This essay explores the distinct characteristics of Russian technical thinking within the framework of Yuk Hui’s concept of cosmotechnics. Hui’s proposal emphasizes “good technology,” which aligns with local cosmological perspectives and moral practices, as an essential component of the technosphere’s decolonization. The analysis contrasts Russian approaches to technical creativity with those of the West and China, highlighting the synthesis of collective and individual efforts through archetypal imagery such as the campfire and the reverence for “bookish wisdom.” Central to the essay (...) is the idea that Russian technical thinking, rooted in cosmism and conciliarity, integrates multidimensional understanding and co-creation with God, fostering a sense of universal responsibility. This perspective manifests in the prioritization of theoretical knowledge, unconventional problem-solving, and the moral imperative to serve humanity. Despite similarities to Western technological practices in material aspects, Russia’s unique contributions lie in its social technologies and motivational frameworks, which remain underexplored within global perspectives. The essay argues that these features provide a valuable addition to cosmotechnics and demonstrate the potential for alternative intellectual trajectories beyond Western paradigms. (shrink)

This essay delves into the potential non-Western contributions to the technosphere by exploring Russian perspectives within Yuk Hui’s framework of cosmotechnics. Hui's concept emphasizes "good technology"—aligned with local cosmologies and moral practices, integrating sustainability and ecological preservation. By drawing parallels with China's distinct cosmological underpinnings in technical creativity, the essay questions whether Russian civilization can provide similarly unique contributions. The text investigates the evolution of the technosphere, distinguishing between instrumental and bio-artificial components, while situating Russian technical thought within broader global (...) contrasts. Despite an outward resemblance to Western technological development, Russia’s distinctiveness emerges in social technologies, state-driven innovation, and its cosmological foundation, particularly the "Russian cosmism" of the 1960s. Through a focus on co-creation with God, universal responsibility, and theoretical prioritization, the essay identifies multidimensional understanding and the moral imperative of service as hallmarks of Russian technical creativity. These features highlight a unique trajectory that complements Hui’s concept of cosmotechnics, emphasizing Russia’s potential to enrich global discussions on decolonizing technology. (shrink)

This essay explores the discoved place in human noosphere called as "Cosmos-not-Here," encompassing the speculative realms of science fiction, religious eschatology, and theoretical astrophysics. The content of "Cosmos-not-Here" contrasts with the same of "Cosmos-Here," representing humanity's tangible explorations and mastery of the physical universe. The text delves into how the Cosmos-not-Here operates as a mental construct, offering humanity an imaginative escape into utopian visions and hypertextual narratives, while disregarding the constraints of established physical laws. -/- The discussion emphasizes humanity's innate (...) psychological drive, metaphorically expressed as "forward and upward," linking it to a sacred yearning for cosmic harmony and expansion. This drive manifests culturally in phenomena like Russian aspirations, illustrated by the "Gagarin Smile," and the global fascination with cosmic-themed speculative fiction, games, and spiritual constructs such as astrology. -/- The essay concludes by identifying a universal "Cosmic-We" ethos, characterized by a shared attraction to the cosmos as a concept of transcendence and infinite potential, reflecting humanity's enduring pursuit of meaning beyond the utilitarian confines of terrestrial existence. The analysis reveals the philosophical resonance of this semantic cluster with ancient and medieval cosmologies, suggesting its timeless significance in human thought. (shrink)

The study explores an approach to the philosophy of the sacred, tracing its presence from early recorded history to contemporary socio-political structures. The sacred is examined as a fundamental component of social organization, influencing social identities, institutions, and state legitimacy. -/- A key hypothesis introduced is the genetically determined centre of the sacred in the human brain, which evolved 50,000–70,000 years ago and functions archetypally, shaping emotions such as reverence, indignation at desecration, and numinous experiences. The sacred extends beyond traditional (...) religion into secular domains, including ideologies and eschatological narratives in modern societies. -/- The study also examines the role of trust and legitimacy in state stability, challenging N. Luhmann’s theory by arguing that trust operates beyond mere communication mechanisms and requires a fourth, sacred environment to maintain political order. The collapse of modern states (e.g., USSR, Libya, Syria) is linked to failures in reproducing trust. Furthermore, the paper introduces the concept of egregores – self-reproducing sacred structures that sustain collective belief systems, vital for the autopoiesis of political entities. -/- This work expands the philosophy of the sacred, linking it to macroevolutionary processes, the structuring of social identities, and the survival mechanisms of states. (shrink)

Using the original theory of social identity the article considers ethnicity, quasi-ethnicity, and nationality in a context of ethnopolitics. The article introduces logically strong definitions for mentioned identities, shows the possibility of exploding a nationalism basing on any quasi-ethnical social identity – with some historical examples. One non-banal result: the functions of nation in USSR were carried on by the Communist Party.

Considering the whole set of social systems known to history, we can recognize a very interesting distinction that divides all systems into two large classes. This distinction is based on the degree of homogeneity of the political sphere of society, the extent to which representatives of the political class of the society separate themselves established on identity from the people under their control, on cultural distance between upper and lower classes.

The article overviews all known approaches to formalization of a problem of Liberty / Freedom (« Liberty from », « Liberty for », « being for her/his own sake, not a other's », « absence of sovereign other », individual freeing in a context of the Master-Slave Dialectics, Social Freedom) and problems of emancipation (« restricting privileges of upper class minorities », « giving privileges to marginalized minorities – affirmative actions »). Then, the article discusses a version of formalization of (...) level of social freedom through comparison of what is allowed for an individuals in the society with what is allowed for «a sheep in herd »: each additional degree of freedom gives unit in plus, each additional restriction gives unit in minus. The proposed model was tested for a case of the post-Soviet transit, when the level of freedom evolved from minus two for the USSR up to plus two for the contemporary Russian Federation. It also shows the ways for further emancipation of people in Russia in « politically easy version » - i.e. without essential change of its political system. (shrink)

В книге представлена концепция Современности (Модерна) в ее приложении к обществоведению. Рассмотрены теоретические вопросы национального государства, нации, демократии, свободы, постиндустриальной экономики, и связанные с этим необходимые качества развитых обществ Модерна. Особое внимание уделено тщательности логической проработки используемых понятий. Полученная рамка применена к анализу текущих социальных процессов в России с использованием различного рода статистических данных и данных социологических исследований. Обсуждаются проблемы трансформации России в национальное демократическое государство, развития постиндустриальной экономики, запуска в стране цикла генерации экономических и социальных инноваций, а также проблемы (...) российской демографии и развития человеческого капитала. Показано, что практически все проблемы в своем разрешении упираются в менталитет постсоветской элиты. Выявлен основной психо-социальный ментальный комплекс, ответственный за элитную аномию, и показаны пути его деконструкции. Книга рассчитана на широкие слои образованных читателей с рациональным складом мышления, комфортно себя чувствующих в больших коллективах. (shrink)