The open Russian order

Philosophical Sobor "The Great Russian Rectification of Names"

Session 8 “Total mobilization. Part 2”

My Theory

The model I have been trying to understand for a number of years is how the Hegelian dialectic of human identity and game theory intersect and synthesize (not in a narrow mathematical, Neumannian way), but in the format of Huising, Heine (probably a German mathematician), and other twentieth-century authors.

What is this theory about? I once noticed that people in their personal development in terms of identity experience about the same thing as human communities. This is a quantitative increase in community, which has a certain social role, or a certain identity, which is expressed in social games — the cultural canon, through which archetypes emerge in the form of certain images that we really want to follow. These are the archetypes of a warrior, a mother, a merchant, a magician, and so on. In the form of characters in literary, cinematographic, musical, theatrical and other cultural works, they are all expressed in the cultural canon. These things or archetypes are played out at every level of identity. A game, in this case, is understood as a fundamentally important otherness, detached from the immediate goals of self-survival. We live otherness for the sake of otherness itself, in order to experience this game, this model. Another definition of a game is the progression from image to likeness. We have a certain image in our mind that we want to match, and we try to do that in the form of a game.

Small children first play with the images available to them — these are of their father and mother. This is how they come to understand the concept of a family and its identity. Likewise, they learn that there are other identities like "a porch," "a yard," and so on. Earlier, in the 90s, among a certain group of people, courtyards had their own names, for example, the "swamp" courtyard. It imposed certain rules of behavior, certain social games — funny and childish, but still reflecting the essence of my theory. Then the identity of the city appears, where there are other social roles: a student of a certain university, a representative of a certain profession. Professional identity has its own original and serious cultural canon through which a person expresses himself and realizes himself in the world. At some point, the identity of the country appears, and then, perhaps, a human identity. Human communities undergo pretty much the same evolution. It all starts with a tribe, grows into a community, then into a village. And at some point all this comes to the nation-state. Each time such a transition to a quantitatively new identity involves not only a qualitative leap, but also an element of negation of the old, because once this identity has opened up, it is no longer possible to live in the old way. But you can try to resist. This is where a dialectical moment occurs: people begin to collectively create their identity in a synergistic way, and enjoy the beauty of this process. Otherwise, in a time of resistance to what is inevitable, there will be an increase in chaos. We could have resisted the creation of nation-states, but that would have brought nothing but another stage of bloodshed, because this process was objectively necessary. At some point, Realpolitik, a policy based on the removal of morality from foreign relations, became necessary. It was necessary to stop the religious wars in Europe. It was necessary to stop the colossal population decline in Germany (during the Thirty Years' War, Germany lost 70% of its population). The result was the creation of nation-states, national sovereignty, the Westphalian world system. This helped to stop the wars of the old order, at least for a while. A system of international relations emerged.

However, when this system was created, it did not envisage that there would be problems of a global, universal nature, such as environmental problems, weapons of mass destruction, resource allocation, and the need for information control. After the Second World War, the European Coal and Steel Community appeared. It was an organization that linked the French and German economies to prevent another war in Europe. This sets an interesting precedent: The system of national sovereignty is seriously limited. Actors, i.e. political actors, have to sacrifice their national sovereignty for the sake of global problem prevention. However, the system of the Westphalian world remains in place for all political actors on the planet at the moment. Then the UN, WHO, IAEA and other important political organizations appear, which are supposed to provide a global security contour, without which further reflections on high culture are naive, because the Third World War with the use of nuclear weapons will destroy our world.

Coming back to identity, it is very important to understand that the old world based on the Westphalian system is dying. It is being dangerous. It must be destroyed. That is why I keep saying that the SMO is a strong-willed transit to a new world order. We are going to have to move to the next political level, which is tied to a new identity in terms of quantity and quality - universal. This is a healthy cosmopolitanism, new security measures within the framework of international supranational organizations working in the interests of all humanity, but not of the individual beneficiaries who built these systems.

Vladlen talked about what cosmos is and how to interpret it correctly. In my understanding, cosmos is order. Order is the creation of new, inevitable cultural canons. This is a survival game. Order is the opposite of chaos, and chaos is an attempt to reach for the old, the obsolete, something that is very dangerous. Interestingly enough, there are people in Donbass who follow specific paths and constantly cross each other. I met Semyon Pegov before the start of the SMO, when the AFU was shelling Donetsk (on Stratonavtov Street). I met Vladlen Tatarsky when we went to Azovstal to look for a missing friend (as part of the "Vostok" battalion). It was there that I met Akim Apachev, who coined the term "Open Russian Cosmos," which we began to use. Russian cosmos is like an open Russian order; there are notes of Russian cosmism here, which we collectively decided to use in our ideological constructions. The open Russian order is a synergistic order in which representatives of various nationalities can participate. This concept is represented in our empire, unlike what Ukraine and its masters demonstrate.

Translated by Ekaterina Dobrina