Ok

En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

jeudi, 27 février 2020

Philosophy as a Way of Life

1 7Oo-Kdhfv8C5Vtek5-QJVA.jpeg

Philosophy as a Way of Life

Natella Speranskaya
Ex: https://medium.com

The Philosophy has long ceased to be a way of life, a manner of being, it has become a field of research, a “philosophical speech”; it no longer thinks of the basic principles, it no longer deals with the transformation of thinking, the formation of the mind and soul, the inner transformation of man. The ancient Greek was engaged in philosophy, which was for him an existential choice, a form of life, a way of thinking. And reading the works of Heraclitus, Pherecides, or Empedocles was for him a “spiritual exercises” (Pierre Hadot), a strong-willed personal practice.

The philosophical writings of thinkers of the Hellenistic and Roman era were not aimed at informing, but at forming and transforming the thinking of readers. Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle did not philosophize in front of their students to provide them with as much information as possible, they were engaged exclusively in the formation of minds, opening up to their listeners other ontological levels, other modes of being they pushed them to an internal transformation comparable to that experienced by initiates in the mysteries.

9782253943488-475x500-1.jpgAs Pierre Hadot rightly points out, the texts of early thinkers were not a statement of a certain system (for the first time the idea of systematic philosophy will appear only in the medieval scholar Francisco Suarez), they were “spiritual exercises” aimed at transforming the individual. Philosophy in Antiquity was a mode of existence that required the philosopher to be internally transformed and personally involved in every moment of his life. Spiritual exercises involved the whole Mind. Nevertheless, modern historians of philosophy continue to approach the philosophy of Antiquity with the standards of the Middle Ages and Modern times, i.e. they persist in seeing it as a theoretical and abstract activity, but not as a practice. Philosophy has ceased to be thought of as a way of life. Hadot believed that this was a consequence of the absorption of philosophy by Christianity.

In the scholastics of the Middle Ages, theology and philosophy were at a considerable distance from each other, and philosophy was relegated to the rank of “the Handmaid of Theology”. It was only during the Renaissance that we rediscovered Seneca, Epictetus, and later Marcus Aurelius, and then also Cicero, and Epicureanism, and realized that philosophy can be a way of life. Andre van der Braak also writes that philosophy ceased to be a way of life with the rise of Christianity. He points out that Nietzsche sought to revive the Greek approach to philosophizing as a way of life. We can add that the same goal was pursued by Michel Foucault and Ludwig Wittgenstein.

When we begin to read the texts of ancient thinkers, we should once and for all abandon the habit of applying to them the value system of modernity. “Before that, I considered philosophical texts — whether they are texts of Aristotle, or St. Thomas, or Bergson-as if they are timeless and words always have the same meaning that does not depend on the epoch. I realized that we need to take into account the evolution of thoughts and mentalities over the centuries, “ admits Pierre Hadot. The texts of ancient philosophy and the texts of modern philosophy cannot be perceived in the same way. Hadot believes that the philosophical texts of Antiquity were always intended for limited public and had very specific recipients-either a group of students or a specific follower to whom they were written. For example, according to the testimony of Porphyry, Plotinus wrote his work in response to the questions asked by the audience. The teaching of philosophy for three centuries, that is, from Socrates to the first century, was almost always presented in a question-and-answer scheme. Dialogue as a philosophical genre has almost disappeared today, replaced by systematic treatises. Hadot himself is very skeptical about the possibility of reviving the Dialogic character of ancient philosophy in our days.

PH-philo.jpgTo know that Pierre Hadot means by “spiritual exercises”, need to find out what he invests in the concept of “Spirit.” Spirit he calls what Plotinus called Intellect, Nous, the Highest Reality. Nous is that which is between the One and the plurality. Pierre Hadot: “I would define spiritual exercises as voluntary, personal practices intended to bring about a transformation of the individual, a transformation of the self.” Before to stop the choice on the epithet of “spiritual”, he considered various options: intellectual exercises, ethical exercises, mental exercises, soul exercises, and finally, in his intention to talk about the philosophical tradition in Greco-Roman antiquity, Hadot stopped at «spiritual exercises». Then he explained at length than these spiritual exercises are not exactly (for example, they are not synonymous with “theological” or “religious”, since the latter are no more than a part of them).

If Pierre Hadot had stopped at the adjective “ethical”, he would have had to go into lengthy explanations. How do we interpret the word “ethics”? Commonly it is believed that ethics is a doctrine of morality, of virtue, however, let’s turn our attention to the Greek word ἦθος, ethos (“character”, “disposition”, “temper”), and especially to the famous dictum of Heraclitus: ἦθος ἀνθρώπῳ δαίμων (which can be translated as: “A man’s character is his daimon”). Daimon, i.e. the intermediary between the divine world and the human world (without the negative connotations that appeared in the post-antique era). The word ἦθος also has the meaning of “whereabouts”. And what are these whereabouts, if not the intermediate midpoint where a person and a deity meet/merge and/or collide? The middle, according to Aristotle, is that which always chooses virtue. This is her whereabouts. When the immoralist Nietzsche attacked modern morality, he did it in the name of “virtue in the Renaissance style, virtù, virtue free of moralic acid.”

71sddGtqu+L.jpgAccording to the Hadot, the formation of minds was the basis of the Humanities. Can philosophy be attributed to the Humanities? Andrii Baumeister emphasizes that the term “Humanities” appeared in the Renaissance, in the XV century, but the philosophy is much older. In this case, can philosophy be considered a humanitarian science? The Humanities focus on man, on an anthropocentric understanding of the world, while philosophy can act as a path that leads beyond the “ Human, All Too Human”. (Nietzsche).

The philosopher Peter Kingsley was able to revive the Greek approach to philosophy as a way of life. “As I was drawn back into the world of the Presocratics, as I became absorbed into the ancient Greek texts they had left behind, I soon started discovering something different. These so-called philosophers weren’t theoretical thinkers or speculators, and they were nothing like rationalists in the modern sense. Many of them were immensely powerful spiritual beings. Greek texts which I was soon to realize had been misunderstood and mistranslated for centuries reveal when the distortions and mistaken interpretations are blown away, extraordinary spiritual teachings and extremely potent meditation techniques that can still be applied and practiced nowadays. I practiced them myself and was transformed. I had been brought into direct contact with the lineage and teachings of the ancient Masters who, at the dawn of our civilization, helped shape the Western world and bring our culture into being, “ says Peter Kingsley.

“He recounts a conversation in the Classics Department at UCLA after a talk on Parmenides. A faculty member complained that Kingsley is too dogmatic, that his interpretation is no better than anyone else’s. Kingsley responded: “But you and I are not the same. You read Parmenides so that you can change his meaning to suit yourself. I read Parmenides so that he can change me,” John Bussanich writes.

PH-citadelle.gifThe very concept of “philosophy” should receive a different meaning. Remember Nietzsche’s words: “The very fact that Dionysus is a philosopher, and that therefore Gods also philosophize, seems to be a novelty which is not unensnaring”? It is known that Nietzsche called himself a disciple of the philosopher Dionysus. It is certain that by philosophizing, the man enters into the sphere of the divine. Much earlier, in the Renaissance, Pico della Mirandola had said something similar: “The sacred names of Apollo, if anyone examines their meanings and hidden mysteries, will sufficiently show that that god is no less philosopher than prophet.”

You can only be a philosopher if you are the one who carries out the action, for thought is action. Get rid of the misconception that a philosopher is a boring know-it-all who communicates with the world through endless scientific studies. Similarly, we should banish the other idea that the mindless fuss that most people produce is an action.

Philosophy implies active intervention in an endlessly lasting cosmogonic act by transforming the external world, subtly influencing it by identifying the paradigmatic structures that underlie the universe; philosophy is an attempt to transfer “archetypal images” from mundus imaginalis to the material world, the world of forms.

A philosopher is not a profession, it is impossible to become one. This is a kind of ontological task that a person either implements or allows it to fade away. There is an old beautiful legend about the Angel of Death, whose wings are dotted with countless eyes. When an Angel arrives too early, it only touches the person with its wing and, so that the person does not forget about this meeting, gives him an additional pair of eyes. An eye that looks into pre-being. So, philosophy is such a “gazing” into pre-being. The philosopher receives his second pair of eyes at the same time as the first, but these eyes do not open immediately. Sometimes this requires a teacher, a book, a sudden shock, a collision with death, an experience of the numinous. In ancient times, Mysteries were used for this purpose.

57284762_137342237401180_5779222114143704940_n.jpg

Russian philosopher, cultural scientist, a specialist in Antiquity, curator of Janus Academy.

lundi, 24 février 2020

A Renaissance Human in the Digital Age

1 LngdTwppx_ebn9_MyTbcrg.jpeg

A Renaissance Human in the Digital Age

Ex: https://medium.com

THE MAIN PROBLEMS OF MODERN HUMAN

I want to start with the question: “Is it possible to become Renaissance Man in the Digital Age?»

The problem of modern human living in the era of Big Data is that he is drowning in the flow of information. The human of Antiquity, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, had a particular amount of knowledge. Today, we can’t even determine what we need to know. Most often, this is determined by our profession and the direction of our activity. Given the fact that the modern world is still dominated by the tendency to narrow specialization, we can come to disappointing conclusions. A modern human needs to be able to find in a massive flow of unstructured information, the one that will serve for its comprehensive and harmonious development.

Nowadays, only a few people know how to work with information. It is not chaotic to absorb, not to be satisfied with an incomplete acquaintance, but to be selective, to show the art of separating important from secondary, necessary from casual. There are two opposite approaches to knowledge: simple accumulation of information and transformation by knowledge. These two approaches are based on two principles — forma formanta and forma informanta. The first is inherent in a person initially. The forma formanta action is directed from the center to the periphery. We can say that this is the inner Logos or axis of the soul. This principle conditions all internal transformations that we experience. Forma formanta is related to “vertical knowledge”. Forma informanta is an external force that acts from the periphery to the center. It determines all other people’s influences (especially the importance of society). This is “horizontal knowledge”. I realized very early on that our entire educational system is based on forma informanta. In educational institutions, we are informed at best, but we are not formed in any way. In the twenty-first century, we have to synthesize these two principles.

There are other problems faced by the modern human, who can no longer imagine his life without digital assistants. According to research conducted by cognitive neurobiologists, people barely read texts. They don’t read anymore; they just scan them. Scattered attention, fragmentary perception of information, search for keywords, “surfing” rather than reading — this is the result. Of course, many people have decided to abandon paper books altogether and wholly switched to electronic ones. The skill of reading is increasingly lost. It is no secret that many people are no longer able to read Hesse’s “The Glass Bead Game “, much less Schelling’s” Philosophy of mythology”. How can we counter the trend outlined here? One of the ways today is called slow read. For this purpose, reading groups are created all over the world. They allow you to experience time differently and reopen text that is not scanned but is slowly read, parsed, discussed, and commented on.

41tNS4DFN8L._SX335_BO1,204,203,200_.jpgAnother problem with a modern human is poor memory. Why remember something if you can find all the information on the Internet? Xenophon reports that Athenian politician and general Nicias forced his son Niceratus to memorize by heart the works of Homer. Now no one even tries to set such a task for themselves. It has reached the point that today not everyone is also able to finish reading the epic of Homer to the end. Alberto Manguel writes in “Homer’s The Iliad and The Odyssey: A Biography” that memory training in the Byzantine educational system was given considerable attention: after several years of practice, students had to know the Iliad by heart.

CREATION A WORLDVIEW

Creation a worldview is a complex and lengthy process. We often meet people who do not have any worldview. At best, they have a particular set of opinions (in most cases, not their own) and incomplete knowledge, based on which they draw conclusions and make decisions. If there is no worldview, then there is no internal axis, center, or reference point around which a separate world is formed. A person “just lives”, unaware of the values, views, and desires imposed on him. The inability to cope with the massive flow of information that today threatens to wash away any truth from the face of the earth leads it to a chaotic capture, senseless accumulation. He does not know how to choose the most important thing from this inexhaustible stream. If he had a worldview, a particular coordinate system, then approaching the bookshelves or looking at a series of links and headlines in his news feed, a person would instantly make the right decision: “take” or “put aside”. To build your worldview, you need to be a good architect.

In the process of forming ourselves, we always lose sight of the fact that human is a process, as the act of creation. It is in constant development and transformation. There is an ontological gap between the human of Antiquity and the human of the Middle ages. And those who naively believe that humans are always the same, that we are the same today as we were hundreds of years ago, make an unforgivable mistake. When we talk about the “ancient Greek,” “medieval European,” “Renaissance human,” “Modern human,” “postmodern individual,” we are talking about entirely different and, I would venture to say more radically, diametrically different human types. Changing paradigms always means a fundamental change that can be correlated with a “re-creation of the world.” Everything changes the ontological status of a human, his view of life, death and the afterlife, time and space, the divine; his ideals, his values, etc. change. The understanding of these changes dictates the division into historical periods.

41k4XMEZqKL._SX326_BO1,204,203,200_.jpgJoel Barker, in his book “Paradigms: Business of Discovering the Future”, emphasizes that he does not agree with Thomas Kuhn, who believed that paradigms exist only in science. I always emphasize that I use the word “paradigm” without any reference to Kuhn’s paradigm theory, and take its original meaning (from Greek. παράδειγμα, “example, model, sample”). So, Barker is convinced that the new paradigm comes sooner than there is a need for it. The paradigm is always ahead of demand. And, of course, the apparent reaction to this is rejection. Who is changing the paradigm, according to Barker? It’s always an outsider. The one who breaks the rules turns them — at the same time improving the world. “What is defined as impossible today is impossible only in the context of present paradigms,” says Barker. Let’s put the question again: “is it Possible to become Renaissance human in the digital age? This is not possible only in the context of the old paradigm. But that paradigm could disappear by tomorrow.

PARADIGM SHIFT: A REVOLUTION IN HUMAN THINKING

The type of personality that appeared in the pre-Socratic period delighted Friedrich Nietzsche, who wrote about the Republic of Geniuses, where the philosopher was a magician, a king, and a priest. This type of personality will still manifest itself in the Middle ages — in the person of the philosopher, scientist, and theologian Albert the Great (Doctor Universalis), the Arab scientist Ḥasan Ibn al-Haytham and the philosopher and naturalist Roger Bacon. And in the Renaissance — as homo univeralis, the most striking embodiment of which will be Leonardo da Vinci: painter, sculptor, architect, inventor, musician, writer, and scientist, ahead of his time. Then it will be replaced by another type-a a scientist of narrow specialization. It’s no longer a microcosm that reflects the entire universe (macrocosm). The world becomes too vast for him, so the specialist decides to confine himself to a small island, where he spends the rest of his days in the eternal scientific studies, to come to results that can easily be refuted by a new generation of such scientists. E. R. Dodds wrote:

The sort of specialisation we have today was quite unknown to Greek science at any period, and some of the greatest names at all periods are those of nonspecialists, as may be seen if you be seen if you look at a list of the works of Theophrastus or Eratosthenes, Posidonius, Galen, or Ptolemy.

In the age of Antiquity, the idea of a perfect human necessarily included the concept of “kalokagathos” (Ancient Greek: καλὸς κἀγαθός). It was a symbol of the harmonious union of external and internal virtues. Another idea that will become the basis of the system of classical education — “Paideia” (παιδεία), that is, the formation of a holistic personality, it was closely related to “kalokagathos.” The harmonious system of ancient (classical) education laid the foundation for the future educational system of Europe.

For the ancient Greeks, the human was not just an individual but an idea. And this idea included all stages of the spiritual and intellectual development of society.

In the Middle Ages, the concept of the ideal human changes significantly, and in place of harmony between external and internal comes the realization of the original sinfulness of the human being; between God and human, an abyss appears, forcing the latter to take the path of redemption to restore the lost harmony. The flesh begins to be thought of as sinful and despicable, the earthly world as a place that must to reject and devote all your thoughts to the service of God. Knowledge gives way to faith. An ascetic monk takes the place of the ancient Greek. The fundamental idea of” imitating God” remains unchanged, only God and the nature of the imitation itself change. If the ancient Greeks imitated the Olympian gods and heroes, the medieval human imitated Christ. The changes in human perception of the world during the transition from Antiquity to the Middle Ages are so radical that at the time we are talking not just about two different ideas about the “perfect human”, but also about two different ontological levels: “the level of the Mystery” and “the level of baptized”. In both cases, the person experienced profound changes, after which his life was strictly divided into “before” and “after”. It is no coincidence that Hans Sedlmayr begins the periodization of Western culture from the Middle ages (skipping Antiquity) — it was another world, another human, another ideal, another look at the choice of life, a different view of death. And another way of looking at philosophy. For a medieval human, philosophy was “the handmaiden of theology.”

1 Vnpz5M0ZDJAtXsz0hcpnDg.jpeg

Philosophia et septem artes liberales, the seven liberal arts

It was in the middle ages that the first universities began to appear, which immediately acquired the status of centers of philosophy and culture, science, and education. As a rule, the medieval University consisted of three higher faculties: theology, medicine, and law. Before entering one of these faculties, the student was trained at the artistic (preparatory) faculty, where he studied seven Liberal arts. And only after receiving the title of bachelor or master, he had the right to enter one of the three faculties, were at the end of the training, he won the title of doctor of law, medicine or theology. The seven Liberal arts were divided into two cycles: trivium (grammar, dialectics (logic), rhetoric) and quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, music, or harmonica). Despite the fact that the origins of the seven Liberal arts go back to the Hellenistic era (the Sophist Hippias), in the Middle ages this system was in the service of religion: grammar was intended for the interpretation of Church books, dialectics was used for polemics with heretics, rhetoric was necessary as a tool for creating religious sermons, etc.

Pico della Mirandola amazonia libros books.jpg

Only in the Renaissance age (which was primarily the Renaissance of Antiquity) does the medieval idea of a sinful being give way to the idea of homo universalis, a harmonious and holistic personality; inevitably this means a return to the fundamental principles of the Ancient idea of the perfect human — “kalokagathos”, “paideia”, “arete”. After Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine of Hippo come to Georgius Gemistus, Marsilio Ficino and Pico Della Mirandola. Classical education, based on the study of ancient languages as a way to comprehend the cultural heritage of Antiquity, was founded in this era. As the Russian poet and playwright Vyacheslav Ivanovich Ivanov rightly remarked: “European thought constantly and naturally returns for new stimuli to the genius of Greece.”

In the Renaissance, a paradigm shift occurs again: appear is a gap between the medieval worldview and the worldview of the Renaissance human. The same gap to separate the person of the Renaissance from the individual of the New time when there was a break with the classical model of education. One of the embodiments of the anti-classical approach to education was the French sociologist Jean Fourastie (1909–1990), who insisted that we should discard the classical humanitarian culture and focus on the new ideal of an educated person — a specialist of a narrow profile who has the ability to quickly adapt to the constantly changing realities of the modern world. This specialist was not required to have a high level of culture since the range of his tasks was reduced to the effective service of the world, the values of which were now determined not by homo universalis, but by homo economicus.

REINVENTION OF HUMAN

Today it is common to talk about the collapse of humanism, but we still use the word “humanitarian” out of habit. What is humanitas, and does the range of modern Humanities correspond to its original purpose? Why do we observe how the very “idea of human” is lost? “The Fatigue from human”, “the overthrow of the human”, “the destruction of the human”, “the disappearance of the human” arise in all spheres of our existence.

The latest trends in modern thought reduce a person to the level of an object, depriving him of his prior ontological status. A toothpick and a Buddhist monk, a Hummer and a Heidegger, a nail file, and a talented painter are placed on the same line. One is equal to the other. Object-oriented thinking that puts a THING at the center of being. Metaphysics of things. Being is no longer hierarchical. The same tendency can be found in modern theater and in contemporary painting, which is looking for an opportunity to free themselves from a human finally. Objects and things are increasingly taking the place of the human. The human himself, sometimes installed in work, turns into an object. The human image “disintegrates”, is dismembered, disassembled into parts, like a mechanism. In painting, there has long been a fragmentation of the human image (from distortion of proportions and emphasis on bodily ugliness to the dismemberment of the body). At Norwegian artist Odd Nerdrum, the focus on painful and damaged bodies becomes constant. American artist and sculptor Sarah Sitkin is engaged in splitting the human image, deliberately distorting it. We can see the same thing in the works of other artists: Marcello Nitti, Radu Belchin, Christian Zucconi, Berlinde de Bruyckere, Emil Alzamora, João Figueiredo.

The human is almost banished. But in his place did not come, neither a Superman nor a Godman. Rare attempts to put a different anthropological formation in the position of the disappearing human can be noticed even among European symbolists: Jean Delville, Simeon Solomon, Fernand Khnopff, Emile Fabry, and others. But this was instead a warning of the” new human,” his barely perceptible breath, a secret call. Science fiction writers (for example, Herbert Wells) managed to anticipate the phenomenon of its complete opposite — Digital Human. Who is he, this child of the network century, communicating through tags and tweets — a harbinger of the end of humanity or the Creator of a new “Digital God” — Artificial Intelligence? All attempts by inhumanists, speculative realists, “space pessimists”, etc. to solve the problem of “Lost Centre” and learn to think beyond the limits of human are initially doomed to failure. They do not create breakthroughs in the field of thought; all they do is reveal the symptoms of a dangerous disease called “death of the idea of human”.

I am convinced that the crisis of the Humanities is connected with the plight of the “idea of the human.” And only a return to the “idea of human”, to the spiritual dimension of human existence, but at a new stage, can lead to the revival of the Humanities. In this and only in this case will humanitas regain its original meaning. However, it is not enough just to go back to the old definition of human, today we have to “reinvention of human”. Redefine its meaning, redefine its purpose and place in the world, and understand its advantages over Artificial Intelligence.

9780520288133.jpgTobias Rees is the founding Director of the Institute’s Transformations of the Human Program. He suggests that fields such as Artificial Intelligence and synthetic biology should be seen as philosophical and artistic laboratories where new concepts of human, politics, understanding of nature, and technology are formed. What was traditionally associated with the main tasks of the Humanities, which were centered on human, has now moved to the fields of natural and technical sciences. The Humanities have stopped answering the question: “What is a human?” But this is the fundamental and critical issue today. Specialists who are closed within the boundaries of their disciplines are not able to answer it. Tobias Rees sends philosophers and artists to the world’s largest corporations to work with engineers and technologists to form a new idea of the human.

At the same time, we must clearly understand that rethinking the idea of the human will undoubtedly entail a rethinking of the entire corpus of Humanities. What is it like to be a human being in the age of intelligent machines? What is the fundamental advantage of a human? What will never, under any circumstances, be impossible to automate, calculate, and turn into Algorithms? Futurologist Gerd Leonhard, contrary to Yuval Harari, who is obsessed with Algorithms, puts forward the idea of androrithms, that is, specific non-enumerable attributes that make us humans. These attributes are exclusively human and can never be assigned by a machine. To androrithms, Leonhard includes empathy, intuition, compassion, emotional intelligence, imagination, and Dasein (Heidegger). Leonhard writes:

«Leonardo Da Vinci’s ‘Vitruvian Man’ depicted the ideal proportions of the human body — maybe now we need a ‘neoluvian man’ describing the future relationship of humans and technology?».

In the article “2020 Will Bring A New Renaissance: Humanity Over Technology”, Gerd Leonhard argues that we will soon witness a resurgence of humanism and the Humanities. Undoubtedly, this trend is gradually gaining influence in the Western world. It is enough to read the book “Sensemaking: The Power of the Humanities in the Age of the Algorithm” by Christian Madsbjerg to see how modern world leaders and corporate heads are rediscovering the Humanities and applying its methods to solve critical problems in their industry. Madsbjerg himself is a well-known business consulting specialist and founder of ReD Associates. He founded a consulting company when he was only 22 years old and developed an innovative approach to business thinking (his company specializes in strategic consulting based on the foundation of the Humanities). He is a genuine Polymath that has a dominant intellectual (theoretical and practical) foundation in the field of philosophy, Ethnography, anthropology, sociology, literary studies, history, discursive analysis, business management, etc.

1 pvfuWiMipn0c7qelp04xug.jpeg

The ‘Neoluvian’ Man

You might be surprised to find that more than a third of Fortune 500 CEOs have degrees in the Humanities. The illusory idea that only a narrow specialization in STEM will give us a guarantee of building a successful career is a thing of the past. Even the Israeli historian Yuval Harari was forced to admit that the development of AI can displace many people from the labor market. Still, at the same time, there will be new jobs for philosophers. It is their skills and knowledge that will suddenly be in high demand. And American billionaire Mark Cuban believes that “In 10 years, a liberal arts degree in philosophy will be worth more than a traditional programming degree.”

We live in the age of Big Data, but we need to remember that Big Data will never replace Big Ideas. It is the absence of Big Ideas that can be considered the main characteristic of the modern era. Big Ideas always carry transformational potential, imply radical transformations, and those who dare to express them, as a rule, are tested by distrust on the part of a society that is not ready for changes. But only these people have had and will continue to have an impact on the course of human history — Renaissance human, polymath — the Big Idea that underlies the new paradigm of thinking. If you need to define this type of thinking, the most appropriate epithet for it is “integrative”. Roger Martin limits it’s as “the ability to face constructively the tension of opposing ideas and, instead of choosing one at the expense of the other, generate a creative resolution of the tension in the form of a new idea that contains elements of the opposing ideas but is superior to each.” Most people are used to thinking in the “or-or” mode; it is difficult for them to keep two mutually exclusive ideas in their heads at the same time and, without throwing either of them away, to generate a new one (and this process involves intelligence, intuition and every time a unique human experience).

They also find it challenging to create a synthesis of knowledge and skills from different disciplines, and the implementation of integration of various industries seems almost fantastic to them.

I want to emphasize that this is not just about one type of thinking. It is a critical meta-skill that is a human advantage and will never be mastered by a machine, despite the development that Artificial Intelligence will soon achieve.

Strictly speaking, today, we can distinguish three main types of thinking: algorithmic (machine), traditional and integrative (holistic). In the age of Algorithms, only integrative thinking can withstand the battle with AI. The struggle is not just for resources, power, or influence, but for a human.

NS-p.jpg

Russian philosopher, cultural scientist, a specialist in Antiquity, curator of Janus Academy.

jeudi, 20 février 2020

The Future Belongs to Polymaths

1200px-'The_School_of_Athens'_by_Raffaello_Sanzio_da_Urbino.jpg

The Future Belongs to Polymaths

Ex: https://medium.com

I want to start with a little story. Many years ago, I saw a fresco by Raphael. “The School of Athens” is one of the pearls of Renaissance art. On it, the artist depicted immortal images of great thinkers: Heraclitus, Empedocles, Parmenides, Pythagoras, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates…and there was among them the only one woman who has always been for me a kind of model, an archetype of female wisdom — Hypatia of Alexandria. Raphael gave her the features of his beloved Margherita Luti. I looked at this collection of great minds of mankind and even then I understood that I knew the one secret. Lorenzo de’ Medici also knew it.

ghirlandaio-cappella-tornabuoni-umanisti.jpg

In the XV century, he established the Platonic Academy in Florence, headed by Marsilio Ficino. This Academy brought together outstanding philosophers, artists, architects, sculptors, and poets of the Renaissance. This was the time of the total triumph of a new type of man — homo universalis, a prominent representative of which was Leonardo da Vinci-painter, architect, sculptor, inventor, writer, musician and scientist. The very embodiment of the Union of music and mathematics, science and art. Why did this type of personality disappear today-in an era of deep specialization, and the place of the universal thinker who saw the whole picture of the world was taken by the one who looks at the world through the keyhole of his profession? These are the questions I started asking.

The XXI century presents us with global challenges. We are watching the rapid development of new technologies. But it seems that neither politicians, nor businessmen, nor inventors know the opportunities and risks associated with the development of Artificial Intelligence and biotechnologies. The problems we will soon have to deal with are beyond our comprehension. Fundamental climate changes and the risk of environmental disaster, the growth of the world’s population and migration processes, unknown epidemics and pandemics, unemployment-these are just some of the problems that can radically change our lives. These are the main questions that we have to answer.

But to solve these problems, you need a different type of thinking. As Albert Einstein said, “We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them.” To understand these problems, we need a global perspective. But where does the global perspective come from if narrow specialization is imposed everywhere? However, it is not enough today. I told you I knew a secret. It’s time to tell it.

The future belongs to polymaths. The polymaths were the most influential people in the history of mankind. They could create atypical combinations of skills, to combine and synthesize knowledge from different disciplines. Only polymaths can comprehend and respond to the challenges facing man in the XXI century.

How to create conditions for the formation of individuals with polymathic thinking? To do this, it is necessary to transform the entire educational paradigm and create a new educational model. How? We need to unite the best minds of mankind. Lorenzo de ‘Medici had a Big Idea. She inspired me. We live in an era when we need to dare to think on a larger scale. For many years, while developing a project called Janus Academy, I tried to create a matrix of the future educational system that will replace or become a real alternative to the educational model being implemented today.

The modern educational model is focused on the formation of a specialist of a narrow profile who has passed the “school of skills and competencies”, but not the “school of knowledge”. The result is obvious: the skills and competencies acquired today need an immediate upgrade tomorrow because they are outdated. A student enters an endless race by replacing one worn-out part with another. Without a basic knowledge axis, he simply has nowhere to integrate the acquired skills. As a result, we do not get a person who has realized his potential, but a “one-button specialist” with a “passport of competencies”, who adapts flexibly to changing trends. An individual who knows how to use Agile, but knows nothing about the history of civilizations, structural linguistics, world culture, classical and modern art.

Today, education has ceased to be a way of inheriting culture and has become a tool for achieving career success.

However, if we look at the founders of the five largest companies in the world - Bill Gates, Larry Page, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffett and Jeff Bezos - we find that they are all polymaths, universal personalities, but not narrow specialists.

The same universal personalities were Aristotle, Ptolemy, Leonardo da Vinci, Newton, Kepler, Leibniz, Descartes, Thomas Edison, Benjamin Franklin and others.

Leonardo_self.jpgWhen we dream of succeeding in a rapidly changing world, we often forget that the most successful people are polymaths. And gradually, interdisciplinary employees, people with polymathic thinking become one of the most valuable assets.

We are afraid that soon robots will replace us in the workplace and all processes will be automated. The machine will surpass man in his abilities. Of course, it will surpass — if we are talking about the abilities of a narrow specialist. But she would never be able to beat the polymath. Historian Felipe Fernandez-Armesto emphasizes: “Specialists can invent gadgets, formulate algorithms and exchange blows. But to transcend experience and change the world, ideas need mental space where influences from all disciplines can mingle alchemically. Those spaces are in polymaths’ brains. To conquer empires of the intellect, you have to exceed your own domain. Classical Greece, Renaissance Italy and Victorian England all revered and rewarded generalists, for whom today universities have little or no space or patience. “

Society abandoned the idea of polymaths after the industrial revolution. As Ellwood Cubberley, was an American educator and a pioneer in the field of educational administration, said in 1898: “Our schools are, in a sense, factories, in which the raw products (children) are to be shaped and fashioned into products to meet the various demands of life.”

What problems do polymaths face today, does society accept them, does it allow them to discover their deep potential, apply all their knowledge and skills and be at the center of world processes? In one of the articles I met the opinion that in our society there is a clear rejection of people who lead a polymathic lifestyle. However, it does not get tired of encouraging narrow specialists in every possible way. This is one of the consequences of industrialization: the idea that man is just a mechanism in a huge machine. Moreover, this is the result of the industrialization of consciousness. Because of the reaction of society, many polymaths avoid calling themselves polymaths. Some people start deliberately talking about themselves as specialists, believing that this will help them have a successful career. Others name different functions, depending on the context. Still, others are waiting for an opportunity to demonstrate their many skills, i.e. they are waiting for a “request” from the society itself.

Leonardo da Vinci, the most outstanding example of a polymath, also faced serious problems. Waqas Ahmed, the author of the fundamental study “The Polymath: Unlocking the Power of Human Versatility” says in an interview: “If you look at Leonardo Da Vinci, who’s considered the archetype of the polymath in the Western mind, he faced a lot of adversity. He did not have the socioeconomic status to excel in one field, let alone multiple fields, but he had an innate curiosity and that curiosity overcame any obstacles that he faced in his work environment or in his social environment. And so that curiosity does inevitably build in a kind of fearlessness that you see in many polymaths over history. ( … ) You need to have unfaltering belief in your method to creativity and to progress and you need to be able to deal with the kind of cynicism and skepticism and even envy that you will inevitably face moving forward.”

I face this problem. The question of the nature of my work has always puzzled me. Of course, over time, I had to introduce myself as: “Philosopher, publicist, cultural scientist, a specialist in Antiquity, curator of Janus Academy” (sometimes even shortening all this to: “philosopher, a specialist in Antiquity”). But the field of my interests and intellectual practices covers the entire field of Humanities, and if I am so passionate about antiquity, it does not mean that I am limited by It. Also, I specialized in personalized learning, developing individual educational programs. Organizing conferences, seminars, presentations, and cultural events; strategic planning; experience in public speaking; working with experts, embassies, and public figures; negotiating; creating (and curating) intellectual and art clubs; developing educational programs for cultural venues; conducting interviews; and working as an editor-compiler of scientific magazines. Besides, writing books, playing in the theater. So who am I? And most importantly, how can I design my life so that the diversity of my knowledge and experience can open up to the world and change something in it?

And in response to this question, I decided to release my “Black Swan”. To create a project that will mark the beginning of a revolution in education. The mission of this project is to consolidate all the most important thinkers, researchers, cultural figures and scientists who set themselves the goal of creating a new interdisciplinary educational program that meets the challenges of the XXI century and can maintain its main task — to be a way of inheriting culture.

1-proportions-of-the-face-leonardo-da-vinci.jpgOften can you see students who do not listen to what their lecturers say? And only imagine that this very lecture is given to a student by his favorite writer or scientist, whose books he reads with great interest. Will he be more attentive to every word, will he take the learning process more seriously and most importantly-will he has a passion, a passion for learning, for mastering new disciplines, new areas, and directions? Would you like to learn from the best of the best? Learn in the process of live communication?

In Janus Academy students do not acquire a narrow specialization, but fundamental knowledge that allows them to unlock their cognitive and intellectual potential.

1. interdisciplinary program “POLYMATH” (2 years of study)

2. 32 directions

3. more than 150 author’s courses that form a unique educational complex:

- a complex of humanitarian disciplines that give students fundamental knowledge,

- a STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) complex that develops innovative thinking and the ability to collect, analyze, systematize and critically comprehend information.

4. brilliant teaching staff (about 200 leading Russian and European scientists and specialists, researchers, philosophers, cultural and artistic figures)

5. training of international communities of polymath teachers to solve global problems of mankind.

My friend told me that you should be able to explain an interesting idea even to a 6-year-old child. And he asked me to explain to his 6-year-old daughter the purpose of my project. “How will you tell her about the polymaths, about the Renaissance man?” And I said to the little girl,” Imagine a small island. Did you imagine? Now imagine a vast continent, no! — imagine a whole world! See how different they are? In ordinary educational institutions, people are made into small Islands, and in my Academy, everyone will have the opportunity to become a whole world!” And the little girl understood me.

How do I see the project, for example, in 10 years? From the very beginning, I laid the Foundation of Janus Academy not only with the revolutionary potential but also with the potential for growth. In other words, I have a good idea of how this project will grow to an entire Empire within a few years, with its well-thought-out, branching structure. It will cover the whole world and unite the best minds of mankind. And at the center of this Empire will be the idea of a polymath.

If this type of personality does not begin to form now, if it is not allowed to express itself as much as possible in all areas of human activity, if it is not allowed to find the key to the global challenges that the XXI century throws at us, we will disappear as metaphysical beings, as intellectual individuals, and as a biological species. We have entered a transitional stage, Interregnum, when the outdated paradigm has already been destroyed and the new one has not yet emerged. It’s time to “reinvent the world”.

Russian philosopher, cultural scientist, a specialist in Antiquity, curator of Janus Academy.

vendredi, 12 juin 2015

Eurasia y Europa: diálogo de “Grandes Espacios”

por Natella Speranskaja

Ex: http://paginatransversal.wordpress.com

natella-speranskaya.jpgCarl Schmitt consideraba la tierra como un todo único y buscaba su misión global. Este “todo” fue recogido por Schmitt en el concepto de Nomos. Schmitt usó la palabra griega derivada del verbo «nemein», que es idéntico al alemán “nehmen”, “tomar”. El Nomos comprende tres actos del drama: la “toma”, “la división y distribución de lo tomado”, “la explotación y el uso de lo tomado y distribuido”. Según Schmitt, el Nomos de la Tierra existió siempre. El Primer Nomos es descrito como la “tierra prometida” de los pueblos antiguos. Es el Nomos de la antigüedad y la Edad Media. Dejó de existir después de la exploración de los grandes océanos y el continente americano. Así comenzó el Segundo Nomos, el Nomos de los estados nacionales soberanos que tenían estructura eurocéntrica. Los acontecimientos de la Segunda Guerra Mundial condujeron a su destrucción, por lo que la tierra fue dividida en este y oeste, ambos en un estado de “guerra fría”. No se trata de meros opuestos geográficos, sino de contraposiciones más originales y profundas. Carl Schmitt escribió: “Toda la historia de la confrontación planetaria de Oriente y Occidente en su totalidad es reducible al dualismo fundamental de los elementos: la tierra y el agua, la tierra y el mar. Lo que ahora llamamos el Oriente, es una sola masa de sólida tierra: Rusia, China y la India – un enorme pedazo de tierra, la “Tierra Media” [“Middle Earth”], como es llamada por el gran geógrafo inglés Sir Halford Mackinder. Lo que hoy llamamos Occidente, es uno de los océanos mundiales, un hemisferio donde se sitúan los océanos Atlántico y Pacífico. La confrontación de las potencias, de los mundos marítimo y terrestre, es la verdad global que está en el corazón de la explicación del dualismo de civilizaciones que genera constantemente una tensión planetaria y estimula todo el proceso de la historia”. Por lo tanto, el nacimiento de un tercer Nomos fue causado por la división del mundo entre el Oeste y el Este. Sin embargo, fue destruido con la caída del muro de Berlín y el colapso de la Unión Soviética.

La interpretación de Schmitt de “tres Nomos de la Tierra” nos lleva a la pregunta: ¿cuál será el cuarto Nomos de la Tierra? Alexander Dugin, el fundador de la teoría de un mundo multipolar, el fundador de la escuela rusa de geopolítica, cree que el nuevo Nomos de la Tierra será un Nomos de lógica gran continental del continente euroasiático. Sin duda, la peor opción posible sería un Nomos unipolar, globalista. Cuál Nomos será el establecido depende de la decisión estratégica del Heartland, Rusia, la civilización de la tierra.

El politólogo italiano Tiberio Graziani piensa que Rusia “tiene todo lo necesario para cumplir con el papel histórico de piedra angular de todo el sistema mundial”, y se refiere a su ubicación en el corazón de Eurasia como uno de sus elementos más importantes. Es por eso que todas las decisiones estratégicas de los atlantistas implican la fragmentación del Heartland, considerando que este proceso proporcionará el acceso a un orden unipolar. Alexander Dugin dice: “Por eso, de si Rusia puede ser suficientemente debilitada, dividida y desestabilizada, y sus fragmentos sometidos a poderes externos, depende en gran medida el destino de la globalización”. Y más aún: “Para cualquier persona que se tome en serio la contra hegemonía estadounidense, la globalización y la dominación planetaria del Occidente (atlantismo), el axioma debe ser la siguiente declaración: el destino del orden mundial se decide por el momento solamente en Rusia, por Rusia y a través de Rusia”. Para describir el momento en el que vivimos ahora, el prominente sociólogo Zygmunt Bauman aplica el concepto de interregno – así se llamaba en la antigua Roma el período entre la muerte del César y la llegada del siquiente. Es un estado de inestabilidad, de incertidumbre, de imprevisibilidad, cuando la demolición del viejo orden es tan obvia como el surgimiento del nuevo. Pero lo que vaya a ser este nuevo orden (y, en consecuencia, el nuevo Nomos) no se sabe. En el contexto de los cambios del nuevo orden mundial, podemos hablar de un desplazamiento paradigmático desde el “momento unipolar” hacia la formación de un orden mundial multipolar. En otras palabras, el foco debería ponerse en el final de la era de la unipolaridad, porque existen todas las condiciones esenciales para la realización del proyecto alternativo. Según Huntington, el estado unipolar es capaz de “hacer frente eficazmente a todos los grandes problemas internacionales por sí solo, y ninguna de las uniones de otros estados puede, incluso hipotéticamente, ser capaz de detenerlo”. Es difícil negar que la potencia hegemónica representada por los Estados Unidos no tiene ahora un rival serio, ya sea una coalición de estados o, aunque parezca increíble, un solo estado que muestre un potencial tan fuerte que implique inevitablemente la rápida restauración del orden bipolar.

Según Zygmunt Bauman, hace unos 60-70 años ocurrió un hecho que contribuyó a un cambio fundamental en la política mundial: la brecha entre Macht [Fuerza] y Staat [Estado] – en otras palabras, entre la Fuerza y la Política, la Fuerza y el Estado (que son aspectos integrales del Poder) – condujo a la situación en la que Macht (la Fuerza) se trasladó al espacio supranacional. Por lo tanto, el Estado-nación ya no podía controlarla. En el paradigma unipolar concretamente los estados nacionales son los actores de las relaciones internacionales. Dicha brecha significa ni más ni menos un deslizamiento gradual hacia la no-polaridad. Es decir, según Richard Haass, director de Estudios de Política Exterior en el Instituto Brookings y jefe del CFR, esto será lo que determine las relaciones internacionales en el siglo XXI. Los estados-nación son casi privados de la posibilidad de la eficiencia “de hacer cosas” (como Bauman entiende Macht), surgiendo un estado de parálisis política. Antonio Gramsci trata el interregno como un período en el que lo viejo ya no funciona, y lo nuevo aún no ha aparecido.

Estamos “atrapados” entre la unipolaridad y la multipolaridad, y no tenemos ni idea de cuál debería ser la solución a esta situación. Por supuesto, surge la pregunta: ¿qué hacer? Y, sobre todo, a los propios estados-nación, que de iure retuvieron la capacidad de tomar decisiones. Pero Zygmunt Bauman sostiene con razón que, en las actuales circunstancias, la pregunta debería ser formulada de una manera diferente: ¿quién va a hacer lo que es necesario en lugar de lo que hay que hacer? ¿Qué actor asumirá la responsabilidad de las acciones que resuelvan los problemas fundamentales? Claro es que nosotros no lo consideramos como los estados-nación. En su lugar, nos dirigimos a la teoría desarrollada por Alexander Dugin, la Teoría del Mundo Multipolar.

En su libro con el mismo título, Dugin ofrece una imagen clara de lo que está sucediendo hoy en el campo de las relaciones internacionales: cuando el modelo bipolar del orden mundial cambió a uno unipolar, esto vino a significar el triunfo de la ideología liberal-democrática. Occidente ha modelado los valores y directrices de un sistema que se impone sobre el mundo como universal. Por lo tanto, Occidente llegó a la aplicación constante del control (la dictadura) de las esferas cognitivas y estratégicas. El campo de las relaciones internacionales se convirtió en la “Ciencia Norteamericana”, el contenido de las discusiones se redujo a la confrontación polémica entre realistas y liberales. El propio cuerpo diplomático se formó en el mundo unipolar y en el discurso occidental, en la mentalidad occidental, donde los actores políticos son los estados nacionales. Otro modelo de orden mundial, a saber, el modelo multipolar, implica una forma de organización de los espacios en base a varios actores, “civilizaciones”, como ha señalado acertadamente Samuel Huntington. Esto nos conduce a la formación de un nuevo cuerpo diplomático y un nuevo lenguaje diplomático basados en un orden mundial multipolar. Y los pensadores políticos más progresistas ya han llegado a alguna conclusión sobre la necesidad de cambiar el paradigma de las relaciones internacionales. Uno de ellos acaba de plantear la cuestión de qué será lo próximo, otros han encontrado la respuesta y aplican libremente los conceptos básicos del nuevo sistema. Es imposible no reconocer el hecho de que la gran mayoría de las figuras políticamente comprometidas permanecen bajo el viejo paradigma, sin percibir el cambio en curso que dará comienzo al nuevo período histórico, cambiando por completo el panorama de la política mundial. El mundo unipolar ya es el ayer. Aquí y ahora estamos discutiendo el cambio del paradigma unipolar a uno multipolar, poli-civilizacional.

La teoría del mundo multipolar sugiere establecer nuevos actores en las relaciones internacionales, que son las civilizaciones, y cada una de ellas, por definición, tiene un centro estratégico que sirve como sujeto de diálogo en las relaciones internacionales y, por lo tanto, como sujeto de poder. La transición de los estados nacionales a las civilizaciones es una consecuencia inevitable de la ruptura descrita por Zygmunt Bauman.

El profesor Adam Roberts, especialista en Relaciones Internacionales, señala la pérdida del papel de liderazgo de los Estados Unidos en el orden mundial actual. A la pregunta sobre quién ejercerá como sustituto, da una respuesta completamente obvia: nadie. Más precisamente, todavía no hemos entrado en el período de interregno, solamente nos hemos acercado, y todo lo que está sucediendo en la política global es la agonía del César moribundo (los EEUU).

La genuina aparición del interregno sucederá con la pérdida definitiva del papel de Estados Unidos como potencia hegemónica en el mundo y la cancelación del “momento unipolar”. Es aquí cuando aparece el peligro: en el período de interregno, y en la aplicación coherente de las etapas de formación de un orden mundial multipolar llegará “la geometría variable” de la no polaridad, y todo estará en el crisol de la globalización; estamos inmersos en la modernidad líquida (Z. Bauman), cuya característica principal es la “no-direccionalidad de los cambios”, es decir, la ausencia de una dirección estricta, de una directriz, lo que en última instancia nos deja sin preparación para responder a los desafíos repentinos, difíciles de determinar desde cualquier tipo de cálculo o proyección. El colapso de la Unión Soviética ocurrió repentinamente, como el relámpago, cambiando por completo el panorama de la historia. La no-polaridad que parece venir puede llegar a ser un respiro necesario, un período de posibilidad de formación del pleno valor del nuevo modelo de orden mundial, pues es imposible negar el hecho de que el cambio de paradigma, seguido por la demolición de numerosas estructuras, no será capaz de crear rápidamente, en todos los ámbitos de la vida política, todas las condiciones necesarias para la entrada en el orden multipolar. La no polaridad, el interregno en el siglo XXI, es el funeral del César retirado y la preparación para la entronización de los nuevos gobernantes (en plural), es decir, el ascenso de los polos, de los centros de poder.

La no-polaridad supone la “decapitación” de los EEUU, pero al mismo tiempo puede ser definida como un intento de la potencia hegemónica por mantener su influencia a través de la auto-dispersión, de la disolución. Bajo estas circunstancias, es estrictamente necesario evitar retrasos, quedarse atrapado en el entorno post-liberal, así como humildad en una “no-polaridad coherente”. Los nuevos actores deben desafiar ahora la posmoderna “no direccionalidad de los cambios” y tomar conscientemente la responsabilidad absoluta de las decisiones y de las acciones estratégicas en el campo de la práctica política. El principal investigador asociado de la Fundación New America, Parag Khanna, analizando la situación actual y la precaria situación de los EEUU, aborda la función crítica de la diplomacia, hacia la cual debería ser desplazado el enfoque. Para la mejora de la estructura diplomática mundial se contempla la responsabilidad de la consolidación de la hegemonía estadounidense. Sin embargo, esto no tiene en cuenta el hecho de que el lenguaje diplomático está experimentando un reformateo significativo en el contexto del cambio paradigmático al modelo multipolar, y este proceso es irreversible. En la actualidad tenemos que hablar del diálogo de civilizaciones. El diálogo se construye en un nivel completamente diferente, que está más allá de las reglas del diálogo entre los estados nacionales (es decir, fuera del discurso occidental impuesto), con los EEUU teniendo el poder de la toma de decisiones final. A menos que entendamos que la batalla por la dominación del mundo no es entre civilizaciones, sino entre una sola civilización (la occidental) contra todos los “otros” – y en la que se ofrecen sólo dos opciones: 1) estar del lado de esa civilización, 2) o estar contra ella defendiendo el derecho a la propia independencia y singularidad – no seremos capaces de formular un nuevo lenguaje diplomático para el diálogo de civilizaciones. Y esto debería ser entendido, sobre todo, por la élite de la civilización responsable, según Alexander Dugin, de conducir el diálogo. Si todos los “otros” están de acuerdo con el proyecto unipolar, nuestra batalla está perdida, pero si escogen una opción radicalmente diferente, estaremos a la espera del “ascenso del resto” (Fareed Zakaria). Deberíamos tener en cuenta que el mundialmente famoso politólogo británico Paul Kennedy, ha expresado su preocupación por la aparición de diferencias ideológicas entre los EEUU y Europa, debido a la oposición a uno de los proyectos del orden mundial – unipolar o multipolar. En el entorno actual deberíamos confiar, no sólo en el aumento de los conflictos entre Europa y América, sino preparar la situación de ruptura y de división de la primera respecto a la influencia hegemónica de la segunda. Aquí Rusia tiene un papel especial.

CS-4499VTL.jpgSin embargo, debemos admitir que durante las últimas décadas, Rusia se alejó cada vez más de su propósito original de ser un puente entre Oriente y Occidente. El interregno puede ser nuestra oportunidad de recuperarse, una oportunidad para Rusia para convertirse y ser. La teoría de un mundo multipolar puede ser considerada como el punto de partida del fin de la era unipolar y el de entrada en el período “post-norteamericano”, una característica del cual será la presencia de varios polos (los sujetos del diálogo inter-civilizacional), y la segura eliminación de la crisis de identidad, porque en un mundo multipolar la identidad adquiere un carácter civilizatorio. Hoy nuestro diálogo con Europa es un diálogo de “grandes espacios”; en el nuevo sistema de relaciones internacionales el Großraum [el “Gran espacio” de Carl Schmitt] se convierte en un concepto operativo de la multipolaridad. Alexander Dugin ofrece el modelo “CUATRO polar” o “cuadri-polar” del mundo, que consta de cuatro zonas.

En la primera zona, bajo el control total de los Estados Unidos, hay dos o tres “grandes espacios.” Tenemos dos “grandes espacios” mediante la combinación de los EEUU y Canadá por un lado, e Iberoamérica por otro. Según Alexander Dugin, pueden surgir tres “grandes espacios” cuando “dividimos aquellos países de Iberoamérica suficientemente bien integrados con los EEUU y que están completamente bajo su control, y aquellos que tienden a crear su propia zona geopolítica, desafiando a los EEUU”.

La segunda zona es la zona Euro-Africana, con la Unión Europea como su polo indudable. Aquí aparecen tres “grandes espacios”: la Unión Europea, el África negra y el Großraum árabe.

La tercera zona es Eurasia, con Rusia (el Heartland) como su polo. El profesor Dugin indica que hay también una serie de centros regionales de poder, como son Turquía (si elige el camino de Eurasia), Irán, Pakistán y la India. Por lo tanto, la zona de Eurasia se compone de varios “grandes espacios”: Rusia y los países de la CEI son el Großraum ruso-euroasiático; tres “grandes espacios” son también Turquía, Irán, e India y Pakistán.

La cuarta zona es la región del Pacífico. Su polo puede ser ya sea China (que es un “gran espacio”), o Japón (un potencial Großraum que tiene todos los factores esenciales -económicos, geopolíticos, tecnológicos, etc.- para su recuperación).

Al justificar las directrices básicas para la acción práctica de construir un mundo multipolar, el profesor Dugin se centra en las siguientes direcciones:

1. Reorganización estratégica del Heartland.

Esto implica la actividad geopolítica de la “tierra media” y la puesta en práctica de proyectos de integración dirigidos a fortalecer el modelo multipolar.

2. Cambios en la mentalidad de la élite política de Rusia.

Principalmente se centra en la adquisición de pensamiento geopolítico, así como un alto nivel de competencia en el campo de las ciencias sociales, la sociología y la historia. “La élite de Rusia debe entenderse a sí misma como la élite del Heartland, debe pensar en categorías euroasiáticas, no sólo a escala nacional, siendo al tiempo claramente consciente de la no aplicabilidad del escenario atlantista y globalista para Rusia” – escribe A. Dugin. No podemos hablar de ningún despertar de la élite hasta que se haga una elección consciente hacia el eurasianismo, rechazando las ciegas tentativas de jugar a los escenarios anti-rusos de las estrategias atlantistas.

3. El modelo de la construcción de las relaciones entre Rusia y Estados Unidos.

Comprendiendo las destructivas políticas estadounidenses encaminadas a desmantelar Rusia por el control absoluto de toda Eurasia, dichas relaciones se convierten en irreversiblemente hostiles. Tenemos que emprender acciones drásticas para evitar la presencia de la OTAN en el “gran espacio” de Eurasia y el debilitamiento del Heartland.

4. El modelo de la construcción de relaciones con Europa.

Este modelo implica una asociación estratégica con los países, adheriéndose a la política de la tradición continental – Francia, Alemania, Italia y España. Aquí es apropiado hablar sobre el proyecto del eje “París-Berlín-Moscú”. Otra situación distinta se presenta con los países de la “nueva Europa”, así como Inglaterra, que están orientados contra Rusia y tienen una tendencia a adaptarse a las exigencias de Washington.

5. El proyecto “Gran Europa del Este.”

Este proyecto incluye a los eslavos (eslovacos, checos, polacos, búlgaros, serbios, croatas, eslovenos, bosnios, macedonios, serbios musulmanes), y a los ortodoxos (macedonios, serbios, búlgaros, griegos y rumanos). El Prof. Dugin dice que los húngaros son el único pueblo que no entra en la categoría “ortodoxos”, y al mismo tiempo no puede ser llamado “eslavo”. Los húngaros tienen un origen eurasiático-turanio.

6. Los países del Heartland y del CEI occidentales.

Se trata de la integración multipolar de Rusia, Ucrania y Bielorrusia, que pertenecen a la zona del Heartland, en una sola estructura estratégica. Esta acción política evitará el riesgo de entrada de Bielorrusia y Ucrania en la OTAN. Se presta especial atención a Moldavia, cuya integración con Rumania, que es una parte de la OTAN, parece imposible hasta la ejecución del proyecto de la “Gran Europa del Este.”

7. Oriente Medio euroasiático y el papel de Turquía.

El Prof. Dugin menciona el «Proyecto del Gran Medio Oriente» estadounidense en relación con Oriente Medio. El mismo implica la democratización y la modernización de las sociedades de Oriente Medio, y el fortalecimiento de la presencia militar de los EEUU y la OTAN. Guiados por intereses antagónicos, la estrategia del Heartland en esta dirección debe incluir acciones políticas dirigidas a la salida de Turquía de la OTAN y la creación del eje “Moscú-Ankara.” Por otra parte, el proyecto del eje “Moscú-Teherán” se debe tomar con la máxima atención. Según Alexander Dugin, Irán es un “espacio estratégico que resuelve automáticamente el problema de la conversión del Heartland en una fuerza en el mundo global”. Ni Rusia ni Irán deben permitir la ejecución del escenario establecido en el proyecto de la “Gran Asia Central” (Greater Central Asia Partnership). Su puesta en marcha conduciría inevitablemente a la aparición del “cordón sanitario” que separaría Rusia de Irán. Adicionalmente, al incluir países como Georgia, Afganistán, Armenia, Azerbaiyán, Kirguistán, Kazajstán, Uzbekistán, este cordón dejaría a estos países controlados por la influencia norteamericana. La unión de Rusia e Irán, por supuesto, resolverá otro problema fundamental, es decir, se abrirá el “anillo de la anaconda”, privando a los estrategas estadounidenses de cualquier posibilidad de impedir las operaciones marítimas de Rusia.

La estrategia del Heartland debe incluir proyectos de integración de Rusia, Kazajstán y Tayikistán en un único espacio económico y aduanero. A su vez, la relación con Pakistán debe ser construida en estricta conformidad con la estrategia de desalojo de las fuerzas estadounidenses de esta zona. Alexander Dugin apunta a la necesidad de un nuevo modelo de relaciones con la mayoría pastún de Afganistán.

8. El eje “Moscú-Nueva Delhi”.

Las relaciones con el “gran espacio” políticamente neutral de la India deberían estar dirigidas a lograr la asociación. El principal objetivo de este eje es impedir los intentos de Washington de desplegar su dominio en la región del sur de Asia.

9. Relaciones ruso-chinas.

El prof. Dugin se centra en dos cuestiones difíciles, como son:

– La propagación demográfica de los chinos en zonas poco pobladas de Siberia;

– La influencia de China en Asia Central.

Es necesario construir una relación equilibrada con China, centrándose en el punto fundamental de contacto estratégico, de apoyo de la idea de un mundo multipolar.

10. Relaciones ruso – japonesas.

El prof. Dugin indica la necesidad de Japón de liberarse de la influencia estadounidense y el apoyo de Japón como potencia regional soberana. Aquí es apropiado hablar del proyecto del eje “Moscú – Tokio” como parte integrante de la política asiática de Eurasia. “La alianza con Japón es vital – dice Alexander Dugin en su obra “Las bases de la geopolítica“- el eje Moscú-Tokio, contrariamente al eje Moscú-Beijing, es importante y proporciona tales perspectivas para la construcción del imperio continental que finalmente compondrá una Eurasia geopolíticamente completa, debilitando sumamente al mismo tiempo el imperio atlantista de Occidente, si no destruyéndolo finalmente”.

11. La geopolítica de la zona ártica.

Los siguientes países tienden a controlar esta zona: EEUU, Canadá, Noruega, Dinamarca y Rusia. Todos estos países (excepto Rusia) son miembros de la OTAN. Conquistando territorios en la región polar, y uniéndose a la carrera para explotar grandes depósitos de minerales, Rusia incluyó en sus planes futuros la creación de un sistema de comunicación y seguimiento en el Ártico a gran escala. Rusia reclama una zona polar con un tamaño de 1,2 millones de kilómetros cuadrados, con el entrante Polo Norte. En 2011, un valiente movimiento de los investigadores rusos que plantaron una bandera rusa en el fondo marino del Océano Ártico, fue muy publicitado por los medios de comunicación estadounidenses.

No hay duda de que entramos en una batalla por cambios fundamentales en las reglas del discurso político, realizando la tarea de socavar los principios básicos de la hegemonía occidental. La ejecución del proyecto multipolar, en contra de las consideraciones de los politólogos occidentales escépticos, depende del curso político al cual Rusia se adhiera. La elección hacia el eurasianismo muestra un acercamiento a la disposición de dar el siguiente paso en la construcción de un nuevo orden mundial.

(Traducción Página Transversal)

Fuente: Fourth Way Platform

 Extraído de: La Cuarta Teoría Política en español.