Текст книги "The Last Gambit"

Автор книги: (IP of the USSR) Internal Predictor of the USSR

сообщить о нарушении

Текущая страница: 16 (всего у книги 21 страниц)

And whoever, Mr. Holmes, makes you wander about the wide world? Can’t you sit still at home? Instead you sit in the airplane’s armchair for the whole night. And what for?.. No, no, I don’t feel like that. I don’t like all these “Boeings”, especially now, when they’re constantly falling now on the ground, now in water.

And that’s exactly what I want to understand, Mrs. Hudson, why they fall down. And, you know, one can sleep in the airplane too, if he is not disturbed. I had two spare armchairs beside me, and I was having quite good rest till Frankfurt.

Holmes indeed looked fresh and animated.

Well, dear Watson, “picnics” really travel along the wide world.

Let you better tell us about your adventures, Holmes. I have a feeling, that you have visited half of the Earth globe in these three weeks.

Holmes looked in the window with the customary London rain behind it, and his face lit up with the contented smile.

You might have missed our rains and fogs, haven’t you, Mr. Holmes? –Mrs. Hudson asked.

I remembered at once, that when I went down the boarding ramp of “Boeing” at Heathrow, I thought: “What a good big conditioner for the whole good old England!”

Holmes coped with his breakfast quickly, and we settled in his study, where Mrs. Hudson brought coffee for us. Having got his pipe lighted, Holmes started to tell his story, with some inner guardedness unusual for him before.

The first adventure happened at Zurich airport. While passing visa control, I noticed one passenger from the flight from Frankfurt am Main. It’ better to say, not the passenger, but the newspaper he held in his hands.

Holmes put rather creased newspaper on the desk. It was “Izvestiya”, September 22, №175.

Yes, Holmes, I understand, why you noticed it.

You’re absolutely right, Watson, its number is the same as the number of the flight of “Boeing-767”, which attacked the southern tower of WTC, and – naturally – the date when this newspaper was published – September 22. You know, Watson, I noticed this numerical accordance almost automatically, and the incident might finish on it, if this unknown to me passenger hadn’t passed through passport control several minutes earlier than me. Having got my luggage, I was hurrying to the exit, where Switzerland representative of our firm, Louis Renier, was waiting for me, but suddenly my glance stopped at some armchair in the waiting room, and there that very newspaper, carelessly thrown, which I paid my attention several minutes ago, lied. How do you think, Watson, what did I think?

The most probable, that the same thing can’t catch one’s eye twice in the senseless fuss of airport.

Of course, Watson, you’re right. And still, some time I was hesitating, like Buridan’s ass, – should I take it? Or not? And may be, I didn’t take it finally, if it wasn’t for the photo in the upper corner of the first page.

Holmes pointed on the page of the newspaper, where the photo of smiling Anna Kurnikova, Russian tennis player, was placed.

Dear Watson, doesn’t it remind you something?

I think – nothing. Well … the next model is promoted, and if she will be in porno– or “haute couture” – it’s not that important…

The same question I asked Louis Renier, who met me there, and he only shrugged his shoulders in respond.

I can add only, that this “lass” has nothing to do with chess surely.

And, Watson, translate please the inscriptions under the photo, may be, they will suggest you something?

“Anna Kurnikova. The long-awaited foreshortening”. And some below – the title of the article: “Nothing personal”, with short explanation of the theme – “American Playboy wants to shoot Russian beauty”. I understand, what you mean, dear Holmes, but my intuition says me nothing about how this maiden can be connected with the “picnics”.

Well, and the title of lead article? May be, it can suggest something to your intuition, Watson?

“The twilights of freedom”, “American tragedy may bury the democracy”, – slowly, as a schoolboy, I translated the titles of the lead article, continuing to study the photo of pretty tennis player and repeating the inscriptions under the photo in my thoughts.

Holmes was right, this lass reminded me someone indeed, but… I hadn’t any models for “Playboy” among my acquaintances. But among others… no, this can’t be true! I was seized again by some strange feeling, as like after the dinner with Galba in the bar of “Woldorf” hotel.

It seems to me, Holmes, that I remembered her; this is Aphrodite Beautifully-rumped.

How did you say, Watson? Beautifully-rumped? But this girl has her back, not rump, naked.

Yes, I’m sure, – more confidently, like at the exam, I continued, – this is Aphrodite Callipyga, which means “Beautifully-rumped” in Greece. Her statue stands in the National Museum of Naples, and in ancient times she was especially worshipped in Syracuse. The picture of this statue is in the right upper corner of the “Post Historical Picnic”, like the picture of Kurnikova in “Izvestiya”. In the “picnic” Aphrodite Beautifully-rumped is represented with the placard “Free Russia – free love!” and here – “The twilights of freedom”. What do you think, Holmes?

I see, Watson, you did a good job with the pictures of Russian rebus. But let us keep some order, and later we’ll return to this newspaper, if we find the answer on the question “What can we think about it?”

Speaking this, Holmes turned on his notebook computer, took a floppy-disk, recorded some file on it and then handed it to me.

There’s a file on this floppy-disk, which is called “The Last Gambit”, as we together decided three weeks ago. All my meetings and conversations with people in Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Spain, Egypt, India, I tried to record in this file, as much as possible. By the way, it helped me to work on the new information, which sometimes had rather sudden sources. I hope, Watson, that you have similar recordings too, and I feel ready to get acquainted with them. Let’s agree that today we will have a rest, exchange some general impressions, and read the file of “The Last Gambit”, and tomorrow we will start the work on the “picnics” right from the morning. I have here the copies of some newspapers and notes, which I got from the people with whom I have been talking. But before you start reading my recordings, Watson, I’d want you to get acquainted with this note, which was given to me by a very interesting man in Cairo. The recording of conversation with him is on this floppy. I think that this note is especially interesting for us, as we go in for this activity.

I brought my notes to Holmes and left him, for he needed a rest after the long trip, returned to my room and occupied myself with reading the note from Egypt. It seemed to me so unusual and really significant for our long activity with Holmes, and I decided to quote it here entirely, with all commentaries and footnotes by unknown authors from Russia.

The principles of tandem activity

The superior zhretses in Egypt combined the principles of even and odd numbers in their activity. In the times, preceding the Jewish going out from Egypt, they included: ten of superior esotericists from the North, ten – from the South[93], and each ten was headed by the eleventh zhrets, its head-hierarch and leader.

That means, that every leader of the ten, in the case of voting[94] within it, had to support, basing on his own understanding, one of two opinions, which could arise among the subordinate zhretses of the ten, because he knew more than they by the conditions of the structure of the ten. It provided two decisions on every problem from every ten in the whole, no matter how different the opinions were within each.

But, if two commands were working together, the situation of “voting” with the result was – 11 “for”, 11 “against”, not only wasn’t excluded unequivocally, but statistically programmed by the principles of structure of the system themselves, because the leading consecrated hierarchs of two commands were equal, and their opinions were equally authoritative for all others.

And if the decisions of not even commands in whole, but of their head-hierarchs only were divided between two contrary opinions on the same question, then the equal rights of two leaders made them to seek for some decision which could satisfy both.

Thus, the superior administrative structure of ancient Egypt can be described mathematically by some peculiar formula:

Of course, one may suppose, that two superior zhretses could try to agree with each other by casting lots, and to accept the decision by lot. Such approach to the problem of getting rid of uncertainty and making the decision (when two contrary variants have the same number of votes) is understandable and acceptable to the majority of “voting machine” lovers. And the odd number of participants in the most part of them, as the main principle of their structure, plays the role of all the same casting lots, for few can prognosticate beforehand, how the votes would divide within the voting group and on whose side the only decisive vote would be.

However, though the leaders of the tens might agree to cast lots for making the unit opinion on the suggested question, it would be the infringement of system-organizing principles of their working structure “”, which they built purposely and were keeping during the change of generations in such form, that it allowed in statistically programmed way the probability of equal dividing the opinions between two contrary decisions on the same question.

In other words, though the head-hierarchs, leading the tens of superior zhretses, were nor sillier than our contemporary democratizators and could guess, that inability of making one distinct decision in the case of equal number of “for” votes and “against” votes could be easily evaded by simple casting lots, they understood moreover: it would be better not to do that. And what the naïve supporters of “voting machines” don’t understand is that the solution of the problem shouldn’t be left for incomprehensible chance, and in some cases even for the majority of votes[95]; and neither do the supporters of monarchy, concerned with automatically inevitable accepting the decision by the advantage of only one vote, where the number of voting “committee” participants is odd.

This particular feature of zhretses’ working structure “” means that, in the case of disagreement between two equal head-hierarchs, they both should become the participants of some other process of making and accepting the decision, which excluded intentionally the incomprehensible chance of lot, and equally – the only decisive voice. This is the only reasonable explanation for such expressed-in-system disgust of Egyptian superior zhretses to accepting the decision on the base of incomprehensibility of chance lot, and equally on the base of incomprehensibility of chance one-vote-advantage.

And if the working structure “” did existed during centuries without quarrels between two head-hierarchs of its branches and hadn’t been replaced by structure based on the principle of odd numbers, it means that the head-hierarchs indeed were able to provide the work of system on the base of principle: “two heads are better than one”[96], and to choose one decision from two contrary ones or to make the third, better than both two incompatible.

In the other words, they were skilfully realizing the tandem principle in their intellectual and entire psychical activity, which were inherited[97] by rabbis of Great Synagogue in ancient times, whose adherence to pairs without any homosexual reasons (the Freudists could probably give that explanation) was rather astonishing and lacking for understanding for A. Reville.

But in the society of almost general literacy, lacking of desire and skills to think, where we, the readers of this piece, live, it’s one of the most easy doings – to write, as well as to read, the words “intellectual activity on the base of tandem principle”. Their practical understanding, and all the more – realizing their true meaning in one’s own life is much harder, than writing or reading the words.

The first image one can have in his head is the remembrance of tandem – the bicycle, where the pedals are to be moved by two bicycle-riders, and co-ordinately. For those, who not only saw the tandem, but rode on it not alone, it can be easy to remember the lightness of flight comparing with the ordinary bicycle, which appears because of the fact that the resistance of tandem is little more than ordinary bicycle has, but the energy of “motor” is twice. Also you can remember, that if your partner on the tandem is hardly moving his legs for only not losing the tempo with which you yourself rolls the pedals as swiftly as possible, you would feel much less comfortable, than having a travelling companion on the ordinary bicycle.

Like in cycling, the matter is the same in the sphere of intellectual activity: if two have found the way for providing the combination[98] of their individual possibilities, then the effectiveness of tandem exceeds the possibilities of each of the partners, and the advantages of tandem principle “two heads are better than one” are obvious and incontestable for those who managed to realize it; but if two, trying to make a tandem, can’t combine, it would be the task of the one with more developed individual spiritual culture to draw on his back through the “strip of life obstacles” both his companion and all the tandem products, and it may appear too hard for him in some cases, even if his individual capacities allow him to go easily enough through the “obstacle strip” by his own.

However, the tandem principle of intellectual activity has one peculiar feature: unlike in cycling, where the tandem, on which one can sit and ride, passing all the ordinary bicycles, is obviously visible and touchable, in the case of intellectual activity all good tandem effects appear and influence only by the condition of combination of the partners. It can arise from the very beginning, and then the tandem is combined “by itself”, without any purposeful efforts from their side, and for that reason it can stay invisible for their consciousness, which is concerned with other problems, and dwell in the sphere of subconscious psychical activity. But if there isn’t a “primordial” combination, and people don’t even guess about the possibility of reaching the tandem effect in their activity, they never undertake any intentional efforts for changing themselves and people around them such way, that the combination in tandem became possible.

These are two reasons by which the tandem principle “two heads are better than one” remained unobserved by different types of psychological schools: if it was realized, nothing can be said about it, because it’s not the aim, but the means for reaching some other aims; and if its realization was unsuccessful, there’s nothing to talk about, for the subject is absent. But we pay much attention to it, because it’s the first goal, which realization represents the way for realizing some other, more significant, goals.

Though Egyptian zhretses were basing on the tandem principle in their activity, the methods of teaching the intellectual activity in the system of initiation in ancient Egypt were either hidden (and it’s more probable, according to our understanding of principles of saving and distributing information in the society[99]); or open methods were destined only for the most superior esotericists (this is less probable, to our opinion, because in that case someone would have left some indications on it, direct or allegorical, but we have no things like that).

In favour of what was said in the previous paragraph there say the historical circumstances of the times, when Egypt was no Egypt any more, and pass from the historical stage “by itself”. It happened, when the structure of Egyptian zhrechestvo “”, standing above the Pharaoh and state power during centuries, conceptually powerful structure, left Egypt in Moses epoch together with Amen priests, who installed into the Jewish surroundings during the time of Egyptian captivity. After that the Egypt of Pharaohs began to decline, and it’s widely known, though the historians don’t connect this declining process with disappearing of zhretses administrative structure “”[100].

I.Katznelson in the postscript to the novel of B.Pruss “Pharaoh”[101] notices, that in ancient Egypt there was real historical Amen’s superior zhrets in Thebes, Kherikhor, who sat on the throne of Egypt, having removed Ramses XII, the real historical last Pharaoh of XX dynasty (and that was the real base for the subject of Pruss’s novel). During this period Egypt split up into two parts, and furthermore became the loot of foreigners, as arbitrariness and ignorance of the “elite” and the zhretses, deteriorating to the level of desiring and greedy znakharstvo, lead to progressing lowering of administrative qualities, which ended few centuries later, under Cleopatra, with entire collapse.

I.Katznelson, like many other people, doesn’t pay much attention to the fact, that the real events of XX dynasty collapse and ruling of a superior quack had their place AFTER JEWISH GOING OFF from Egypt, which is known from the bible. It means, that it happened, when Egypt had yet accepted the doctrine of slave owning on the base of usurious tyranny of Jewish clans, ruled by the heirs of Egyptian Amen hierarchy.

After the beginning of this aggression by methods of “cultural cooperation”, the global znakharstvo, who by the commandments of usury and racism has perverted the Revelation given through Moses, didn’t need Egyptian culture like state form any more. The leaders of the hierarchy broke the principle of making the decision by two parallel and equal branches “”. So, real historical Kherikhor has got an opportunity to become the only bale to function head-hierarch of that level of znakharstvo, which was passed by while working on global plans, for making it sit still in Egypt and not get under the feet of those who strived for the world power.

Perhaps, Kherikhor – individualist by his moral ideals and world view – could act by himself, reaching the individual state power and getting the place of Pharaoh, because he just didn’t understand the essence and effectiveness of tandem principle of making the decision and the necessity of the only ruling centre when the decision was realized (it was the responsibility of Pharaoh and official’s hierarchy), he knew nothing about advisability of the structure of administrative system of Egypt during the change of generations, which was ruling Egypt during several millennia. Kherikhor was allowed to do what he wanted, by zhretses’ unofficial system “”, who aimed for global absolute inner-social power, because they didn’t need Egyptian state power to be stronger than state powers of other countries any more. From the point of view of unofficial structure “”, which has become suprastate and international, all states should succumb to its administrative effectiveness, and their cultures should be standardized in this sense too. The shift to monarchy in Egypt, where the monarch stands higher in the system of public hierarchies than clergymen, still called “zhrechestvo”, was aimed to solve this task. This was the loss of stability of system of public self-governing of Egyptian local crowd-“elitism”, which had been keeping alive Egyptian regional civilization during more than 2000 years, bringing it out of happening military or social catastrophes (administrative catastrophes) without any harm to originality of its culture.

So, the Egyptian zhretses’ system “” – which is more perfect and unerring in making decisions than “odd” systems, thanks to the tandem principle – ceased to hold sway over the autocracy of its rulers and has been existing concealed for some time among the Jews. Later it revealed its upper part represented by two superior rabbis, heading the Great Synagogue since 230 B.C. till the time, when ancient Judea, in its turn, was made by it to play the same game as Egypt before – “the things are wiped out – to the Leta[102]”.

That’s all, generally, which could be found in well-known history of tandem’s principle role in the past. And before we move to the analysis of its opportunities in contemporary times and in the prospect, we should notice that psyche of ancient zhretses, acting on the base of tandem principle, was rather different from the psyche of the other part of zhrechestvo, which, like Kherikhor, preferred to administrate on the base of individual skills; and moreover, psyche of the rest part of population, not belonging to zhretses’ structures, was generally different from the psyche of superior hierarchs[103].

It’s only for the specialties in psychical structure and self-discipline of superior zhretses, mastering the tandem principle of intellectual activity, that it remains unconcerned with principles, well comprehended by ancient, as well as contemporary, crowd, – the principles of bribery and blackmail of the opponent in the case of disagreement. And those who think, that among able to function superior zhrechestvo one head-hierarch could bribe or blackmail another, should answer themselves questions as following: by what could such people bribe each other, when their word was really more powerful, than the word of Pharaoh, brought since their childhood in such way, that they weren’t slaves of instincts and passions, even if all society, subject to them, is seized by evil passions? What quarrels could arise between them, if their limited physiological and conditioned cultural (because of the upbringing) needs could be guaranteed by all the power of Egyptian state[104], not little even by our contemporary measure, all the more that the quarrels could destroy the vitality of “” structure, which supplied everything in their life, made them entirely independent from the society and its “opinion”, which was formed by themselves mostly?

But that means, that, being the base for liquidation and solving different “misunderstandings”, the realization of tandem principle demands for clear understanding of definite things and wilful coordination of each tandem participant’s behaviour with such understanding.

Firstly, it’s necessary to understand and submit, that the conception of “copyright” and “ right for the intellectual property”, considered to be one of the foundations of Western civilization, hinders free intellectual activity and perfecting the spiritual culture in society generally, as well as on the basis of tandem principle.

Tandem intellectual activity in any case bases on the acceptance of objectivity of the fact of independent existence of any tandem products and submission of each partner’s behaviour to this sufficing tandem fact. What is produced as the result of intellectual activity on the basis of tandem principle can’t be considered the product of intellectual activity of any of the participants. And it’s impossible to demarcate the “copyright” of each participant in the product of tandem activity, the “copyright” on particular, artificially distinguished, components of integral product of tandem activity[105].

Realizing of tandem principle is like playing dominoes: contribution of one participant in common tandem activity product is determined by pervious contribution of his partner, and, in its turn, makes requirements accordingly to future contributions of them both. Therefore all tandem products exist independently, and tandem participants are present at that. In tandem activity one of participants doesn’t wait on the intellectual activity of another[106].

All what was said is the key to tandem activity realizing, but not the list of rules for some intellectual “game”, which couldn’t be changed without the result of another “game” appearing and absence of alternative.

Every man, as a part of objective world, possesses his characteristic personal particular features, and that’s what is called “subjectivism”. In social life it’s the subjectivism of searchers, scientists, developers that is the source of new knowledge and skills in culture. But it’s also the source of different mistakes, because of limitation and insufficiency of subject. When someone expresses his opinion, which is not like generally accepted, or dominating, he is often reproached with the words like these: “A-a-a… It’s just your opinion”. But however, in most cases, those who reproach other people such way for having their own opinion, prefer not to think about the content of this opinion, its accordance with objective current of events of life, its subjective mistakes and psychical causes of these mistakes.

When raising all these questions, then all-sweeping scepticism and nihilism of “A-a-a… It’s just your opinion” will be transformed to one of two components of tandem principle. And if answers on those questions aren’t rejected by transmitter of the opinion with the words like that: “What?.. Who are you trying to teach me?” he will begin his part in tandem activity, and as a result, the original opinion may be changed and accompanied by some new opinion about the partner as human person and as a transmitter of some certain ideas and skills.

If the partner doesn’t reject this opinion on the question and accompanying opinion on his person or doesn’t interrupt discussing, the first act of tandem activity can be finished by producing the third opinion different from two original opinions in some details. Appearing of this third opinion will be accompanied necessarily by changes in self-appreciating of both participants in respect of their personal features, ideas and skills. If quite serious questions are raised there, collapse of personality can happen, in the case when personality continues insisting on the opinions incompatible with the Objective reality, or – its transformation.

Tandem effects in intellectual activity is the consequence of the fact that each participant of tandem considers his partner’s subjectivism as something like “scissors”; they delete the mistakes, caused by subjectivism of them both, from products of tandem activity; and as well they represent hammer for the personality of the partner, while tandem products represent anvil. In the course of such “blacksmith’s working” much “hull” of mistaking subjectivism is peeled from the person. This process is more painful and unpleasant psychologically, for those who more claim to “intellectual property” in respect to tandem activity products and their components, and who consider themselves to be the cleverest in their conceit[107]. When working on the person in the smithy of tandem relations starts, some persons lose so much husk, that few of former loud name rests, and such persons became entirely lost in its own husk. And it’s a fear of such losing the face in such clearing, which is the most important obstacle for overcoming the selfish individualism, and one should overcome it for becoming convinced on practice that “two heads are better than one”.

The more different is life experience of each participant and the more friendly and free are his or her interrelations, the brighter tandem effect is. And, accordingly, tandem effect vanishes in such situations as in the fable by I.A. Krylov “The Cock and the Cuckoo”, when the “Cuckoo” praises the “Cock” because the “Cock” praises the “Cuckoo”. But in the community of individualistically thinking intelligentsia such tandems as I.A. Krylov described in his fable, are can be met more often; and the same “intellectual” can be the participant of several tandems of mutual praising in turn. But if one of participants of mutual praising shifts to tandem principle realizing, he will risk to lose his partner and praiser, who will be displeased and insulted by such “working on” his conceit.

Intellectual activity in tandem goes as direct communication of people, and the exchange of subjective information takes place. The more concentrated is one partner on another, the more effective this exchange is. Such informational exchange can last as much as possible without interruptions; it can be resumed after many breaks, which can interrupt the discussion for many years. The long duration of tandem activity tact and the character of informational exchange between people give people the answer on the question why “the third is superfluous” and why the forth and further heads are all the more superfluous.

The informational exchange between people looks like conversation in its most visible form. One can talk, addressing to the only partner, or to plenty of listeners. But the most part of people is able to follow and analyse the course of thought in the narrative of the only interlocutor. The third one, who tries to become the participant of the conversation, distracts the attention of the listener, and so destroys the tandem process. It doesn’t mean that in any case the third should be took away from the conversational sphere, but it means that, being present at tandem activity of others, he is obliged to make himself transparent for them or to melt into the background. But it’s just one of limitations for the third.

The other circumstance appears another way. Of course, triumvirate, as well as any other more numerous “committee” rights up to Parliament or convention, can work in poly-tandem regime, when the participants form many tandems with each other in turn. But in most cases it will only make the work of the “committee” slower, without much influence on the quality of the decision it makes. The cause is that the most part of tandems, formed by the participants of the “committee” and concentrated on the certain problem, will have the same effectiveness. But some time later several leading, more specialized tandems will be distinguished in the sphere of every certain problem, and it will turn out that one of them can replace all the rest part[108]. Besides, in the numerous “committee” not every combination of participants can quickly form tandem able to work, and so it will lead to faction quarrels, famous to every Parliament, time-wasting and lowing of quality of “committee’s” decision.