Why do people gather in groups, clubs, etc.

3-го апреля мы опубликовали информацию об очередной встрече в Одесского Историко-литературного общества ОРО УАН, основной темой которого был феномен объединений писателей, ученых, художников – чья жизнедеятельность преимущественно индивидуальна. Как мы и информировали, некоторые, наиболее интересные подробности этой опубликуем позднее. Один из участников мероприятия, член Историко-литературного общества Александр Кривошея (США, Калифорния) прислал в редакцию материал о выступлении академика Олега Викторовича Мальцева. Далее текст дословно.

Hello, my name is Alexander Krivosheya. I am a journalist for the journal “Expedition”. I have listened to the speech Ph.D. Oleg Maltsev made it during the gathering of the Historical Literature Club. It really blew me away and I have translated it into English. I have never heard any Englishspeaking professor explained in such detail and so systematically the notion of why do people gather in groups, clubs, etc. I believe that any person, who reads this amazing speech, will be able to take something very useful from it. It’s something every person can use right away.

For any individual who is creating something, one of his main goals is to try and understand the value of their creation. Meaning when someone created something they can not understand on their own if it’s something that beautiful or not, if it has value or not?

For example, the egg of Faberge. Faberge himself does not know what the egg is worth or if it has any value at all.

This is a very old notion, as one Wiseman said – “God can not create the world without the help of humans”. Because if there was a world, but no humans to comprehend it, then the world would not exist. So for something to exist you need the creator and someone who can comprehend the creation. If no one can comprehend creation, creation simply does not exist. For instance, I created this office, we are all are sitting inside it and if no one was here, then the office would not exist. So the creation itself is not a creation until someone else can comprehend the creation, only then your creation is born, after someone else has seen it, accepted it, comprehended it. And that’s the point. So for instance, when I create a poem, same as when God creates something, this poem does not exist until it is read and comprehended by someone else. So the poem at the stage right after it’s written is like processed food, it’s not real. I wrote it but no one has heard it, no one has read it, so it does not exist. The memory of a human is constructed in such a way that until something is poured out or said out loud or read, it does not exist.

This notion historically gives the ability to manipulate history. For instance, they say – “We found a lost and not finished poem of Alexander Pushkin”. When certain people need to do some real good work and need to get some information to the masses, they write something themselves and then they say – “We found a long, lost and forgotten poem, that was written by Pushkin himself!!!”. When I hear things like that I am very skeptical about them personally. The same thing happens when they say – “Oh we found some amazing documents inside an old monastery and, wow, the things that are written in there really rewrite our world history!! We will show you the copies of them!! We can not show you the originals because it’s hard to do but do not worry the original defiantly exist. BELIEVE US!!!”

So when someone writes a poem, the poem does not exist until someone else can comprehend that poem. Only then it’s born. The same thing goes for me when I write a book and until at least one person opens that book and reads it to the end the book does not exist. Only after one person has read it, it become the property of the world’s memory. Now to answer the question of why people unite in groups and organizations, the reason is that when Faberge makes the egg he needs someone to comprehend it and the factory workers can comprehend the egg but they can not give it a value or appraisal. This is not enough for a master even though someone has seen the egg and comprehend it and now it’s born, but a very important part is still missing. For a master it’s very important that someone must give an appraisal, to give value to his work, to give it a status. The problem is the appraisal of such a thing can be given only by the same level of a master as Faberge…

There was a film named Visit to Minotaur. In this film Stradivari told Amati that violins are “made” and Amati answered – “Benches in the park are made, violins are grown like wheat, grapes, and children”. This is why any art, scientific research, and intellectual work is born only after someone else is able to comprehend it. After Bulgakov wrote his masterpieces, he first had his wife read them to other writers in his home, and only after it was born and the other writers were able to give it an appraisal, and then it went into the masses. For Bulgakov the most important was the appraisal of those first people and writers who listened to his works.

I remember the words of Henri Cartier-Bresson, he said – “I really don’t care what anyone thinks of my photos, I take photos for myself not for you all, but there are certain people whose opinion is very important to me. There are artists of a very high level and I will listen to their opinions, but your opinion does not matter to me.” Bresson cherished the opinion of those few high-level artists and did not care about the opinion of anyone else. A person must not only do the work, but he has to understand how well he has done the work.

One can make a violin that makes you cringe when listening to it and another person can make a violin that brings tears to the eyes because it sounds so beautiful. Those are two different violins and their cost is different.

I have to understand what I have done, but I can not give myself an appraisal. For instance, if I think that I am a genius but everyone else thinks that I am a dumbass, we have a dissonance. So why do people gather in groups, clubs, etc.? Because first the birth of something needs to take place, and after that an appraisal. Without an outside appraisal these things are not worth anything. For instance, I did not write %80 of what I could have written for one simple reason – I know that for at least 30 more years no one will be able to comprehend or give an appraisal to what I wrote. For instance, when I was on my expedition to Heidelberg and wrote a book named “Knightly order of the Russian Thieves”, two years went by until people started to write to me and thank me for writing this book. So it took people two years to comprehend this book. The people have become so incompetent that when they read what I write they may have a heart attack from it. After they will read my new book named “Maestro”, they may just drop dead from that one. I started to write a book named “Who is God?” and after the 4th page I have stopped writing it, because I objectively comprehend that people will not be able to understand this book. Maybe in 20-30 years, people will become so stupid that they will not be able to read and understand two pages. This is why I do not see a point in writing this book.

Leopold Szondi was very unhappy in this sense because his books were extremely difficult to read and understand and only a few people existed that could comprehend what he was writing. He suffered because of this. Everyone always wanted to ask Szondi something during the gatherings and Szondi asked them: “Did you read the second book?” And all the people that gathered sat there quietly, and this made him very sad, because everyone read the books of Carl Jung, books of Sigmund Freud, but the books of Szondi they did not read, because it is true that they are written in a very difficult way. I don’t want to put down Freud or Jung, but the fact of the matter is Leopold Szondi was ten times higher than both of them intellectually. And if after reading all three of them you do not see that it just means your intellect is unable to comprehend it. Szondi is the one and the only unsurpassed genius of psychology that has surpassed everyone for many many generations ahead.

Why does everyone want to forget about Szondi?? Because if they don’t forget about him, it means that they will have to just throw away all of the modern physiological teachings like they are garbage, they would be useless all of the modern psychology schools, other than Jung and Freud. Modern physiological teaching contradicts the deep psychology that it’s actually built on, so it’s like modern psychology just cut away from its roots and is trying to keep the leaves… It does not work. Modern psychology is just a simulacrum.

Szondi was a true scholar, a true scientist. People like Szondi are rare, basically, there is Rorschach and there is Szondi, two paths. There are basically two personality theories and nothing else.

The third theory of personality of Ph.D. Maltsev will possibly become famous in phycology in about 20 years, even though I spoke about it during the conference. My theory of personality is not only verifiable and one that you can actually touch, but it is also very fitting for our day and age. But I think during the conference when they heard me speak about it, they did not understand what they heard. And I am talking about academicians, if they can not comprehend, then, of course, students will not be able to also.

So why are we gathered here now? There are people who are able to comprehend what I am saying and there are people who are not able. They don’t have enough intellect to understand. So individuals gather in order to give birth to something, meaning someone is to comprehend something plus give it an appraisal. The creator gets a certain satisfaction, a certain signal that telling him if he is on the right path or the wrong path. He can understand if he has accomplished something as a scientist or not. He needs some kind of feedback. And everyone can think what they want about the subject, whether they like it or dislike it, whether it’s good or bad. But to tell you the truth it really does not matter, because there is the so-called stage three and this stage is called a duel. A duel has always shown who is right and who is wrong. Two people enter a duel and only one gets to walk away.

So the steps are:
#1 Comprehension
#2 Appraisal
#3 Duel

And when we see the duel stage we now for sure can see who is who. Because before there were theoretical steps, but this one is a practical step. In this case, the life itself gave the appraisal. And this step is the most ruthless one. Because there could be a huge number of people, who think highly of something, but the duel situation can show that it’s actually nothing, it’s worthless. If you remember the words of De Carranza, he stated: “Everything in this world is comprehended through the demonstration.” The appraisal is given in the situation of the duel. Why did Lermontov always try to overcome Pushkin? Lermontov was never able to overcome Pushkin but was able to create a separate path. And they became like two parallel lines and all of the following poetry and literature was developed based on those two lines:

#1 Pushkin
#2 Lermontov

To jump higher Pushkin Lermontov could not but it did happen much later and it was another figure. His name is Vladimir Vysotsky. And when people start to argue with me about Vysotsky overcoming Pushkin I say: “Just look at the funeral of Vysotsky.” Vygotsky has not only overcome Pushkin, but he has also done so universally. If someone might have jumped one head higher, then in Vysotsky’s case he jumped to the moon. And this is the duel situation when we put the two funerals side by side and have a duel of the two funerals. And if you remember the only other person in history that had a funeral like Vysotsky is Joseph Stalin. The bottom line is that those two funerals of Stalin and Vysotsky showed that the people were paying their dues to true rulers. Vysotsky was the prophet and Stalin was the ruler, their funerals were identical. The funeral of Pushkin is like comparing an elephant to an ant, it was nothing. But if we go back to the three stages:

#1 Comprehension was done.
#2 Appraisal of Pushkin was enormous.
#3 But the duel showed that Pushkin was nothing compared to Vysotsky.

The whole county was paying their dues at Vysotsky’s funeral! The crowd was so large that some people got killed inside the crowd from suffocation. The same had happened during Stalin’s death. The funeral of Vysotsky was a complete shock for the law enforcement! They had no idea what they should do in this situation. They had no clue that these many people would show up to the funeral. They thought it would be just a regular funeral like everyone else. But when they saw how 48 hours before the funeral huge amounts of people started swarming into Moscow, they understood that this was going to be something out of their control. And when every meter of the city was filled with people and all those people started walking, the law enforcement understood that they didn’t know something about this culture, about their own people. You can look it up on the internet to see how similar the funeral of Stalin and the funeral of Vysotsky were. In one case the whole culture lost the meaning of life and in the other case, they lost the ability to achieve the meaning of life. Basically, the Russian people lost two of the main supporting columns in their lives. They lost a great and genius manager and leader and they lost a genius philosopher. When they lost both of them the people did not know what to do next.

And I wanted to show you this example of the duel situation that allows everyone to see how things really are. Pushkin was taught in schools and is still being taught in schools, but Vysotsky was never taught in Russian schools. And they will never teach about Vysotsky, because he is not meant for any school curriculum. Vysotsky teaches about life in his works. I have a friend that told me: “You introduced me to Vysotsky and now five years later when I drive around in my car I listen to his songs and they answer all the questions I have about life. The interesting thing is Vysotsky was never personally an idol for people but his Works and his Masterpieces were idolized. Sometimes that happens when the person himself is not an idol but his works are. We can not say that he was an ideal, a perfect human being. He could be compared to an anarchist, imagine a man that was driving around in a Mercedes during the soviet union times. That was impossible to even imagine, but he did it, and no one could do anything about it. Vygotsky had lots of songs that the regular people did not get to hear. He would sing them during the closed meetings of the soviet government officials, as we know a lot of his songs were about criminals and because all of the Soviet government were criminals in the past. They loved to listen to Vysotsky’s songs but did not want the people of Soviet Russia to know about it, so he had a certain unspoken immunity and love from both, the people and the government.

And now we have to finally speak about step number four. Because step number three shows the level or class but it does not show the time frame. Step number four shows us how long something lasts. There are things that are not forgotten for 200-300 years. For instance, the works of Mikhail Lomonosov no one remembers them. I personally can not remember any poems of Mikhail Lomonosov. For me, he does not exist as a poet because I do not remember his works. On the other hand people like Vysotsky, Lermontov, Pasternak, they all exist for me because I do remember their poems and works. And I can say I remember a lot of their works, word by word. And this example explains step number four: how long does something that you created live?

Author Alexander Krivosheya

Subscribe to our Telegram channel: https://t.me/lnvistnik
Feedback mail: info@lnvistnik.com.ua

Якщо ви знайшли помилку, будь ласка, виділіть фрагмент тексту та натисніть Ctrl+Enter.

One thought on “Why do people gather in groups, clubs, etc.

Leave a Reply