In our culture it was made public back in USSR era in “Young Guard” magazine #2, 1990 in the article “Conceptual power: myth or reality?” published in 700 000 copies, distributed mainly among patriotically concerned and politically active audience. Reaction of more than 700 000 “patriots” was close to zero, as many of them were either atheists or controlled by biblical-“orthodox” conceptual power, equating it (power) to the Gods will. Since than, although some people often mention terms “conceptual power” or “conceptual independence of Russia” none of the public politicians neither political analysts ever go into details of these social events, as they never realize the real outline of internal and external policy of Russia and foreign countries according to six priorities of universal instruments of ruling / weapons.
Russian ‘elite’ can acknowledge instruments of sixth tier priority as means of reaching political goals (meaning as means of management both inside and outside our country), but they never realize potential of instruments of higher level of priority.
Fifth tier priority is actually a total mess made out of “individual rights”, people claiming that it is unacceptable to force alcohol/drugs detox and rehabilitation, and whose right to see explicit sexual and violent scenes on TV should not be violated, same as their right on depravity – on the one side and on the other – on social needs of sobering all people from all addictive substances (drugs) and protection of young generation from corruption (including concept of “safe sex”) coming from both older relatives and from society, mass media and school.
As reality shows – financial crisis is unquestionable prove to it – credit-financial system (forth tier priority) for Russian political ‘elite’ is not an instrument of ruling, but an analogue of natural disasters.
Third tier priority is the state’s ideological position – state (national) idea, which is in fact banned by Constitution of RF, and the way it is formulated is a manifestation of outrageous stupidity of those who agreed on it, and a sabotage act by those who pushed it into the constitution. But despite this, Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) is still very persistent in trying to make its ideology a state religion.
Second tier priority is taken by parliament, ROC and RAS and also their representatives in power. In the same way as in A. Gertsen’s times, they are concentrated on “improving the past” according to their wishes for the future, which actually only puts obstacles on the way of improving unavoidable future.
The first tier priority comes from Lenin’s saying “Marks’ doctrine is omnipotent because it is right”, which meant only that at least politically part of society should study dialectic materialism as a method of learning – ‘elite’ abandoned this principle, but has not come up with any alternative. Current communists – Zuganov and his comrades – being deeply in opposition still have not reported to people why and how even armed with “omnipotent” doctrine they managed to lead USSR to stagnation, after what they ruined perestroika seizing their power to all the bad guys.
And therefore:
To become strong on the sixth-tier priority, country has to have sober nation and powerful army (fifth tier priority), because nowadays intoxicated generals won’t be able to adequately protect the country and will sober up either in the afterlife either in captivity (not even mentioning that intoxicated militaries cause enough trouble even in times of peace)
Country should also provide it’s military financially (fourth tier priority), and therefore it need to not only open financial programs of all sorts but also to learn how to manage monetary flow.
In addition it is necessary to have some cutting edge ideas in various fields (military, strategic, and tactical, technical and technological). Because without ideas (third tier priority) financing of programs will turn not into progress of science and technology (including military) but also into just a show of reports on prosperity (as it was in Brezhnev era)
Ideas (third priority) come from good knowledge of the past (second tier) and it’s negative experience, dissatisfaction with inherited issues. Additionally systematically “intoxicating” descendents (fifth tier) by the force of biological and social degradation are barely able to learn and understand culture of their ancestors not even mentioning developing their own.
And the ideas in itself are an expression of effectiveness of individual cognitive and creative culture (first tier priority) and how well it is spread in the socium.
And the totality of all mentioned above demands appropriate organization in order to enable the universal instruments of ruling/ weapons to mutually support one another in their common implementation (and as statistic shows, Russian ‘elite’ can’t deal with them as their sum)
None the less individual’s culture of learning and creation – is the most important skill in life, as it allows to reproduce (even from the scratch) all knowledge and skills that prove to be necessary to define and solve problems people face by Life. And due to the fact that linguistic culture is a dominant way of knowledge exchange, dialectics then is a method of learning and creating, that is available to everyone because it is genetically encrypted in us.
Dialectic is an non-formalized psychological practice – a method of solving uncertainties in the process of leaning and creating through raising special in their sense questions and finding appropriate answers, confirmed by life.
Dialectics efficiency in this case is provided by individual’s psychological organization and the discipline of his psychological activity – both being a matter of practice.
All of it was important to mention in order to clearly explain Obama’s reasoning on U.S. Constitution.
——————
“ In the end, the question I keep asking myself is why, if the Constitution is only about power and not about principle, if all we are doing is just making it up as we go along, has our own republic not only survived but served as the rough model for so many of the successful societies on earth?
The answer I settle on – which is by no means original to me – requires a shift in metaphors, one that sees our democracy not as a house to be built, but as a conversation to be had. According to this conception, the genius of Madison’s design is not that it provides us a fixed blueprint for action, the way a drafts-man plots a building’s construction. It provides us with a framework and with rules, but fidelity to these rules will not guarantee a just society or assure agreement on what’s right. (…)
What the framework of our Constitution can do is to organize the way by which we argue [Methods] about our future. All of its elaborate machinery – its separation of powers and checks and balances and federalist principles and Bill of Rights – are designed to force us into a conversation, a “deliberative democracy” in which all citizens are required to engage in a process of testing their ideas against and eternal reality, persuading others of their point of view and building shifting alliances of consent. Because power in our government is so diffuse, the process of making law in America compels us to entertain the possibility that we are not always right and to sometimes change our minds; it challenges us to examine our motives and our interests constantly, and suggests that both our individual and collective judgments are at once legitimate and highly fallible.” (p. 92)
“It’s not just absolute power that the Founders sought to prevent. Implicit in its structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty, was a rejection of absolute truth, the infallibility of any idea or ideology or theology or “ism”, any tyrannical consistency that might lock future generations into a single, unalterable course, or drive both majorities into the cruelties of the Inquisition, the pogrom, the gulag, or the jihad. The Founders may have trusted in God, but true to the Enlightenment spirit, they also trusted in the minds and senses that God had given them. They were suspicious of abstraction and liked asking questions, which is why at every turn in our early history theory yielded to fact and necessity.” (p.107, italics made by authors)