделка -- результат использования насилия.
Но это, может быть оф-топ.
Назад к универсальной морали -- главный вопрос он в высшей ценности. Является ли высшей ценностью "выжить"?
Верно ли, что "кто выжил, тот и прав"?
На зоне, как выходит из мемуарной литературы, "кто сильнее, тот и выживает". Но сила не всегда индивидуальна, она и в наличии группы, готовой к коллективным действиям. Она, естественно и в интеллектуальном превосходстве и смекалке.
no subject
Date: 2019-05-19 07:10 pm (UTC)Во-первых, страх бывает разный. И совсем необязательно это как-то связано с законами или насилием.
Во-вторых, законы - это просто правила игры. Картография игрового поля. Не более.
В-третьих, мы ни к чему никого не принуждаем. То, что идёт со стороны адвокатов - это всего лишь оценка действий. То, что идёт со стороны нас, не более чем советы. (Там много интересного, но это отложу на потом.)
В принципе, все эти юридические игры - просто желание посмотреть, как ещё могут исхитриться, назвав белое чёрным.
И та сторона тоже совершает действия используя свою силу и подчиняя вас, а вы боитесь быть высланы/что снова арестуют ребенка/за свое здоровье и т.д.
Нет, конечно. Мы не боимся. По крайней мере я прекрасно знаю что можно и что нельзя и мне просто интересно, как эти люди будут выкручиваться из безвыходных положений, в которые себя сами загоняют. (Мы их предупреждали, но не мешали делать как они хотели.)
Плюс, ещё там очень интересные психологические феномены и ошибки, заложенные в самой системе. Та же школа из-за массы причин должна пресекать любую попытку детей построить иерархию на интеллекте и всячески способствует построению иерархий на насилии.
Так что, действия "той стороны" просто просчитываются. Был только один момент, когда я просто не предполагал, что некоторые дефекты системы настолько глубоки. Но оказалось, всё уже сгнило до основания. Ну и фиг с ним.
Но это, может быть оф-топ.
Блог для общего трёпа. Если мне скучно, я просто не углубляюсь в споры.
Назад к универсальной морали -- главный вопрос он в высшей ценности. Является ли высшей ценностью "выжить"?
Нет, конечно. Даже в христианской морали попадание в рай важнее выживания. Исламисты это реализуют на практике. У японцев с их реинкарнацией выживание тоже не является главным фактором.
На зоне, как выходит из мемуарной литературы, "кто сильнее, тот и выживает".
Судя по тому, что удалось найти из анализа нацистских лагерей, всё гораздо сложнее. А то, что идёт в виде мемуаров на русском, не всегда стоит принимать за чистую монету.