Professor Valery Revo on YouTube 21 September 2020. Topic: "Cancel culture?"
The Laboratory of System Technologies for Disease Program Management presents the next topic of the interdisciplinary scientific and cognitive cycle: "Doctor of Medical Sciences, Professor Valery Revo in the interior of the portrait of Don Quixote of La Mancha" (Revo V.V., 1960, "F.I. Shalyapin in the role of Don Quixote ". Oil on cardboard. 24.5 x 33.5). Topic: "Cancel culture?"
Профессор Валерий Рево в YouTube 21 сентября 2020. Тема: "Cancel culture?" ("Культура бойкота?")
Лаборатория системных технологий управления программами болезней представляет очередную тему междисциплинарного научно-познавательного цикла: «Доктор медицинских наук, профессор Валерий Рево в интерьере портрета Дон Кихота Ламанчского» (Рево В. В., 1960 г. «Ф. И. Шаляпин в роли Дон Кихота». Картон, масло. 24,5 х 33,5). Тема: «Культура бойкота?».
The so-called "East" traditionally tries to copy the innovations of the so-called "West". They represent both natural and humanitarian fields. Suffice it to recall the Emperor Peter the Great, who "cut a window to Europe" to join to achievements in both spheres. However, not all innovations deserve it. For example, the initiatives of the liberal part of the "West" in the direction of an uncompromising struggle for a kind of "equality". They are reduced today mainly to semantic exercises. True, there are also dramatic manifestations. But racial, gender, and countless other forms of inequality among people are a manifestation of objective reality in the format of a systemic hierarchical order in the organization of life in general, and society in particular. The spontaneous initiatives of the activists of this "struggle" naturally evoke a response from the intellectual forces of society. One recent reaction is the Manifesto of 150 Scientists and Public Figures. They opposed a phenomenon that they called "Cancel culture" in the meaning of "Boycott culture".
It is about the growing practice of unconditional defamation of individuals or companies who express their own opinion about the essence of real, and sometimes imaginary, problems and phenomena of public interest. Today, social networks provide an almost instant consolidation of destructive forces in their activity, which are difficult to organize an adequate rebuff. This is especially difficult in conditions of inaction of the authorities, and sometimes the encouragement of aggression, which is slyly presented as a kind of protest. This is a dangerous new reality and it seems that most of society is not ready for it.
Natural sciences have clear unshakable criteria for an objective assessment of this or that phenomenon. These are, first of all, the laws of Nature and fundamental physical constants. The humanitarian sphere does not have this. Therefore, its laws are just some temporary rules of a subjective nature that a person can change at his own whim. Today they represent something as good, and tomorrow they describe the same thing as an unacceptable evil that must be unconditionally condemned, and sometimes even destroyed. After some time, the process is repeated, but in the opposite direction. It has always been that way. Today, this process has greatly activated the Internet. This unprecedented global resource is available to everyone today. It provides instant consolidation of the active destructive part of society. The psychology of the crowd has not changed, but it has received a new, networked format of expression, and with it – an additional degree of freedom.
Regulatory mechanisms of society are not able to control this ersatz of democracy, just as it is not able to control cryptocurrency "money". It does not have objective criteria for regulating relations, since it relies on traditions, on the rules adopted in a given period and on a number of other subjective, sometimes authoritarian circumstances. Some serious problems in relations today have arisen due to the extreme availability of broadcasting their own ideas to a wide audience. On social networks, many position themselves as experts, although they are far from understanding the content of this or that problem.
Let me note another interesting social phenomenon that manifested itself by the middle of the 20th century. Fundamental works ceased to appear in scientific periodicals. However, the number of narrowly thematic applied publications is growing exponentially. This is reflected in the materials on the Internet, where not only the works of professional scientists are published, but also anyone who wished to use this public resource. Now everyone who has personal problems, for example, social, somatic or mental, as well as due to insufficient education can broadcast them to a wide audience. This is a kind of compensation for them.
A lack of understanding of this circumstance and the desire to score points of "fighter and defender" is characteristic of the so-called "leaders of public opinion". Further, the process develops as a positive feedback. The system will either collapse, or someone will appear who can stop the destructive process of "fighting" with imaginary problems.
One of the fronts of this “struggle” today is gender identity. Attitude towards it often takes the form of militant ignorance. J.K. Rowling was one of the many victims of such an attack. She is not a doctor, but she understands the need to provide “psychological and medical assistance” to people who have problems with their own gender identity. It was said very delicately, but in response she received disproportionate aggression.
So, indeed, this "boycott of culture" is an unnatural combination of concepts. It is akin to the definition of "peaceful protests" in relation to pogroms, arson and encroachments on the freedom and inviolability of citizens and their property. Since there is a manifestation of various perversions, culture has nothing to do with it. This is already the sphere of activity of psychologists and psychiatrists. We're not going to talk about the "culture of trauma", "the culture of malignant tumors", "the culture of male and female genital diseases" and other troubles that escaped from the Pandora's Vessel?
The semantics of all kinds of "protest" movements creates the impression of reportages from psychiatric hospitals, led from there by the patients themselves. The culture of scientific understanding of the surrounding reality requires a strict systemic, or at least systematic order. We have such an order in the taxonomic nomenclature of the living beings Karl Linnaeus. It assumes the presence in animals and even in plants of a fundamental quality in the form of clear differentiation according to sex characteristics. As you know, Linnaeus first presented the main ideas of the sexual classification of plants in the works: "Praeludia sponsaliorum plantarum" ("Introduction to the sexual life of plants", 1729) and "Systema Naturae" (1735), which became the basis of modern taxonomy. He proceeded from the foundations of fruiting, therefore he took into account the differences in plants by the structure of their sexual parts (methodus sexualis). This caused the indignation of some of his colleagues, in particular, the Russian botanist Johann Sigesbek, Swede. He criticized (1737) Linnaeus for his "anti-moral defense of the existence of sex in plants." Sigesbeck denied sex in plants. Half a century later, Johann Goethe also rebuked Linnaeus, however, only in excessive lyricism when comparing objects of the "kingdom of nature with objects of the other world." After all, "Linnaeus calls the petals of a flower the curtain of the wedding bed ...".
It is interesting, though unfortunate, that after almost 300 years, denial of sex differences between individuals is beginning to become a practice in humans. And this contradicts the very foundations of the organization of life. One of the most fashionable topics today is "changing your own gender." True, this is an illusion, since the change of sex to the opposite occurs only in documents, but not in reality, where external, secondary sexual characteristics change. In addition, it requires the use of specific sex hormones, either male or female. They are a kind of chemical prostheses that replace natural ones. By this logic, we can imagine a person with a cane as a creature with three legs. But this is absurd. Various congenital deformities in the genital area are not counted, since they are still deformities. Not a single male and not a single female will ever be able to receive the main systemic quality of the other sex, different from that which they received at birth.
Each person has individual innate characteristics that cannot be changed. Among them, papillary pattern, blood group, structural content of sex chromosomes and some other unique qualities are distinguished. Among transgender exercises, we note gender dysphoria, i.e. the discrepancy between the gender identity of the subject and the sex registered at birth. The practice of psychiatry gives us a large number of examples when a person considers himself not only of the other sex or a different person, but even as another living being, plant or animal. Moreover, many examples are known when a subject identified himself as a non-living substance. One of the victims of such a perversion was the King of France Charles VI, who considered himself to be glass with manifestations befitting a clinic.
A person who at birth has X and Y chromosomes is always and only a male subject. If a person at birth has two X chromosomes, this is always and only a female subject.
Perhaps someone will object to me. After all, living beings are known that are capable of sexual metamorphosis, depending on various circumstances. I agree, but this is not an example for a person, since he can get such a hypothetical opportunity only as a result of systemic downshifting. For those who are especially curious, I will note that this occurs at the fourth stage of dying in the process of irreversible reduction of its systemic complexity.
The practice of psychiatry presents other forms of sexual perversion as well. Once a young man from Leningrad turned to Vladimir Demikhov, the founder of vital organ transplantation. He asked to transplant his pharyngeal tonsils, which were removed about a year ago. He believed that this operation deprived him of libido and potency. Demikhov advised him to contact me, since he knew about my work on structural and functional plastics in the head and neck area. Sometimes I performed this operation simultaneously with the removal of a cancerous tumor, sometimes – in the process of staged recovery. It is clear that the young man's problem was not the absence of tonsils, but in relation to this absence. Therefore, I gently turned the arrows to the appropriate specialists. He never came again.
Today, a large number of people have free access to information on various issues. They believe that this gives them knowledge. This is a mistake, because knowledge is not only a corresponding amount of information. It should be organized appropriately. Moreover, knowledge is an immanent attribute of consciousness that cannot be transferred to another person. Socrates understood this. Only information can be transmitted. These concepts should not be confused. At the same time, we must understand that information without systematization is just noise. Today, among others, this is the most important circumstance and gave rise to such a phenomenon as "Cancel culture".
The natural sciences can provide the organization of information in a systemic format. In this case, we can extract and reveal the content, i.e. we can obtain objective knowledge. The humanitarian sphere is able to provide the organization of information only in the systematical format. Therefore, knowledge in it is always subjective and is able to represent only the meaning, which will depend on many circumstances.
The illusion of competence in the consciousness is a terrible destructive force.
The Laboratory of System Technologies for Disease Program Management presents the next topic of the interdisciplinary scientific and cognitive cycle: "Doctor of Medical Sciences, Professor Valery Revo in the interior of the portrait of Don Quixote of La Mancha" (Revo V.V., 1960, "F.I. Shalyapin in the role of Don Quixote ". Oil on cardboard. 24.5 x 33.5). Topic: "Cancel culture?"
Профессор Валерий Рево в YouTube 21 сентября 2020. Тема: "Cancel culture?" ("Культура бойкота?")
Лаборатория системных технологий управления программами болезней представляет очередную тему междисциплинарного научно-познавательного цикла: «Доктор медицинских наук, профессор Валерий Рево в интерьере портрета Дон Кихота Ламанчского» (Рево В. В., 1960 г. «Ф. И. Шаляпин в роли Дон Кихота». Картон, масло. 24,5 х 33,5). Тема: «Культура бойкота?».
The so-called "East" traditionally tries to copy the innovations of the so-called "West". They represent both natural and humanitarian fields. Suffice it to recall the Emperor Peter the Great, who "cut a window to Europe" to join to achievements in both spheres. However, not all innovations deserve it. For example, the initiatives of the liberal part of the "West" in the direction of an uncompromising struggle for a kind of "equality". They are reduced today mainly to semantic exercises. True, there are also dramatic manifestations. But racial, gender, and countless other forms of inequality among people are a manifestation of objective reality in the format of a systemic hierarchical order in the organization of life in general, and society in particular. The spontaneous initiatives of the activists of this "struggle" naturally evoke a response from the intellectual forces of society. One recent reaction is the Manifesto of 150 Scientists and Public Figures. They opposed a phenomenon that they called "Cancel culture" in the meaning of "Boycott culture".
It is about the growing practice of unconditional defamation of individuals or companies who express their own opinion about the essence of real, and sometimes imaginary, problems and phenomena of public interest. Today, social networks provide an almost instant consolidation of destructive forces in their activity, which are difficult to organize an adequate rebuff. This is especially difficult in conditions of inaction of the authorities, and sometimes the encouragement of aggression, which is slyly presented as a kind of protest. This is a dangerous new reality and it seems that most of society is not ready for it.
Natural sciences have clear unshakable criteria for an objective assessment of this or that phenomenon. These are, first of all, the laws of Nature and fundamental physical constants. The humanitarian sphere does not have this. Therefore, its laws are just some temporary rules of a subjective nature that a person can change at his own whim. Today they represent something as good, and tomorrow they describe the same thing as an unacceptable evil that must be unconditionally condemned, and sometimes even destroyed. After some time, the process is repeated, but in the opposite direction. It has always been that way. Today, this process has greatly activated the Internet. This unprecedented global resource is available to everyone today. It provides instant consolidation of the active destructive part of society. The psychology of the crowd has not changed, but it has received a new, networked format of expression, and with it – an additional degree of freedom.
Regulatory mechanisms of society are not able to control this ersatz of democracy, just as it is not able to control cryptocurrency "money". It does not have objective criteria for regulating relations, since it relies on traditions, on the rules adopted in a given period and on a number of other subjective, sometimes authoritarian circumstances. Some serious problems in relations today have arisen due to the extreme availability of broadcasting their own ideas to a wide audience. On social networks, many position themselves as experts, although they are far from understanding the content of this or that problem.
Let me note another interesting social phenomenon that manifested itself by the middle of the 20th century. Fundamental works ceased to appear in scientific periodicals. However, the number of narrowly thematic applied publications is growing exponentially. This is reflected in the materials on the Internet, where not only the works of professional scientists are published, but also anyone who wished to use this public resource. Now everyone who has personal problems, for example, social, somatic or mental, as well as due to insufficient education can broadcast them to a wide audience. This is a kind of compensation for them.
A lack of understanding of this circumstance and the desire to score points of "fighter and defender" is characteristic of the so-called "leaders of public opinion". Further, the process develops as a positive feedback. The system will either collapse, or someone will appear who can stop the destructive process of "fighting" with imaginary problems.
One of the fronts of this “struggle” today is gender identity. Attitude towards it often takes the form of militant ignorance. J.K. Rowling was one of the many victims of such an attack. She is not a doctor, but she understands the need to provide “psychological and medical assistance” to people who have problems with their own gender identity. It was said very delicately, but in response she received disproportionate aggression.
So, indeed, this "boycott of culture" is an unnatural combination of concepts. It is akin to the definition of "peaceful protests" in relation to pogroms, arson and encroachments on the freedom and inviolability of citizens and their property. Since there is a manifestation of various perversions, culture has nothing to do with it. This is already the sphere of activity of psychologists and psychiatrists. We're not going to talk about the "culture of trauma", "the culture of malignant tumors", "the culture of male and female genital diseases" and other troubles that escaped from the Pandora's Vessel?
The semantics of all kinds of "protest" movements creates the impression of reportages from psychiatric hospitals, led from there by the patients themselves. The culture of scientific understanding of the surrounding reality requires a strict systemic, or at least systematic order. We have such an order in the taxonomic nomenclature of the living beings Karl Linnaeus. It assumes the presence in animals and even in plants of a fundamental quality in the form of clear differentiation according to sex characteristics. As you know, Linnaeus first presented the main ideas of the sexual classification of plants in the works: "Praeludia sponsaliorum plantarum" ("Introduction to the sexual life of plants", 1729) and "Systema Naturae" (1735), which became the basis of modern taxonomy. He proceeded from the foundations of fruiting, therefore he took into account the differences in plants by the structure of their sexual parts (methodus sexualis). This caused the indignation of some of his colleagues, in particular, the Russian botanist Johann Sigesbek, Swede. He criticized (1737) Linnaeus for his "anti-moral defense of the existence of sex in plants." Sigesbeck denied sex in plants. Half a century later, Johann Goethe also rebuked Linnaeus, however, only in excessive lyricism when comparing objects of the "kingdom of nature with objects of the other world." After all, "Linnaeus calls the petals of a flower the curtain of the wedding bed ...".
It is interesting, though unfortunate, that after almost 300 years, denial of sex differences between individuals is beginning to become a practice in humans. And this contradicts the very foundations of the organization of life. One of the most fashionable topics today is "changing your own gender." True, this is an illusion, since the change of sex to the opposite occurs only in documents, but not in reality, where external, secondary sexual characteristics change. In addition, it requires the use of specific sex hormones, either male or female. They are a kind of chemical prostheses that replace natural ones. By this logic, we can imagine a person with a cane as a creature with three legs. But this is absurd. Various congenital deformities in the genital area are not counted, since they are still deformities. Not a single male and not a single female will ever be able to receive the main systemic quality of the other sex, different from that which they received at birth.
Each person has individual innate characteristics that cannot be changed. Among them, papillary pattern, blood group, structural content of sex chromosomes and some other unique qualities are distinguished. Among transgender exercises, we note gender dysphoria, i.e. the discrepancy between the gender identity of the subject and the sex registered at birth. The practice of psychiatry gives us a large number of examples when a person considers himself not only of the other sex or a different person, but even as another living being, plant or animal. Moreover, many examples are known when a subject identified himself as a non-living substance. One of the victims of such a perversion was the King of France Charles VI, who considered himself to be glass with manifestations befitting a clinic.
A person who at birth has X and Y chromosomes is always and only a male subject. If a person at birth has two X chromosomes, this is always and only a female subject.
Perhaps someone will object to me. After all, living beings are known that are capable of sexual metamorphosis, depending on various circumstances. I agree, but this is not an example for a person, since he can get such a hypothetical opportunity only as a result of systemic downshifting. For those who are especially curious, I will note that this occurs at the fourth stage of dying in the process of irreversible reduction of its systemic complexity.
The practice of psychiatry presents other forms of sexual perversion as well. Once a young man from Leningrad turned to Vladimir Demikhov, the founder of vital organ transplantation. He asked to transplant his pharyngeal tonsils, which were removed about a year ago. He believed that this operation deprived him of libido and potency. Demikhov advised him to contact me, since he knew about my work on structural and functional plastics in the head and neck area. Sometimes I performed this operation simultaneously with the removal of a cancerous tumor, sometimes – in the process of staged recovery. It is clear that the young man's problem was not the absence of tonsils, but in relation to this absence. Therefore, I gently turned the arrows to the appropriate specialists. He never came again.
Today, a large number of people have free access to information on various issues. They believe that this gives them knowledge. This is a mistake, because knowledge is not only a corresponding amount of information. It should be organized appropriately. Moreover, knowledge is an immanent attribute of consciousness that cannot be transferred to another person. Socrates understood this. Only information can be transmitted. These concepts should not be confused. At the same time, we must understand that information without systematization is just noise. Today, among others, this is the most important circumstance and gave rise to such a phenomenon as "Cancel culture".
The natural sciences can provide the organization of information in a systemic format. In this case, we can extract and reveal the content, i.e. we can obtain objective knowledge. The humanitarian sphere is able to provide the organization of information only in the systematical format. Therefore, knowledge in it is always subjective and is able to represent only the meaning, which will depend on many circumstances.
The illusion of competence in the consciousness is a terrible destructive force.