Roots of conflict

FROM Today, the vast majority of news stories are about quarrels and confrontations. If we summarize news topics under one heading and try to reduce this heading to one concept, perhaps the most appropriate word for this would be “conflict”. It is it that most accurately explains the cause of many tragedies.

M The world is full of conflicts. Conflict is the most accurate description of History. This clash of interests, leading to misunderstanding and enmity, permeates all spheres life together of people.

R parents are in conflict with children, and those, in turn, do not want to obey them. Wives are in conflict with husbands who are in no hurry to curb their own selfishness. Politicians clash because of the interests of states, inventing ways to destroy their political opponents. Thus, the entire human history is a series of confrontations, big and small wars, one big conflict on the latitudes of the Earth.

E According to the Bible, the first conflict took place in the Garden of Eden, where there was a disagreement between the first people and God. The reason for the disagreement was that people ignored God's command and ate the forbidden fruit. This did not happen without the participation of a third party - the tempter who advised Adam and Eve to disobey the commands of the Creator.

T From the first conflict left its mark on the whole of human nature, instilling in people an innate opposition to God. It was this circumstance that caused all the confrontations in history. The hostility of people to each other was expressed in the first armed conflict, when Cain "rebelled" against his brother Abel and killed him. Since then, killing an enemy has become a traditional way of resolving disputes and disagreements.

And so, conflict (from lat. conflictus- collision) is a situation in which each participant seeks to take the most advantageous position for himself (and disadvantageous for the enemy). modern science even has a special discipline - conflictology, the subject of which is the patterns of emergence, development and resolution of disputes and confrontations.

Great Conflictor

H How does God deal with conflict?

M We see that He turned out to be one of the parties involved in the fall of man into a controversial (conflict) situation, because the sin of man was committed against Him.

H and surprise, the Creator does not stand aside and is not in a hurry to forgive and forget evil, but categorically expresses His attitude to what happened. God not only does not try to “hush up” the matter, leaving the issue of sin without proper resolution, but also acts as the initiator of the struggle! “And I will put enmity between you and between the woman…” - the Lord says to the snake that seduced Eve (Genesis 3:15).

E If we agree that the word "enmity" is a synonym for the word "conflict", it turns out that God is programming the confrontation between man and Satan! The following verses of this chapter speak of God "turning" the earth against man, bringing it into conflict with him: "Cursed is the earth for your sake... thorns and thistles it will bring forth for you..." (Genesis 3:18).

And finally, the last thing He did, as a conflicting party in relation to Adam, was “cast him out of the garden of Eden” (Genesis 3:23). God declares war, and His image in no way coincides with the concept of peacemaking that could have formed in our country! Being by nature “long-suffering and many-merciful” (Ex. 34:6), the Lord turns out to be the greatest conflictor, showing an irreconcilable position regarding sin.

P True, it should be noted here that His anger does not strike the human personality itself, but, as if piercing it, "bites" into the rebellious sinful will of Adam. God's compassion and care for people who have fallen away from Him is visible in subsequent texts of the Bible, which describes His dialogue with Cain (Gen. 4:6-7), in the salvation of the human race from the waters of the Flood (Gen. covenant with Abraham and the people of Israel.

H oh, be that as it may, God remains the most angry and conflicted Person ever mentioned in the pages of Scripture. His irreconcilability is manifested in the angry speeches of the prophets, in harsh, sometimes difficult to comprehend, punitive measures against idolaters, in unprecedentedly cruel - in our, human, opinion - methods of suppressing sin by exterminating entire nations. Yes, and the very death of His Son on the cross of Calvary - what is this, if not the culmination of the conflict, His irreconcilability with the sin that was then placed on the shoulders of Christ?

E If we muster up the courage to ask the question: what is the driving motive in God's actions, what will be our answer? What reason causes Him to “resist the proud” (James 4:6), bestowing His grace on the humble?

To strange as it may seem, the generator of His wrath is the desire to defend His interests! The Almighty is filled with inexhaustible jealousy about his own violated rights. As in any other conflict, the driving force here is the desire to occupy a position adequate to one's status!

G the Lord claimed nothing less than to be the center of the world, which was perfectly natural to Him and what was best for man. The sin of man encroached on this centricity: Adam, having acquired for himself an imaginary independence from the Creator, distorted the course and structure of things in nature set by God, forcing them to forcibly recognize themselves as the "center of the world." It was against this suicidal act that the wrath of God was directed, and His irreconcilable conflict.

Human inability to conflict correctly

M We should note that man's ability to conflict is different from God's. As we have already said, the wrath of the Lord in conflict with the sinner is directed not at the very personality of a person, but at his will corrupted by sin, at his protest against the Creator. Thus, God combines in himself the paradoxical property of loving the object of his anger with the highest love with a readiness to punish sin.

P The paradox of Calvary was that in the crucifixion of God's Son, both the act of the greatest manifestation of the wrath of the Most High and the great love for humanity were expressed at the same time! Christ, who took upon Himself the sins of the world, was abandoned by the Father. In those hours, the Father did not see His Son hanging on a tree, but the receptacle of the sins and guilt of all mankind - that against which He so resolutely rebelled in the Garden of Eden.

FROM Christ's death is the result of the application of God's wrath, the result of unrestrained retribution for rebellion against Him. But she, the death of Jesus, is the greatest sacrifice made by a loving Father, grieving for his son, who left his home, far from the Heavenly Father.

H man, unlike God, is not capable of such a paradox of love and anger. His anger is always biased, his conflict is always selfishly tinged (even in subtle tones). The reason for this is the exposure of the human will to the curse of original sin. We are always in conflict, hating a person (even in an absolutely inconspicuous form), we always want to achieve our own, and not the benefit of our neighbor. Human anger "does not work the righteousness of God" (James 1:20).

And It is for this reason that conflicts between people are viewed by the Bible as negative phenomena. Their negativism is that they are destructive in nature. Naturally ongoing conflict between people always leads to division and quarrel.

Wish War

AT The book of James provides an answer to the question of what is the driving force behind human conflict. The apostle asks the question: “Where do you have enmity and strife?” (4:1). In other words, "what makes you fight and fight?"

AT In the following verses, he himself answers this question: “Is it not from here, from your desires that are at war in your members? Desire and have not; you kill and envy - and you cannot reach; you squabble and fight, and you don't have it because you don't ask. Ask and do not receive, because you do not ask for good, but to use it for your desires” (4: 1-3).

F The fundamental principle indicated by Christ - “evil thoughts proceed from the heart ...” (Matt. 15:19) - was reflected in Jacob's answer to the question about the causes of enmity. He sees the root cause of the conflict in the dissatisfaction of the desires of human hearts. Everything that stands in the way of the realization of our aspirations will cause in us a negative attitude, hostility, anger. In the event that a person stands in our way, our heart aggression will be directed at him.

To How can a simple desire cause enmity? It should be noted that desires are only the beginning, only the first impulses for further thoughts and actions. These can be both sinful lusts (to take possession of someone else’s, illegally relieve ourselves of the duties assigned to us, etc.), and completely legitimate impulses that do not have a sinful nature (the desire to relax after work, eat deliciously, gain respect for one’s person ).

To Just like the former, the latter cause discord in relationships when it becomes obvious that someone is not ready to give in to us and become our assistant in meeting our goals, and we perceive him as a threat to our happiness. Our natural, unconscious desire will be an attempt to remove this barrier that has arisen: we can try to convince the enemy, win him over to our side, motivate him to serve our goals, and if this does not happen, then we begin to suppress him. This suppression can be expressed in such forms as ignoring, condemning, open confrontation. This is how a conflict is born, which can then go into the stage of unresolved and protracted.

And ignoring the opinion of our opponent occurs as long as it does not prevent us from carrying out our plans. We can laugh it off, dismiss the opposite opinion as if it were an annoying fly, moving forward in the fulfillment of our own desire. But this will stop at the moment when simple ignorance no longer has sufficient power to overcome the barriers to our lusts.

FROM The next step in the development of the conflict is condemnation, an attempt to find problems in the opponent that give us the right to oppose his opinion. Since, as noted above, a person is unable to conflict "in God's way" because of the depravity of his nature, our condemnation is painted in sinful tones of selfishness and prejudice. The judge gives an assessment of the motives of his opponent's actions, based on his own benefits. Condemnation is the process of forming a certain platform on which an open confrontation will unfold, expressed in words and deeds.

The Great Benefits of Conflict

P With all of the above, you need to be sure that the Lord, knowing our nature, invites us to use conflict situations in order to change, in order to grow in the knowledge of His grace and in relationships with our neighbors.

To strange as it may seem, but what brings us danger and destruction can provide us with the opportunity to move to a higher level of understanding of life and God. Just as a dangerous poison, with the right attitude towards it, can become a medicine, so conflicts, with their correct understanding and correct actions, can become a means of spiritual growth.

AT The great benefit of the conflict is in the nakedness of souls, the openness of secret motives and plans, in the demonstration of goals and desires. This state provides a unique opportunity for a person to look at himself in an extreme situation, to reveal his own “fullness”.

To Like any crisis, conflict can either destroy or develop new skills in relationships with others. The proverb says: “Nothing that happens to a person, no matter what it is and no matter where it comes from, can harm him if it does not cause a wrong attitude to what is happening.”

To conflict is God's pointing finger, showing us the state of our heart. Its transforming power lies in the fact that, with the right attitude towards it, it reveals to us the contents of our heart. Correctly resolved conflict leads not only to the restoration of peace in relations with others, but also to internal changes in the soul.

To conflict, as a destructive phenomenon, and therefore undesirable, can be used by the Almighty to educate His children, in order to teach them to focus their attention not on their neighbor who has sinned, but on his sinfulness. God teaches us to conflict with the sinner, seeking the salvation of his soul. His motto is: "I do not want the death of the sinner, but that the sinner turn from his way and live" (Ezekiel 33:11)!

30.07.2016 19:23

It would seem a banal topic, but I would not be me, so as not to delve into platitudes. The idea of ​​writing an article was born to me based on the videos of citizen Anatoly Shariy about the All-Ukrainian religious procession, however, it will be not only about Ukraine, but about the fact that things are not always what they seem. Including those seemingly unconditionally positive reconciliation and consent. In some way, the article will be a continuation of the old article "In defense of militarism."

At the beginning, I will give a video that prompted an article - although not very relevant, but about the war:

youtube.be/ceiLMucFZaw

Anatoly Shariy against Urko-journalists

Before writing the article, based on the above video, I looked for Ukrainian publications on the topic of covering the procession - most of the Russian-language press from the ua domain covered it quite favorably, and only the most odious and constantly "promoted" by the same Shariy publishing houses hinted at the "Moskal" essence " moves” - although, I must say, not in the way that Anatoly Shariy shows us. True, I repeat, these are Russian-language publications; Maybe, movo-lingual in expressions are not shy. All this, in my opinion, shows that the prerequisites for national reconciliation in the former Ukraine have already appeared, but until full agreement is still on foot to Beijing.

After all, what is the tragedy of ex-Ukraine - in the absence of interethnic dialogue, about which he wrote in the old article "Ukraine does not exist." Now I am not trying to mock the unfortunate Ruin, but only show that the mechanism of "color revolutions" explodes society from the inside and turns off the regime of reconciliation and harmony in society, which leads to civil war and / or tension between countries. Everything according to the ancient patterns "", within the framework. So far, I am writing platitudes that are obvious with minimal tension of the cerebellum, but we are slowly moving on to the essence of the article.

In order to achieve reconciliation and harmony in society, it is necessary that everyone has a similar vision of the situation, common interests, which can be somewhat absurdly described by my favorite phrase “cultural basis”. So that all influential forces in the Society have a similar understanding of what is good and what is bad.

It is clear that a bad peace is better than a bad war. However, within contemporary politics(see links above) a situation is deliberately created that there cannot be peace - this is deliberately created and kindled. For example, the bacchanalia around the Russian Olympic team is an obvious indicator that someone really wants to fight, no matter how badly I treat athletes in general - for me, they should not be sent to Rio, but to the forests of the Magadan province, to extract the country uranium and wood. And here we are not even talking about the intrigues of the damned Pindos or cyclists - it is impossible to reach agreement with your own killer, there can be no reconciliation between the predator and the victim. Therefore, the questions of war and peace are more complicated than it might seem at the layman's eye.

How can there be reconciliation in a country where part of the society is still quite loyal to the Soviet and imperial past, and the other is consciously cultivating the ideas of “Banderaism” and anti-Russian projects - after all, these are directly opposite cultural systems. On the face conflict of interests, and agreement can only be reached by resolving this conflict, that is, by linking the cultural basis on both sides. But with this problem.

In fact, there are several ways to resolve an irreconcilable conflict of interest:

0) "Freeze" the conflict - the most commonly used method today, but it does not solve the problem, but only postpones it for the future. Thus, the conflicts frozen in the early 1990s in Transnistria and Karabakh are still smoldering to one degree or another, and the freezing of the situation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia led to the "Olympic" war 080808.
1) To agree on a "diffusion" way, that is, to convince each other that one of the parties is right. The best and most unrealistic way, in view of the irreconcilability of the conflict. Recall the classic “war of pointed-pointed people with blunt-pointed ones” - there would be a desire, but there would be a reason to fight. It would be optimal to find a compromise, but how to achieve it, when one part of society demonstrates “Muscovites against Gilyaks”, and the other considers themselves to be these same “Muscovites”?.. Someone will have to bend.
2) Civil war - the most obvious and also often used in conjunction with (0) way to resolve conflicts: beat your own so that strangers are afraid. This is how they blew up the post-Soviet space, Yugoslavia, and later - Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria - and now, Ukraine.

In this particular case, it is not so important who is intriguing - "Pindos" or "Putin's ghouls", it is important that the most logical, simple and natural way for the development of the situation is precisely a war within society. With the exception of Iraq, all other countries "managed" without external ground intervention (in the same Afghanistan, the war continued "safely" even in the absence of the occupiers) - and, nevertheless, all of them are thrown back decades up the evolutionary ladder.

However, as he wrote in the same article “There is no Ukraine”, there are practically no “good” solutions to conflicts. It is impossible to negotiate with a person who firmly decided to kill you - therefore, as soon as napalm flew into Berkut, Ukraine can be deleted from the list of countries, peoples and communities; irreconcilable groupings were formed, totalitarianly claiming to represent the interests of "Ukraine", which, indeed, no longer exists.

In principle, a “diffusion” path, or at least “freezing” is still possible; The Minsk agreements are essentially an attempt to freeze the conflict, although this obviously does not play into the hands of either side of the conflict, they are only interested in winning.

Why did I once again trample on the Ruin?.. And besides, irreconcilable splits are being introduced into our society in the same way, I see it almost daily. One of the most popular methods of combating intra-public harmony is banal anti-Sovietism - it’s not for nothing that the expression “An anti-Soviet is always a Russophobe” is walking around in a patriotic environment. This topic is hackneyed and has already been analyzed a thousand times by me, however, even in the circles of our so-called "elite" there is no understanding that by inciting anti-Sovietism, initiating another "de-Stalinization" and so on, a split in society is only multiplying; and the last time he banged so hard in 1918-1924. Do we want a repeat?

The point here is not that all "Muscovites" are villains or vice versa, and who Stalin was - a villain or a hero; but that if we want to achieve reconciliation and harmony in society, trying to convert as much biomass as possible to our faith - this may be the path to the Civil War, and not even to Consent at all. Our history, like everything in the world, is not unambiguous and can be interpreted in different ways, and if we do not want to turn into a Ruin, then it is necessary not only to bend our line, but also negotiate with those who do not support this line. This is more difficult than shouting slogans, but it is necessary to maintain the unity of society.

Of course, it's nice when there are only like-minded people around and everyone shares your point of view on everything in the world - but this never happens. The majority of the population is not able to come to terms with their own mother-in-law, let alone ideological opponents. Therefore, in order not to switch to the deadly Maydaun regime, it is necessary to take into account the interests of the parties and bring together points of view, and not repeat that “the Muscovites have eaten all the fat” or “enough to feed the Caucasus.”

This may look strange in light of the recent article “Why I don’t argue with liberals” - IMHO this is the most stubborn and incompatible ideology with anyone. However, it is possible and necessary to fight it, because otherwise we get a distilled fifth column, which can go down at any moment. You need to show and convince that, in addition to the dough and your own wallet, there is more and a blade of grass and a wood- and for this you need believe it yourself. This is just the biggest problem - many people sincerely consider themselves patriots and statesmen, and at the same time profess and even promote "liberal values" that are directly opposite to both patriotism and statehood.

And attempts at "reconciliation" without rapprochement of bases are, in fact, a liberal snag and half-truth. "And we'll hang later."

Let me remind you that in besieged Leningrad, no one repressed Catholics and other "gentiles", despite the horror of the situation - but in modern "Ukraine" they try to make the Church an enemy of the state, and with all the parishioners. The process of split has gone even further than during the years of the War - and this must be understood, calling for reconciliation and harmony. First - common values, then reconciliation. This is true for any society.

No matter how I treat, for example, Nicholas II, but if for a significant part of society he is a saint, then he must be respected. Exactly the same must be demanded from the reverse side, otherwise no agreement will be obtained. And so - on all controversial points. And the instigators of hysteria should be beaten on the hands and urged to wake up if we don’t want to roll along the familiar path of the Maidan.

I'm not sure that it will be possible to negotiate with the "liberals", at least I definitely can't. :)) But maybe someone else will succeed - IMHO this basis of "values" is the most mobile, and those struck by "universal humanity" can be brought to life in one way or another. Otherwise, it will have to be like that time, which would not be desirable.

1544. Cozy Holland, the birthplace of skates, tulips and windmills, plunges into darkness - Catholics and Protestants live here side by side, building invisible but very strong walls day by day. Today you meet your neighbor with a glass in your hand, and tomorrow with a sword.

The country, like the whole of Europe, is engulfed in the Reformation. The Spanish Inquisition, which opposes it, skillfully adds fuel to the fire of its fires, encouraging local scammers and spies with ringing florins or swimming in the hole. Depending on the circumstances. At the sunset hour, on Christmas Eve, the heiress of the wealthy shipbuilder van Hout becomes a stumbling block, an involuntary cause of two irreconcilable conflicts at once, which will turn her whole life upside down.

The next volume of the "Masters of Adventure" series includes Haggard's historical adventure novel "The Beauty of Leiden", which takes place in a turbulent era of religious wars.

Implementation

Andrey Konstantinov Police detectives Friend or foe No data

Valery Shtukin and Yegor Yakushev, officers of the criminal investigation department, become not just strangers to each other. They become enemies. Despite the fact that they have a lot in common - acquaintances, friends, and their views on life do not differ much. It's just that the former criminal authority sends one to serve in the police, and the other is introduced by the leadership of the criminal investigation department into the Jungerov empire.

And for Valera Shtukin, the Junger system is gradually becoming more his own than his own police one ... And Yegor Yakushev successfully serves in the criminal investigation department. An irreconcilable conflict between them leads to the death of an employee of the prosecutor's office, with whom both were connected not only by official relations ...

Madame Bovary

Gustave Flaubert foreign classics Missing

At the heart of all the work of the French writer Gustave Flaubert (1821-1880) is an irreconcilable conflict and discrepancy between the inner spiritual world of a person and the surrounding reality. In his famous novel Madame Bovary, translated by Nikolai Lyubimov, Gustave Flaubert gives a harsh psychological analysis of the main character Emma Bovary, who lives in the hope of filling her inner emptiness and is unable to resist the vulgarity and cruelty of the world.

Eclipse time. Novel

Vladimir Yansyukevich Missing No data

Hereditary brick master Danila Goncharov in the 90s, like the whole country, is going through hard times. The ruin of the enterprise and the irreconcilable conflict with his brother forces him to go to work in the city ...

On emotions: How to resolve the most painful conflicts in the family and at work

Daniel Shapiro Foreign psychology Missing

Emotional conflicts flare up quickly, and it can be very difficult to extinguish them. This also applies to family disputes, and acute working moments, and bloody clashes on national or religious grounds. Professional psychologist and negotiator Daniel Shapiro, using the latest data from conflictology, sociology and psychology, based on his own experience of participating in the resolution of international conflicts, in the book "On Emotions" talks about the mechanisms of the emergence, development and resolution of such conflicts.

Even the most irreconcilable differences can be overcome, the author is convinced. He acquaints readers with the system of techniques developed by him that allows him to do this.

Dr. Walter's Team

Bronislava Brodskaya Modern Russian literature Missing

A novel about scientific accomplishments so complex and contradictory that the question arises whether their benefit to humanity is unambiguous. However, progress cannot be stopped, and a team of the best scientists on the planet is working on a project unprecedented in history, which occupies all their thoughts.

The team is a cast of a society that is torn apart by terrible contradictions of the middle of the 21st century: irreconcilable conflicts between age groups when one lives 3 times more than the other, and the other, without aging at all, dies before his time. The decision is painful because it is irrevocable.

Choose when you die! Contains foul language.

City on a hill

Eden Lerner Modern Russian literature Missing

The city on the hill, after which the novel by Eden Lerner is named and in which its main events take place, is Hebron. One of the oldest cities on earth. The city where the graves of the forefathers of the Jewish people are located. And the shrines of the people who number their origin from the firstborn of Abraham, Ishmael.

A city that has become a symbol of confrontation, a city of blood and hatred. But also a city of eternal beauty, in which Jews and Arabs, Jews and Muslims have lived and coexisted for hundreds of years. Peacefully, until, by someone's evil will, backed up by political, economic and other motives, blood is shed again ... But irreconcilable conflicts arise among fellow tribesmen.

Religious and secular, Hasidim and reformists, right and left... As they say, two Jews are three parties. But these "parties" separate families, the closest people become enemies ... In this city, the heroes of the book, our contemporaries, live, love, fight. The novel is written vividly, its plot moves fascinate.

His characters are recognizable.

Russian eclipse. From Eclipse to RA-Light

Boris Uchastny Documentary literature Missing No data

The book can confidently be called historical, religious, Vedic and even scientific… but with the same certainty anti-historical, anti-religious and anti-scientific. This desire to say a lot and as briefly as possible. Cover the multi-thousand-year period from the appearance of man on Earth to the formation and inevitable destruction of modern civilization, which has now finally entered into an irreconcilable conflict with our planet.

Terek front (collection)

Boris Gromov Fighting fiction Terek Front

Near future. Even the global nuclear conflict, which practically incinerated the planet, could not destroy everything. The earth remained untouched by radiation and the shock wave, people survived. And even the monstrous war, which almost destroyed all life on the planet, could not correct human nature.

The survivors continued to kill each other. In the foothills and mountains North Caucasus bullets whistle again and explosions rumble. Saboteurs set up ambushes on the roads and reconnaissance groups go in search. Terek Cossacks and soldiers of the army of Yugoslavia are fighting to the death with mountaineers from implacable teips and Turkish askers.

Caucasus. Chechnya. Terek front. And in the midst of all this is our contemporary, thrown three decades into the future by an unknown whim of Fate. He was a riot policeman who spent almost his entire adult life in the war. Perhaps not the best, but far from the worst.

Ordinary. A soldier of his country, a man faithful to duty and oath. His knowledge and skills in the harsh and cruel world of the future are in great demand. But which side will he take? What will be the fate of an ordinary person in an unusual time?

Semyon Solomonovich Yushkevich Dramaturgy Missing

S. Yushkevich in "The King", having painted a socially generalized portrait of the working collective, truthfully reflected the mass actions of the revolutionary proletariat against the capitalists. "King" was not accidentally published under the same cover with Gorky's "Enemies" in the XIV Sat.

"Knowledge" for 1906 - both plays were characterized by an undoubted ideological, genre and thematic similarity. In the image of the "king" - the manufacturer Grosman Yushkevich with great sharpness exposed the cynicism, inner emptiness, immorality of the capitalist world, the reigning power of gold in it.

The figure of Grosman is opposed by the camp of workers who enter into an irreconcilable class conflict with a powerful master. However, in interpreting the revolutionary possibilities of the proletariat, Yushkevich proceeded from Menshevik positions, which affected the finale of the drama, devoid of a historical perspective, imbued with pessimistic moods.

Loyalty to realistic artistic principles was manifested in The King not only in the socially accurate “alignment” of the opposing forces of the era, but also in the fact that it was the conflict between these forces that formed the plot core of the play and determined the growth of the dramatic action.

In this regard, "The King" adjoined the genre of publicistically sharpened socio-political drama, the model of which was Gorky's "Enemies". Banned from being staged immediately after publication, Yushkevich's drama was banned until 1908.

before the court

Kosta Khetagurov Poetry Missing No data

Costa's romantic poem "Before Judgment" is made in the form of a monologue. The basis of the poem is the acute social conflict between the freedom-loving highlander and the powers that be. The hero of the poem, the poor man Eski, rebelled against the existing adats. Having fallen in love with the daughter of Prince Zalina, he entered into an irreconcilable battle with the rich and as a result became a robber.

Eski made such a society, immoral and vengeful. Eski is the most romantic image in Costa's works.

broken islands

Mark Charan Newton Horror and Mystery red sun legends

A great ending to the Legends of the Red Sun series. For the first time in Russian! War flooded the Boreal Archipelago - two irreconcilable cultures transferred their eternal battle to this frontier space. Inspired by the military victory, Commander Brind Latreya plans to rebuild the city of Villaren, but is faced with a difficult choice.

There are friendly forces that, with no other choice, will side with his people in the brewing conflict, help build bridges, and provide arcane technology to satisfy the warlord's ambitions. But the people of Villarén are suspicious of foreigners flocking to their city, tensions are rising, and even the dream of a peaceful future cannot bridge the difference in worldview.

Meanwhile, Willjamur lies in ruins, its skies obscured by monstrous flying islands from another world. Inquisitor Fulkrom turns out to be the one who has fallen to lead the evacuation of the population on the coast. The threat mass death people turns this outcome into a race against time.

Finally, ancient civilizations enter the battlefield. Grotesque creatures from another world and a potential god, called by no means by prayers, walk among people, and the hour is approaching when the final battle will decide the fate of the world, illuminated by the red sun.

Lawyer's bag

Konstantin Shtepenko Police detectives Missing No data

Having stood up for a woman in a restaurant, Denis Krasnov suddenly makes mortal enemies for himself in the person of the leaders of the most rabid and militant gangster group. Denis is left to either flee the city, leaving the security company to the mercy of fate, or go to extreme measures and eliminate the Cherepkov brothers.

Supporters of stability, led by a local overseer, are pushing Denis to use force in every possible way, promising covert support with weapons and money. As a result, the ladies' man's extravagant prank gives rise to a new war for the redistribution of spheres of influence. Irreconcilable, late to the plunder of the city, they prefer lawlessness and try to force their more successful colleagues away from their favorite feeders.

Unwittingly found himself in the very center of this conflict, Denis becomes a target for bandits and a game for law enforcement agencies. All the same women help to get out of a hopeless situation ...

Fall of the Ottoman Empire: World War I in the Middle East, 1914–1920

Eugene Rogan Foreign educational literature Missing

In 1914, the European powers were inexorably sliding towards war, dragging the entire Middle East into the funnel of this destructive conflict. In his book, Eugene Rogan presents the history of the First World War, revealing the consequences that it led to in the Middle East, and the decisive - but little known to us - role that the region played in it.

The well-known British historian tells vividly and fascinatingly about the political intrigues and military battles that unfolded in the Ottoman lands from the Gallipoli Peninsula to Arabia. Unlike trench warfare on the Western Front, fighting in the Middle East was dynamic and unpredictable.

Before military fortunes turned to face the powers of the Entente, the Turks inflicted crushing defeats on the Gallipoli Peninsula, in Mesopotamia and Palestine. The post-war settlement led to the division of the Ottoman Empire and laid the foundation for those irreconcilable contradictions that to this day tear apart the Arab world.

intimate bullets

Alexey Makeev Police detectives Colonel Gurov

Two prostitutes are killed in a hotel room. Killed professionally, with skill. The investigation was entrusted to experienced colonels of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Gurov and Kryachko. They understand that this murder is the work of a killer, and it did not happen by chance. But who needed the death of harmless prostitutes? Detectives find out that the victims were in close contact with the local crime boss.

Perhaps this is where the key to the incident lies... Grasping this version, Gurov and Kryachko did not notice how they found themselves in the center of a conflict between two powerful irreconcilable organizations waging a long-term war between themselves...

There is no doubt that this wind can only come from the East - there is nowhere else for it to come from. Moreover, we already have a historical example of such a cleansing hurricane: the work comes out in the year of the centenary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, which changed the world of the early 20th century beyond recognition and divided it into two camps that entered into an irreconcilable struggle.

The civil war and the intervention of Western countries, continuous conflicts along the borders, the attack of Nazi Germany, the Cold War accompanied the entire history of the USSR ... After the counter-revolution of 1991-1993. Russia, it would seem, "returned to the number of civilized countries."

But this impression was deceptive: as soon as we declared our sovereignty, the West turned to the usual methods of pressure on the Russian world, which it had already tested in the 20th century: economic blockade, political isolation, defamation in the media, conflicts along the borders of our country.

The world is once again on the brink of a major war. Stalin before the Second World War managed to outplay the Western "partners", to break through the international isolation into which the Anglo-Saxons actively drove us in 1938-1939. Will we succeed? Can we find a way out of our crisis into a "brave new world"? This world will obviously not be similar to the world depicted by I.

A. Efremov in "The Andromeda Nebula", nor on the world of "Half a Day of the XXII Century" by the early Strugatskys. In addition, you will have to fight for it, cultivating a taste for struggle and riding the cold east wind.

E. Sinitsyn, O. Sinitsyna

The secret of the creativity of geniuses (fragments from the book)

Irreconcilable conflicts of scientists

If outstanding creative people easily overcome the conservatism inherent in consciousness, why do many of them inadequately perceive other people's ideas and views? The consciousness of a genius, like the consciousness of any person, is limited by a "semantic window" through which the world around is perceived. Only the "sense window" of a genius is many times greater than the horizons of an ordinary person. And a genius creates within the fetters of his autonomous neurophysiological complex. But, being within the framework of a certain structural and semantic window, a brilliant personality finds his insights in its depths. On the one hand, limitedness, on the other hand, inexhaustibility in depth and therefore breadth. Our task - within the framework of the theory of an autonomous psychoneurophysiological complex - is to understand the problem of misunderstanding, rivalry and even enmity in the field of irreconcilable creative conflicts.The famous mathematician Frege wrote: “It is unlikely that anything worse can happen to a scientist than if the ground is knocked out from under his feet at the very moment when he completes his work. It was in this position that I found myself, having received a letter from Bertrand Russell, when my work was already completed ”(Cited on 40, p. 253).

The great minds of mankind, making their discoveries, despite disappointments, always remained irreconcilable in the struggle for the truth, which they saw as dictated by their consciousness. But not one of them exclaimed: “There are many truths, therefore the truth is that it cannot be alone!”. This would be the unavoidable paradox they discovered of the demand for absolute truth.

Truth is relative to the theory in which it is created. Does it follow from this that in mathematical truths can be considered only within the framework of one direction? Let us trace how the conflict between directions in mathematics developed. This conflict may shed light on one of the philosophical problems of knowledge.

At the turn of X I In the 10th-20th centuries, mathematics was struck by the largest scientific conflict, which was quite fierce and dramatic: it turned out that mathematics is the same controversial science as everything else in this world. What was its basis? What is the place of intuition and logical reasoning in mathematics? A fierce discussion ensued between two prominent schools of mathematics: the logistic and the intuitionistic.

Descartes was at the origins of the logistic and at the same time intuitionistic trends in mathematics. He made a distinction between intuitive (figurative) and logical (deductive) thinking in his famous Rules for the Guidance of the Mind. The mathematician and philosopher Leibniz was more categorical than Descartes. His main concept is that all mathematics is deducible from logic, therefore, deductive reasoning is given a decisive role. Leibniz believed that there are necessary truths: these are those from which theorems and conclusions are then made, these are truths that cannot be dispensed with. There are accidental truths - opposite to the first ones, they are the truths of the fact, and the fact itself is an accidental phenomenon. Necessary truths - the truths of reason, in turn, had to be deduced from logic, the principles of which are unshakable truths in all worlds. The main thesis of logicists is that the laws of logic are unshakable, eternal truths. Since mathematics uses proofs based on the laws of logic, it must be true, that is, consistent, precisely because truth itself is consistent. This trend has united in its ranks a galaxy of brilliant geniuses. Among them were mathematicians, physicists, and philosophers: Leibniz, Euler, Russell, Whitehead, Frege, Quine and Church. Hilbert referred himself to the third formalist trend. He belonged either to the logistics school or to the intuitionists. Philosopher and mathematician B. Russell wrote in "Principles of Mathematics" that all mathematics is symbolic logic and this, in his opinion, is the greatest discovery of our century. However, neither Russell nor his supporters managed to create a consistent mathematical system. They were opposed by the school of intuitionists, which included: Brouwer, Poincaré, Kronecker, Borel, Weil, Baer. According to their concept, mathematics is the fruit of reflection and intuition.

Brouwer rejects feelings and experience. According to Brouwer, the criterion of truth is intuition, not logic and experience. It is intuition that decides what to reject and what to accept. This conception, whose supporters considered it fundamentally impossible to create a rigorous mathematical science that follows from the accepted axiomatic principles, puts intuition, ideas and content of mathematics, imagination and pure thought in the first place. Therefore, they did not strive for ideal rigor, believing that sooner or later they would encounter insurmountable contradictions when the idea was exhausted.

Here the first problem arises, on what basis groups of like-minded people are formed. A hypothetical answer: like-minded people have a closeness of information-semantic structures that reflect their theoretical views and positions. This means that the bandwidths of their mental filters coincide (it cannot be argued that the bandwidths of information for all adherents of one theory completely coincide, since each scientist finds branches in this theory, developing it according to his informational-semantic structures).

And yet, why did great scientists break up into diametrically opposed schools on the foundations of mathematics? Within the framework of their mathematical theories, they themselves could not give an answer, naturally, other mathematicians did not solve this problem either. To understand the problem of the dispute, you need to look at it differently, namely, where are the origins of the conflicting parties? Only in mathematics itself or not only in it? Are these intellectual clashes of geniuses the consequences of some more fundamental cause? Only that one of the disputants is closer to the truth than the other? Just that one scientist comes closer to describing the real world than another scientist?

If a dispute, arguments and objections are products of human thought, then, understanding why one person's thought flows in this way, and another - in a different way, we can "grope" for a completely different basis of the dispute. Everyone who defended his point of view was based on his axioms - initial assumptions and on his methods-procedures for the development of mathematics. But we will consider this problem from a different perspective, and turn to the analysis of personality characteristics through the description of the introduced autonomous neurophysiological complex and the analysis of the personality's mental filters as the most important part of this complex.

Hilbert attacked both intuitionists and logicists at the same time. His scientific attacks were dictated by his inherent view of mathematics. In fact, Hilbert's vision of the foundations of mathematics was determined by his mental filter, as a means of selectivity of his consciousness. The basis of this mental filter was the contributions along the axes of coordinates of personal characteristics that determine the creativity of a mathematician and the information-semantic structures of formalist mathematics. Let us note that the personal characteristics-factors that take part in the formation of a multidimensional vector did not essentially differ among the great mathematicians. All mathematicians have high level thinking, intuition and other characteristics-factors characteristic of brilliant scientists, and, above all, mathematical geniuses.

Hilbert said: “Mathematics is a science in which there is no hypothesis. To substantiate it, I do not need - nor, like Kronecker - the Lord God; nor, like Poincaré, in the assumption of a special, built on complete induction, ability of our mind; nor, like Brouwer, in the original intuition; finally, not, like Russell and Whitehead - in the axioms of infinity, reduction or completeness, which are genuine hypotheses of a meaningful nature and, moreover, are completely implausible ”(Cited on 40, p. 286.).

However, the formalist vision of mathematics was immediately criticized both from the positions of the logistic direction and from the positions of intuitionists. Russell believed that the number of consistent axiomatic systems on which Hilbert seeks to build his mathematics can be infinite, but only those that follow and are consistent with the real world matter. And therefore the conclusion is natural: formalism is forcedly connected with the real world. Russell's criticism was based on informational and semantic images that make up the essence of the mathematical concepts of logicists, so he believed that all Hilbert's ideas contradict the truth. Because these ideas did not coincide with his own information-semantic structures (imprinted in his own memory and forming the basis of his mental filter). Gilbert did not remain in debt. He, in turn, criticizing the intuitionists, considered mathematics an autonomous science, in contrast to the logicists, who put the fulfillment of logical principles as the basis, since only they are true. Hilbert believed that in mathematics there should be a logic that would suit everyone, and everyone could accept it without doubting its truth. This is the logic he sought to build. Although, as M. Kline writes, some of Hilbert's ideas in their essence differed little from the ideas of intuitionists. Intuitionists objected to the supporters of both schools, denying the approaches of the logicists and formalists as devoid of common sense, reproaching the latter that there is much ideal in their schemes. According to Brouwer, even seemingly unshakable and indisputable mathematical theorems could not reflect the essence of the real world.

Who was right? Logicists led by Russell, Whitehead, intuitionists led by Brouwer, or formalists led by Hilbert? Maybe Poincaré was right, although he approached rather the intuitionists, but not completely. Soon another, fourth direction in the foundations of mathematics appeared - set-theoretic, the founder of which was Ernst Zermelo.

What does the emergence of all these theories say? Maybe that there is no single and most rigorous science, mathematics, which seeks to describe real world in their legalized and accepted rules? M. Kline called his book “The Loss of Certainty”. In the introduction, he immediately states: “This book is about the profound changes that have undergone human views on the nature and role of mathematics. Today we know that mathematics does not possess the qualities that once earned it universal respect and admiration. Our predecessors saw in mathematics an unsurpassed model of rigorous reasoning, a set of unshakable "truths in themselves" and truths about the laws of nature. Everyone's arguments were strong, but the facts show that no one managed to avoid contradictions” (40, p. 9).

For Hilbert, these were purely formal transformations of symbols, a special language, for intuitionists - reason, ideas, content, the severity of transformations was secondary. Logicists based mathematics on deductive reasoning and immutable logical principles. However, it would be naive to think that the formalist Hilbert, the logicists Russell and Whitehead did not have outstanding intuition or that they did not approach mathematics as a whole system. In the highest degree they possessed precisely intuition. It was thanks to the power of his intuition that Hilbert made the most distant predictions in mathematics and formulated his famous 25 theorems. And yet he sharply criticized the intuitionist Brouwer. Why, having the highest intuition, Hilbert did not go over to their camp and did not become a supporter of the intuitionistic trend in mathematics? But Hilbert's intuition and his holistic ideas about mathematics were connected only with the formalist side of the mathematical system. And when significant gaps appeared in Hilbert's mathematical system after Godel proved his theorems, Hilbert's intuition and logic sought to resolve new contradictions and fill these gaps. This is how the autonomous psychoneurophysiological complex functions in a creative person. But if a person of average ability has a desire to put up with failure, then genius never does. M. Kline notes on this occasion: “Hilbert did not consider that he had been defeated. By nature, Gilbert was an optimist and had a truly boundless faith in the power of the human mind and its ability to know. This optimism gave him courage and strength, at the same time preventing him from recognizing the possibility of the existence of unsolvable mathematical problems” (40, p. 308).

Since the consciousness of any person, including a genius, obeys the laws of psychology, in order to illuminate the subject of the mathematical dispute of the century, let us consider, from the point of view of psychology, which complex of forces acts and controls the autonomous psychoneurophysiological complex of a mathematician. The first of these forces is the unconscious goal reflex, which turns into a clearly conscious goal when the desire for the goal meets an obstacle that is difficult to overcome. This leads to the mobilization of all psychophysiological resources of a person, including his will to overcome obstacles. The second one calls into action a protective mechanism of brain activity, which consists in turning on the inhibitory function of cognitive-psychological barriers, thanks to which the brain is kept in a relatively stable state, preventing old structures in neural networks from being destroyed at the biochemical level. The third force is a holistic coverage of the image of the concept of mathematics, which is imprinted in the form of engrams in the brain. With the appearance of new contradictions, “cracks” and gaps in this image, stress vectors are spontaneously born, and non-traditional spontaneous filters are produced in the pre-thinking layer. p(y/m ) aimed at resolving the contradictions that have arisen, which, in rare cases, are unresolvable. The fourth force is a holistic vision of the meaning of formalist mathematics as an independent element: consciousness - meaning - beauty - matter. The fifth force is the dominant focus of excitation, which continues to generate hypotheses and their selection (still in the field of denying structures in other areas of mathematics). Therefore, the tension vectors are not aimed at searching for truth in other people's structures, but, on the contrary, at searching for new truths added to the old ones - contradictions that negate these structures. The sixth force is a strong emotional coloring of all information-semantic structures imprinted in the pantries of the brain's memory. Being on the threshold of reading in long-term memory, this information at any moment when a demand arose, is easily reproduced. The seventh force is an obsessive image of its theory, fixed in the form of semantic structures in the neural network of the brain, which does not let other people's ideas into the most excited area of ​​consciousness. The eighth force is a complex of striving for success and excellence. The ninth is a reaction to a blow from outside in the form of benign defensive aggression, prompting scientists to defend their theories with particular purpose. And the last - the tenth force is due to the psychological type of a person, which determines his intuitive and mental activity.

All the significant psychophysiological forces listed above made a significant contribution to the regulation of the autonomous psychoneurophysiological complex of scientists in the process of complex creative conflicts. We note the main thing - all forces act unevenly, each with its own weight in accordance with the characteristics of the personality of each scientist. Each force is a vector in some multidimensional space of these forces. The length of the vector is directed along the corresponding axis and is determined by the characteristics of the scientist's personality.

We can say that in the brain of each scientist were recorded in the form of memory traces (engrams) - models of the corresponding information-semantic structures, those that they considered correct. Since all these were the fruits of difficult reflections, discoveries, the information forming these traces was strongly emotionally colored (an anomaly in the field of emotions), differed at the moment of insight in novelty and biological significance. Since for a scientist, and doubly for a brilliant scientist, the biological significance of an idea has never decreased, this information has always been on the verge of being read. If this is so, then the scientist's thought has always flowed in the elements of the old structures with ease, without experiencing latent inhibition. And therefore the scientist steadfastly adhered to the direction he had chosen about the foundations of his science.

It can be seen that the arguments here are contradictory, since it was precisely the outstanding creative people who sooner or later left the old structures. Seeking to resolve contradictions at more detailed levels, they inevitably established numerous new connections between the elements of information-semantic structures, made them more resistant to those stress vectors and deformations that these structures sought to destroy. In other words, any informational-semantic structure adapted and, being emotionally colored, was more and more firmly fixed in neural networks in the form of engrams, in the corresponding parts of the brain. Reading this information happened at lightning speed. Thoughts, as it were, "looped" in numerous connections within the structure of their ideas. All the factors of the creative process: emotions, a powerful direction of thinking, associations, the biological significance of information, the beauty of constructions (and every scientist - and Hilbert, and Descartes, and Poincaré, and Russell, and Hadamard - justifiably considered their great theories beautiful), all this is not gave the opportunity to look at the opposite point of view in a different way. Scientific fights were extremely fierce. But it is very easy to justify everything if we assume that every scientist, regardless of his chosen concept of the foundation of mathematics, was in fact a “slave” (in a good way) of the structures and models imprinted in the memory departments of his brain, and of the emotional process that accompanied their development. The psychic filter processed the information coming into consciousness, comparing it with information-semantic structures and embedding it in them or filtering it out. But after the appearance of Gödel's famous theorems, the mathematical world was shaken by them like an earthquake.

All rights reserved. None of the parts of these works can be placed and reproduced without prior agreement with the authors.

Copyright © 20 10

A feature of the moral conflict is its high emotional stress, possible aggravating external factors, the complex resolution of contradictions and partly hopelessness.

Moral conflict is the sharpest struggle of motives. In this case, a person finds himself in a contradictory situation: a moral choice does not bring relief and in any case leads to moral losses.

A person is required to make an overwhelming decision: to make a choice between two equivalent or incomparable moral values ​​in favor of one of them with the obligatory sacrifice of the other, no less important.

Such a choice always contradicts the inner world of a person who instinctively strives to live in harmony with himself.

A vivid example of such doubts is the moral torment of a single young mother, who understands that she has just born child She is not able to feed, but she is also unable to give her beloved child to an orphanage.

It is always difficult for a person with certain moral values ​​\u200b\u200band subject to social customs and rules to get out of such a state of conflict with himself without loss: an established spiritual world personality collapses.

Types of moral conflict

The structure of the classification of moral conflicts depending on the number of parties:

• open- contradictions that arise outside the internal system of one person (interpersonal and international);
• closed- internal struggle of motives and feelings, discord of a person with himself (intrapersonal).

Intrapersonal

Depending on the motives, one's own beliefs and perception of the world, the social environment and its principles, the following types of intrapersonal moral conflicts are most often encountered:

• between moral feelings and intellectual foundations (reason) - “I understand with my mind, but I can’t do anything”;
• between duty (personal, social, parental) and the arisen desires and inclinations of a different nature;
• between aspirations and available opportunities for their implementation.

A moral conflict of this type is a significant psychological internal problem for a person, perceived and experienced by him extremely emotionally.

Interpersonal and group

This is a social conflict. A person develops his moral qualities and beliefs, relying on public moral consciousness and traditions, while their interaction is organized in a very complex way.

This moral conflict arises on the basis of insufficiently specific, vague descriptions of public morality and their own interpretation convenient for each individual.

Moral confrontation can also be classified by the manifestation of specific contradictions between what should be and what takes place in the moral behavior of an individual:

• contradictions between theoretical knowledge of social moral foundations and real behavior;
• between motives and a specific result of activity, this also includes contradictions between the goal and the means of achieving them;
• between social foundations and requirements for the moral character and qualities of a person and what he is in reality.

Rational arguments in this type of conflict do not exist, the solution occurs on an intuitive level.

International

It is already difficult to imagine modern society without it: constant military skirmishes and confrontations are a vivid example of this.

The moral positions taken by an individual or a group are based on the traditions of different countries, associations, religious groups and may differ significantly for communities of different cultures, levels of education and other social aspects.

According to the degree of severity of the contradictions that have arisen, an international conflict can be different:

1. Irreconcilable or antagonistic- this is a kind of conflict between various human values ​​that are a priori opposed to each other due to their social, religious, political, group or other types of opposites: for example, democracy and fascism, religious cells and atheistic ones. Such conflicts are usually uncompromising, as they are caused by the fundamental incompatibility of interests in the ideas of morality, good and evil.
2. Non-antagonistic conflict arises within the framework of one system of moral values, with which it is quite possible to live without compromising the foundations of ethics. The content of the conflict is determined by the moral antipathies of the opposing sides, the contradiction between the interest that has arisen and the impossibility of satisfying it, the individual value orientation of the individual, her understanding of duty and social responsibility. In this case, a peaceful and reasonable settlement is possible.

Psychological consequences

Moral conflicts are characterized by:

1. Moderate and high emotional stress: resentment and anger, indignation and contempt, fear and anger lead to mental arousal and emotional long-term intensity.
2. During the conflict period, the subject experiences a bad mood, a completely understandable feeling of his own dissatisfaction, and there is a decrease in personal self-esteem. The resolution of the conflict, in turn, means the stabilization of the psychological atmosphere.
3. Office moral disputes can lead to the emergence of an unhealthy emotional atmosphere in professional activities, disruption of interaction and the normal course of life of the team and, as a result, have a negative impact on the activities of the organization and create staff turnover.
4. Uncontrolled, dynamically developing conflicts lead to sharp and rude quarrels, showdowns, armed clashes and murders, and in the case of a personal conflict that is out of control, if it is impossible to resolve it or seems hopeless, to suicide.

Ways to resolve moral disputes

There are two methods for resolving moral conflict:

• straight;
• indirect.

The direct way of resolving involves turning off all the emotional components of the contradiction that has arisen and a sober consideration and assessment of the situation, taking into account specific facts and arguments.

A businesslike and constructive approach, based on ethical norms and requirements, can help take the situation to another level.

According to psychologists, indirect methods of resolving the conflict are more effective:

1. Give free rein to feelings: a person should be able to speak. The interlocutor can be a psychologist, psychotherapist, close or, conversely, completely stranger. The verbal release of negative emotions makes room for positive ones.
2. Method of physical reset of emotions: these are classes in the gym or hard physical work, which allows you to relieve emotional stress due to power load. Tearing paper into small pieces, pounding a punching bag or pillow, running long distances, doing yoga and other sports - all this is very effective in helping to distract and look at the current situation more calmly.
3. Third Authority Method: in the event of a moral conflict between two or more parties, a third one is invited, authoritative for both, capable of listening to the arguments of both parties and removing mutual bitterness.
4. View from the outside: it is recommended to look at the conflict through the eyes of the opponent, taking into account social norms in ethics.
5. It is recommended to carefully review, and possibly reconsider or set new goals and aspirations, the implementation of which will help reduce emotional stress at the moment.

In any case, the specificity of the repayment of the moral conflict and the ways of resolution (solution) consist in strict adherence to ethical standards without infringing on human dignity, restoring psychological balance and further spiritual growth personality.

The correct solution to the dilemma of moral choice is possible only if the person has truly moral convictions and knowledge, a strong will, the ability to control his emotions and follow moral standards in any circumstances.

Video: Conflict Resolution