The story that began here inevitably brought us to the discussion of impersonal entities. At first glance, they may not be directly related to what we used to call information technology, but no information philosophy can avoid this question. To whom it is curious, welcome under kat.

Chapter 6. Creatures

Until now, speaking of the subjects, we implicitly implied ourselves, representatives of the biological species homo sapiens, who possess thinking and free will. But if you look closely at the material covered, you will notice that it does not follow from any argument that the subject must be a human being. A system can be anything (the main thing is that there should be a systematic approach ). The combination of signal and context is an abstract construction that does not contain the requirement to be necessarily embodied in the form of the human brain. Even the “servant of two masters” situation, which generates its own free will within the system, does not have to relate exclusively to people.
')
Obviously, the first thing that comes to mind if the question is raised about finding our brothers in free will is animals. But this is too simple an exercise for us. Let's try to search for more exotic creatures.

MOUSE

Beg a little linguistic research.

Personal pronouns ("I", "you", "he", "she" and "it") have the plural ("we", "you" and "they"), which can be used in two fundamentally different ways:

1. To describe the personal properties that people have (or not necessarily people) that belong to the denoted set. For example, " we , people, as a rule, have two arms and two legs" or " we , men, unlike women, begin to grow hair out of their ears with age." A set of objects with certain properties is considered, and when we talk about these properties, we use a pronoun to denote a set. With this use of the pronoun "we" is an honest plural form of "I". Nothing interesting.
   
   
2. To refer to a group action. " We conferred and decided ...", " we played preference", " we had a child." Indicates some kind of action or event and focuses on joint participation. If you say "I have conferred," then the question immediately arises "with whom?". It’s impossible to confer with yourself. If you confer with yourself, then it is no longer “I have conferred,” but “I have thought.” With these group "we" there is an interesting nuance, which consists in the fact that the speaker does not have to be personally involved in the action that he attributed to his "we". For example, I can rightfully declare with pride that “we were the first to launch a man into space,” with the word “we” referring to the once-existing community “Soviet Union”. At the same time, no one, including myself, is embarrassed by the fact that at that time, when Yuri Gagarin flew, I was not there yet.

From the fact that we very often have to designate a group entity, without the formation of which the described events would not even begin, it is possible, using the case-dependent rationale , to conclude that group entities exist. And since they exist, it makes sense to be able to talk about them.

The first thing that can be said about composite beings, which we call the words “we,” “you,” and “they,” is that they are systems. There decomposability, and, as a consequence, the presence of systemic effects. Sometimes the situation is such that the contributions of the participants are simply summarized. For example, Ivan and Vasily for a rope pull a boat out of the water to the shore. Suppose that the strength of one participant for this case is not enough, but together they are already coping. We have a banal transition of quantity in quality, but on closer examination the situation is not as simple as it seemed. You can start at least from the fact that Ivan will not go to the shore to pull out the boat, if he does not know that Vasily is also going. And Vasily will not go if he does not have information that Ivan is coming. Participants must have the ability to agree among themselves. Designate a common goal, assign roles, plan an event. It turns out that the simple summation of the force vectors F _Ivan and F _Vasily , which was first observed, is just the tip of the iceberg, which hides very nontrivial things, including the ability to negotiate, the history of the relationship, and plans for further use of the boat.

The “1 + 1” topology is the simplest topology of the composite entity. Suppose that Elena and Ivan join Vasily, who will not pull the boat, but will be engaged in cooking, while the men are busy with hard work. The appearance of a third party immediately radically complicates the situation. We have the company "AND + B + E", but the system "AND + B" does not disappear (it was she who went to pull the boat). In addition, if Ivan and Elena sympathize with each other, it makes sense to talk about the "I + E" system. I also do not want to miss the "B + E" system, because anything can happen. In addition, since the systems "I + E" and "B" exist, between them it is possible to establish relationships that generate their own consistency. That is, the “(AND + E) + B” construction also takes place. Especially if there is a love triangle. Well, for symmetry, add the system "And + (B + E)" and "(And + B) + E". In total, the company of three friends who went on a picnic, we observe the presence of ten systems:

And, B, E, I + B, I + E, B + E, I + (B + E), (I + B) + E, B + (I + E), I + B + E

Suppose a friend suddenly joins Maria. Now I will not undertake to write out all the resulting combinations. And then Nikolai comes, and we get a combinatorial explosion. Only on five subjects. Do not forget about the fact that such options as "(I + B + H) + (E + M)" (we have this relationship of the composite subject "all boys" with the composite subject "all girls") are also not devoid of meaning.

The example with five friends was given solely in order to demonstrate the birth of an avalanche of complexity that arises even on a relatively small number of elements that were carefully isolated from the outside world. The reality is, of course, more nightmarish. When discussing systemicity, it turned out that for the existence of a composite entity it is not at all necessary that all participants are present in one region of spacetime. For example, a factor such as “what will mother say?” Can have a significant influence on Helen's relationship with boys. That is, the compound subject “Elena + her mother” is also definitely present in the picture of the situation. If we consider that all the participants of the picnic are familiar with Elena's mother, it becomes sad. It's time to end up with the addition of people to the company. Unless you just remember to take into account that Nikolay is a Muslim, Vasily is a Christian, Ivan is a fan of the Spartak club, and Maria is a fan of CSKA. Somehow it happened by itself that the large constituent entities “Muslims”, “Christians”, “Spartak fans” and “CSKA fans” also joined the friendly company.

And now our friends completed all the urgent picnic matters, they sit around the fire and talk as if about anything. Although what does “nothing” mean? In fact, we have a session of interconnection of goals, plans and constructive decisions in the course of direct interaction that cannot even count the number of compound subjects inside the spontaneously formed boiler “I + B + E + M + H”.

Maybe (and, probably, should) the question arises, is it possible to do without compound subjects? Too everything is difficult, when combinatorics turns on. Maybe it is enough to consider individual people, and, based on their personal characteristics and motives, to understand what is happening? Reductionism insists on doing just that. It is possible, but then a large number of the resulting effects will be inexplicable. Imagine that you understand the work of the watch mechanism, but decided to consider the work of each piece separately, without taking into account how they interlock with each other. An exception to the consideration of compound subjects would immediately ruin the whole picture into inexplicably separate fragments.

One of the brightest inexplicable phenomena in this case will surely be humor. Friends gathered around the campfire tell funny stories and laugh at them together. From the point of view of a single person, humor is absolutely absurd thing. Why is there a mechanism in us that pushes us to look for very specific information, having received that we begin to perform specific breathing exercises and experience the characteristic pleasure? If our body needs breathing exercises, it sends deep sighs, hiccups or yawns on us. Simple and utilitarian. Laughter is something completely different. He elevates and humiliates, and cleans, and dumps in the mud. Laughter can be used as a deadly weapon, and as a medicine. Successfully joked to become the king of the moment, and unsuccessfully joked want to immediately put out the door. Obviously, things are much thinner and more complicated than just doing breathing exercises.

The most plausible hypothesis about what laughter really is, it seems to me the assumption that laughter is one of our innate natural communication mechanisms. Cows moo, cats meow, dogs bark, and people laugh. If a inhabitant of the Amazonian jungle says something to me in a European, I don’t understand anything, and if he laughs, it will mean exactly the same thing as any representative of my culture. It will mean that he is funny. We all have a clear implicit (for granted) understanding of what “ridiculous” means, but when you try to describe it with words, nonsense is obtained. It's funny - this is when “ha-ha-ha”, when “oh, I can't”, when “now I will tear my tummy”. With an explicit description of the meaning of laughter is somehow funny. Speaking of our innate natural communication mechanisms, we can still recall crying, a cry of horror, a cry of pain and a cry. The purpose of these mechanisms is clear, the meaning of the transmitted and received signals is clear (which means we have our own context for them). Against this background, laughter, designed for some reason, stands a little apart. If we do not understand why we need laughter (“having fun” is not the answer), it means that we are not the direct beneficiaries of what is happening. But if not us, then who? Our bodies realized the transmission of these specific signals, but our personalities are their real senders and receivers only in part.

Repeatedly different authors expressed the opinion that the meaning of laughter fully exists not at the level of individuals, but at the level of collectives. A collective cannot exist until its members among themselves have agreed on certain things. For example, what kind of behavior in this team should be considered unacceptable. With every successful joke, the company is increasingly acquiring integrity, and our internal natural mechanisms recognize that we are participating in something very right, and reward us with a good mood. Positive reinforcement. Unsuccessful joke splits the company, and this is a bad idea, and I want to kill the blundering dirty trick. If there are jokes and general merriment in a company, this means that the company is alive, healthy and dynamically developing. If the company stopped joking altogether, it means that something monstrous becomes the norm of life, and the company is most likely doomed.

In the context of this narrative, the consideration of the question “why do we need laughter” is interesting not so much by itself, but as an example of a system-forming mechanism. The mechanism implemented in the design of the component parts of the system, but the purpose of which is revealed only at the level of the system as a whole.

In general, a similar stack with money. It has been said above that money is information objects, as we are strongly hinted at by the fact that it can be transferred over the Internet. But at the same time we do not consider money as information, but only as a material (?) Resource. If there is a thousand dollars in a bank account, we perceive this fact as a certain amount of specific matter that can be exchanged for something. But money is not matter. This is information.

It may seem that all the informational content of money lies in the information about their quantity, but upon careful consideration of the issue it turns out that the quantity of the object and the object itself are all different things. You can have information about the amount of water, and even transmit this information via the Internet, but the water itself cannot be transmitted via the Internet. And the money - you can.

If money is information, then there must be a context in which the semantics of the signal is revealed. We ourselves are not able to consider money as information (I emphasize once again that we regard them as a material resource), therefore, this is not our information. As in the case of laughter, it can be assumed that the informational essence of money is revealed at the level of transpersonal structures. In essence, money is the inside information of a market economy. The fact that we perceive them not as information, but as a material resource is a very important element of the game that we play when we act as economic entities.

In addition to laughter and money here, of course, be sure to remember about love. The most delightful thing that absorbs a person entirely for the sole purpose - to form a transpersonal system of two people, capable of creating a miracle of birth and growing a new life. The complexity, importance and scale of the task are such that the use of the most potent and positive and negative reinforcements by our nature turns out to be appropriate. The topic “love” could have been considered in the last chapter, when it was spoken about external goal setting, but at that time we did not have one important component. There was no understanding of what could be in this case a source of external goal setting. It may seem that the lover in love becomes the slave of his beloved, and the girl in love becomes the slave of his chosen one. But this cannot be true, because in this case the most successful scenario of events (complete reciprocity) becomes an absurd and counterproductive closed loop. Everything falls into place only if it is assumed that the source of goal-setting is something third. Obviously, only the composite subject “boy + girl” can become the third in this case. Family. Only emerging, but already a family. When we look at a cooing couple, we see with our eyes only the people who constitute it, and it may seem to us that there is no one besides them. But this is nothing more than an optical illusion. The compound being "family", although it does not have a separate physical embodiment (recall the topic of "reification" ), but undoubtedly exists as a system.

In the normal mode, each of us can be considered as the bodily embodiment of an unimaginable number of various "we". Even having gone into a self-contemplation completely detached from the external world, we do not narrow the consciousness to a point, but, on the contrary, as much as possible, expand the scope with the inner gaze of that splendor that can be called our world, and at the same time our own “me” . After all, not only we are parts of these funny composite creatures (let's call them MOUSE), but also when confronted inside of us, they themselves become parts of the system that we denote by the letter "I."

A small remark before moving on: we do not necessarily enter into the MOUSE only with our own kind. Interspecific symbiosis is a ubiquitous phenomenon in wildlife. There is a serious suspicion that a significant part of MOYS is hiding in the depths of our own biology, and we don’t even know about their existence.

Mind

A special subject of human pride is our precious human mind. Observing this amazing thing in ourselves, we boldly put ourselves at the top of the universe. We call ourselves "reasonable man". We may be weak, slow, clumsy and thin-skinned, but we have a mind, and he makes us masters of nature. All Without exception.

Let's calmly make out, and is it such a unique thing in the very nature, the owners of which we have appointed ourselves?

Imagine the astronauts who have flown into a distant planetary system. Landed on the same planet. The picturesque desert under the sky of a strange color, washed by the seas of poisonous liquid. Wind. Stones of fancy shapes. We are looking for traces of reasonable activity. No remnants of buildings, no unusual items, about which one could say that someone made them for something specially. We write in the logbook "Traces of reasonable activity not found." We fly further. On the next planet everything is completely different. Dense building. A variety of automatic production. In quarries, the ingeniously designed aggregates produce ore, and incredibly complex combines produce something from it. Some incredible transport system and the surface of the "land", and under it, and through the air. Everywhere something is being built. The dilapidated is disassembled and sent for recycling. Nothing is clear, one can only guess at everything. The owners of all this magnificence (green men with big heads) are not visible, there is nobody to ask. What will we write in the logbook? Again, "no trace of reasonable activity found"?

Of course, no need to fly anywhere to see this. You can, for example, just go into the forest and, having removed the blinders of complacency from your eyes, look around. You can see a drop of swamp water through a microscope. You can see a drop of your own blood through a microscope. Everywhere there are unimaginable mechanisms, each of which is clearly designed to perform a function. Where are we going to look for green men with big heads, for the sake of which the back of a blade of grass pushes itself inside the earth? For whom the mosquito, this amazing flying engineering miracle, collects itself from the unthinkable stuff from which it collects itself? Who is in charge of the construction of a construction that is amazingly complex, which we see in the mirror as a hair that needs to be shaved off?

If I were religious, then all the questions would be answered by “God,” I would quote a couple of quotations from the holy scriptures, and this could be the end of the discussion. “God” is the universal answer to all the questions “how?”, “Why?” And “why?”. The answer is meaningless, but universal. If the thought is completely deadlocked, but the answer must be given, feel free to write everything off to God's will. As you probably already guessed, we will not go in such a simple way.

It turns out that, on the one hand, we, beyond any doubt, everywhere have traces of rational activity around us, but on the other hand, we can in no way ascribe this rational activity to ourselves or to any other human-like creatures. Thus, we have no choice but to abandon the sole monopoly on the mind. Man is not the only rational being in the universe. Not even the only intelligent creature on Earth. Reasonable activity is one of the most ordinary things in our world, and we are only one of the great many creatures capable of doing it. To some it may seem like a very sad fact, but personally I don’t see anything sad about it. Moreover, the opportunity to feel oneself part of the great process of creation, which is happening everywhere right now at all conceivable levels of reality, can be considered as an inexhaustible source of inspiration.

In biology, it is generally accepted that all these wonderful wonders of which I spoke are the result of an evolutionary process. You can say so, but it does not change anything. In general, there is no particular difference in what words to designate what takes place. It is only important that there is in fact a rational activity that cannot be attributed to either man or any other anthropomorphic creatures.The concept of “evolution” is extremely valuable to us, if only because it allows us to divert the discussion of the creation of living beings from the field of fairy tales into a much more useful course, but we must understand that evolution is not some single subject that instead of God but not god. “Evolution” is just a generalizing concept for a certain set of principles, the large-scale and long-term operation of which gives self-organization of systems possessing all the signs of rational activity.

Now it would be nice to give a definition to reason, but since this topic is currently very mythologized, it would be reasonable for me not to give a definition, but to walk a little around the concept of "mind" and try to connect it with what we have already learned to reason. The first thing that can be said is that the mind is either a tool of any purposeful activity, or, in fact, itself. That is, everywhere, where the question arises not only “ why so?”, But also “ whyso? ”, we have a mind to which we should refer when formulating an answer to a question. It is not surprising that when we search for a subject, to which we would have to attribute a rational activity, we will immediately encounter difficulty. A reasonable subject that exists in space as a whole may not be. But this should not worry us much. We have only recently become acquainted with compound subjects on the example of human collectives, and it would be foolish now to be surprised that collectives of other creatures (including ecosystems and biological species) can also be considered as composite creatures. If any adaptation mechanism makes sense only in the context of the community, then we can speak of the community as being with rational behavior.Do such creatures have their own self-awareness? It is difficult to unequivocally answer this question. If the community, in order to carry out its rational activity, is useful to operate with the concept of its own identity, then it is possible that it possesses some form of self-consciousness. Does the self-consciousness of other beings look like a human being? In the general case, it is not obliged, but if a creature is an organism localized in space, leading a lifestyle similar to ours, then its self-consciousness is most likely built on the same principles as ours.but if a creature is a localized in space organism, leading a way of life similar to ours, then its self-consciousness is most likely built on the same principles as ours.but if a creature is a localized in space organism, leading a way of life similar to ours, then its self-consciousness is most likely built on the same principles as ours.

If we talk about the contact of intelligent beings, it should be borne in mind that the communication that we are accustomed to has a structure for transmitting information, that is, interaction through signals based on a common context. If we have a common context with any creature, then interaction is also possible. If the general context is absent, then information interaction is impossible.

The less commonness of contexts we have with another being, the more this being seems unreasonable to us. We consider cats, dogs, horses, ravens and dolphins to be very intelligent animals, but, of course, far from being as smart as ourselves. We consider fish and reptiles to be completely stupid. Insects are considered primitive automata. We generally refuse to consider plants as animated objects. Considering such things as symbiosis, ecosystems and species, we even, as a rule, are not able to objectify the creature in any way adequately. It is not surprising that, succumbing to illusion, we position ourselves as the pinnacle of creation. It's time to get rid of this illusion. In the universe, there is neither top nor bottom. The universe is isotropic. Yes, of course, we know more than any other creature, but we know more than them exclusivelywhat's inside our information spacesuit. From the position of our information spacesuit, any other creature is limited, but we need to clearly understand that the information suit of another being goes beyond the limits of our world, and we cannot say a word about the area beyond.

Can intelligent beings be considered as composite beings of which we are a part? That is, "Mouse"? Earlier, we found out that compound subjects definitely exist. They can exist only as systems. Therefore, they have emergent properties. If an emergent property is purposeful behavior for which the source of goal setting is not closed entirely to the subjects included in the compound being (the requirement of the external goal setting theorem ), then the compound being can be considered a logical entity that is logically separate from its constituent subjects. And, importantly, such a creature can act as a source of external goal-setting for its constituent entities.

The nature and mode of existence of the compound subject cannot be the same as those of its constituent subjects. Therefore, it can be argued that the inner world of the compound subject (the set of concepts that the compound subject operates with as a whole) does not coincide with the inner world of its constituent subjects. From this it follows that communication between the subject and the compound subject, of which he is a part, is impossible. We humans can communicate with our own kind. Best of all - with people. But we cannot communicate with collectives of people. Speaking before the assembled audience, we, of course, take into account the properties of the audience as a whole, but at the same time we communicate with people, not with the team. Similarly, being a composite being, we cannot communicate with neurons,the activities of which (communication among themselves) gives a systemic effect, which we observe as our own mind. And the point is not that a single neuron is a stupid single-cell creature. The main reason is that the strange world in which the neuron lives and the world in which we ourselves live are completely different worlds. Similarly, we can say that the worlds in which there are groups (families, companies, societies, nations, humanity) and the worlds of us, of individual human beings are also different worlds. We can work on teams. We can even create and destroy them. We can study. But we cannot understand them as they understand themselves, and communicate with them in the ways and in those languages ​​in which they communicate with each other.that a single neuron is a stupid one-cell creature. The main reason is that the strange world in which the neuron lives and the world in which we ourselves live are completely different worlds. Similarly, we can say that the worlds in which there are groups (families, companies, societies, nations, humanity) and the worlds of us, of individual human beings are also different worlds. We can work on teams. We can even create and destroy them. We can study. But we cannot understand them as they understand themselves, and communicate with them in the ways and in those languages ​​in which they communicate with each other.that a single neuron is a stupid one-cell creature. The main reason is that the strange world in which the neuron lives and the world in which we ourselves live are completely different worlds. Similarly, we can say that the worlds in which there are groups (families, companies, societies, nations, humanity) and the worlds of us, of individual human beings are also different worlds. We can work on teams. We can even create and destroy them. We can study. But we cannot understand them as they understand themselves, and communicate with them in the ways and in those languages ​​in which they communicate with each other.humanity) and the worlds of us, of individual human beings, are also different worlds. We can work on teams. We can even create and destroy them. We can study. But we cannot understand them as they understand themselves, and communicate with them in the ways and in those languages ​​in which they communicate with each other.humanity) and the worlds of us, of individual human beings, are also different worlds. We can work on teams. We can even create and destroy them. We can study. But we cannot understand them as they understand themselves, and communicate with them in the ways and in those languages ​​in which they communicate with each other.

My childhood and youth came during the period of aging and dying of the USSR - the political system, which proclaimed the unconditional priority of public interests over personal ones. All propaganda was impregnated with the spirit of collectivism, starting with raising children in kindergartens and ending with the information policy of all media. However, it can be stated as an obvious fact that, in spite of the colossal efforts, the result was a deep and widespread destruction of public institutions. In words, we were “all together”, but there was really a monstrous atomization of society. Every man himself, man is a wolf. Understanding the reasons for such a significant deviation of the desired from the resulting is interesting not so much from a historical point of view (the past has already passed), but because logical errors that gave such a pitiful result,have not gone anywhere from the mass consciousness, including in those countries that have not suffered from totalitarianism in the foreseeable past.

Consider the relationship of the subject and the society in which he lives. Society, as we found out, can be viewed as a collective entity with a mind of its own. Since a person is a part of society, he cannot be a goal-setting source for society. The external goal setting theorem forbids this. At the same time, society can and, apparently, should be a source of goal-setting for a person. So far, the reasoning has turned out to be 100 percent consistent in that communist spirit, which has not stood the test of time. Since there can be no error in the calculation of the direction of goal-setting (as a theorem), this means that errors appear when trying to derive and put into practice the consequences of this reasoning.

The first mistake is an attempt to replace the transpersonal mind with the personal mind.

As has been said above many times, we can only recognize the presence of mind in beings similar to us. We want, and not without reason, for social life to be organized reasonably, but we cannot recognize the presence of reason in impersonal entities. We are very upset when something that controls our destiny does not have a head, and therefore we immediately have a desire to leadprocess. We know (or, at least, we think we know) how things should be arranged in the right way. We have a science that we are accustomed to trust, because it gives, as a rule, a predictable result. We want to do everything according to science, and as a result it is predictable to get the desired result. We hope to find among the people the most intelligent, the most honest, the most just, the most noble, so that he will head the society. He became his head, his brain, the point of making the most important decisions.

As a result, the source of goal-setting for the impersonal essence of “society” becomes its integral part, which is impossible from the point of view of the theorem on external goal-setting. A society whose external goal setting has been replaced by an internal one ceases to be a purposeful actor. Loses own mind. It ends with the fact that the external goal-setting, which the new ruler received from society, also ceases to exist, and everyone is surprised to find that those excellent human qualities that were observed by the applicant for a high post disappeared after taking office.

After the own subjectivity of society has been destroyed, there is no longer any talk of some mythical public interests that should be above the personal interests. The dead being does not and cannot have any interests.

The effect most clearly described here manifested itself in the economic collapse that took place in the last few decades of the USSR. A country possessing the finest natural resources for farming could not feed itself. There was no big war, there were no natural disasters, there was not even any conscious sabotage. It is simply that the centrally headed economy has ceased to be a living system, feeding the citizens of the country with the fruits of the works of these citizens themselves.

Accordingly, the management architecture, in which a part of the system defines the goals and objectives of the development of the entire system, is only viable to the extent that it does not prevent the situation from developing naturally. That is, to the extent that the control system built on such an architecture is not in operation.

It must be said that the very raising of the question of the priority of public interests over personal interests, despite all its theoretical correctness, is extremely flawed. Being human beings, we can easily formulate our own interest, and the wording of the interest of a fundamentally different (besides not humanoid) being cannot even be expressed in human language. It turns out that only that transpersonal system, which is built on the principles of rational egoism, is productive and lively: people go about their business, their transpersonal systems, and the correct separation of roles is not violated anywhere.

The second error is the replacement of the backbone mechanisms by mechanisms that are not suitable for system formation.

Suppose we figured out that the sole command of impersonal entities consistently leads to very poor results. Down with authoritarianism, long live democracy. All power to the people. This time for real, not for fun, as was the case under the Communists. The first (and it is, unfortunately, the last) that comes to mind when solving the problem of collective decision-making is voting. Suppose we even figured out that the election (the appointment of a ruler through the voting procedure) is not democracy, but only a carefully disguised form of authoritarianism that destroys the subjectivity of transpersonal subjects as effectively as any other way of turning the goal-setting inside out. So, direct democracy. All the adoption of significant decisions affecting the life of society is submitted to referendums.The procedure and technical support of the referendum is structured in such a way that any fraud is excluded. Will happiness come? Let's try to analyze.

An impersonal entity is a system consisting of personalities. Like any system, it is more than the sum of its components. Actually, the system effects it make system effects that arise in addition to the result of the operation of simple summation. Any vote is a simple summing operation. Therefore, the result of any vote can in no way be spoken of as a decision made by the transpersonal system. Voting is a procedure as a result of which a simple mathematical formula becomes a source of goal-setting for society. Thus, what is called direct democracy destroys the subjectivity of transpersonal beings as effectively as authoritarianism.

Solving issues through voting can be recommended as a tool in situations where you need to quickly and effectively destroy an impersonal entity. Transpersonal entities, after all, are far from always kind, positive and pleasant in all respects beings. Among them there are very disgusting entities, which cannot be called anything other than parasites, or even predators. If the built-in protective mechanisms of society did not react in time and a large-scale inflammatory process began with a significant risk of death, the use of direct democracy can become the means that destroys the subjectivity of the parasite, after which, in a calm atmosphere, the destruction caused by it can be quickly and painlessly restored. Voting is an easy to implement and effective closing of public discussions. If the question needs to be roughly closed,having received as a result a decision that no one will particularly vigorously execute (since the discussion is closed and archived), voting is the most effective mechanism.

If the task is not to destroy superpersonal entities, but to grow them, then one should learn to work with mechanisms that do not destroy systemism, but form it.

Freedom and Society

They say that you can not live in society and be free from it. This is not just a lie. This is a monstrously turned-up statement of the question, resulting in an extremely destructive answer to an important question.

Freedom is one of the most diligently slandered concepts. The lie about the inadmissibility of freedom is based on the substitution of the essence and method of application of this concept. Every time freedom is mentioned, the focus is on removing the subject from the performance of obligations. It is not right.Emphasis should be placed on removing obstacles to the fulfillment of obligations. Freedom is not, first of all, “freedom from ...” , but “freedom for ...” . No need to talk about the "liberation" of the subject by eliminating his sources of external goal-setting. The very essence of free will lies in the competition of many sources of goal-setting within the system, referred to as “subject”.

The versatility, multidimensionality and the creative power of society is based on the fact that it consists of subjects who create the future with their purposeful activities. A creature that has lost external goal setting is not capable of creating the future. A slave whose whole goal-setting is completely closed to one source is also not capable of creating the future, even if this source is society itself.

The correct wording: you can not live in society and not be free for him.

Chapter Summary

1. Compound subjects are not a myth. Their existence is easily justified through a situationally justified justification. Every time when we designate our activity as a part of a group, we necessarily introduce into consideration the transpersonal essence (of the composite subject) “we”.
2. Even on a relatively small number of subjects there is a combinatorial explosion in the number of compound subjects.
3. A compound subject is physically a simple sum of its constituent subjects, but logically it is not. The consistency of the composite subject lies precisely in the fact that the result differs from the simple sum of the constituent elements.
4. , . 4 , , , .
5. ( , , , ), .
6. , .
7. .
8. () «» . — , .
9. ( , «»), -, .
10. , , -, , .
11. .

---

: 7. |