Struggle and Compromise

Philosophy of Struggle and Compromise
Sholokhov Vitaly
To Yuri Andreevich Vedyaev from Vitaly

        Any scientific achievement can be used for good or for harm. It's good if it's for the good. Then you don't need to do anything. If it is harmful, then it is necessary to know exactly how this harm is formed and achieved. Accurate knowledge makes it possible to fight evil.
The results obtained in our dissertation make it possible to draw conclusions about the further development of events in the world. Therefore, it is easy to imagine that there will be people who would like to turn them in the "right" direction, relying on rigorous scientific results.
The main hypothesis of our study is the equality of assessments of the exchange of parties. In fact, this is not even a hypothesis, but a strict scientific result, which is based on the idea of self-organizing being. Such a post-non-classical ontological picture of the world was created by synergetic paired with cybernetics. Synergetics opposes postmodernism not only because it focuses on the ontological principles of being and the theory of knowledge, but mainly because it becomes the ideological basis of the reflective paradigm, in which the ideas of reflexive management, that is, the creation of doctrines, strategies and tactics of the warring parties, play a significant role.
Postmodernism is the ideological design of discourse, compromise in negotiations, consensus as the goal of man. (This idea is clearly stated by I.A. Gobozov in his book "Where Philosophy Is Rolling").
Again, philosophy in the form of synergetics opens up the confrontation between materialism and idealism. This opposition is rooted in the essence of the universe, which is nonlinear (dual). Moreover, the deterministic world described by the reflective paradigm is orthogonal to the indeterminate world of the valuative paradigm. The positional essence of the reflective model and the dialogue essence of the optimization model of human society cannot be substantiated one through the other or coordinated with each other. Between them there is a metaphysical transition quite in the spirit of Hegel: the unity and struggle of opposites develops in leaps, and the latter are in principle not evolutionary transitions, but qualitative phenomena.
Materialist dialectics, therefore, is an expression of the positional strategy of the struggle of the parties. Postmodernism, on the other hand, expresses the optimization system essence of being with its search strategy for finding goals.

Postmodernism, having substantiated the ideology of an open society and the strategy of dialogue, however, could not (or even did not want) to develop conditions for equality in the exchange (dialogue) of the parties. As a result, there is an actual inequality in outcomes. The side that finds itself in a losing position naturally rejects the rules imposed on it by the ideology of an open society. And there are only two possibilities for the further development of events. Either to clarify the doctrine of equality of the parties in the exchange, or to return to positional tactics and an open struggle of the parties. There are already signs that "fair" competition is gradually turning into a hidden competition.

Science has established that the optimum of each of the contending parties is reached at limits and limits. Some of these limitations are catastrophic. A return to positional warfare is a return to the well-known Cold War (1946-1991). Humanity should hardly repeat the negative experience of such a war. Therefore, such rules of international relations must be found that would ensure the sustainable development of all, at least at an equal pace.
Theoretically, this is possible on the basis of the doctrine of equality
in exchange. But this requires not only the clarification of the concept of "equality", but also the creation of working mechanisms to ensure the equality of the parties in any situations of exchange of parties. This work is just beginning.
Vitaly Sholokhov 07/18/05
© Copyright: Vitaly Sholokhov, 2011
Certificate of publication No111012301796