ОФИЦИАЛЬНЫЙ ИНТЕРНЕТ САЙТ БАКИНСКОГО МЕЖДУНАРОДНОГО ГУМАНИТАРНОГО ФОРУМА
OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE BAKU INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN FORUM
BAKI BEYNƏLXALQ HUMANİTAR FORUMUNUN RƏSMİ İNTERNET SAYTI

First working section


   Moderator of the first section Mikhail Shvydkoi -  Special representative of the President of Russian Federation for International Cultural Cooperation

   Mikhail Shvydkoi – Special representative of the President of Russian Federation for International Cultural Cooperation ( further Moderator) and I represent theRussian Federation. I am supervisor of studies ofStateUniversity. I was charged to chair the first session of the forum. I am the Higher School of Moscow State University, which is called Cultural Policy and Administration in the Humanitarian Sphere. Today we shall speak about a topic which at the first sight seems to take shape in the recent two or three decades. We shall speak of how the traditional values exist in the post-modernistic society and culture. It seems to me that the topic has been the subject of discussions not once, but I think that in the context of our forum it has a special sense. Because the very Forum has been devoted to the topic of how the activity of the modern man is connected with some stable fundamental imaginations about our ownselves. I developed several presentations in Moscow, but yesterday quite accidentally I came across an article by Georgi Adamovich, a well-known Russian man of letters, philosopher, literary critique, dedicated to Lev Shestov, a remarkable Russian philosopher, Russian existentialism, a man who perhaps is not well known in Russian cultural environment and in any case is not in the main stream of meditations of nowadays. Today people like to quote Ilyin, Slovensky, Korneyev. Shestov has remained, how to say, not in the focus of attention, but it would be useful very much to study the creative activity of Shestov for those who are engaged in the study of the problems of traditional values, their correlation with the modern knowledge, modern society, and modern neurosis. In this sense the article of Adamovich is noteworthy, because the thing is that two multiply to two is not four, and it is not a novelty. The thing is that virtue is evil, it is also not new, it is equal to saying that evil is some reincarnation of virtue. We learned it in the time of soviets from Bulgakov’s “Master and Margarate”, but in reality it is not like that, and all the time when mankind experiences huge historical changes, and I think that it has experienced them not once and will do it not once, if God allows, and each time there arises the question of traditional values, which for some people they are inside the man, for others – in the system existing outside of man. These problems are very conspicuous and acute now, and I think that today we shall try to speak of how much it depends on our understanding of the essence of the problem in reality, because we know much, we read much, we are well informed, but to my mind, our understanding, cognition in the present world are not more than they were a thousand, or two thousand years ago. Today much is spoken about the collision of cultures, about the dialogue among them. The topic is not new, believe me, today the world experiences something which is very identical to the things existing in the fourth, fifth, sixth centuries of our era when the Great Migration of   Nations began, when the barbarians came to Rome and when the pre-Volga Bulgarians came to Frakia, in those years there was also bloodshed and sometimes dialogues of civilizations and cultures, which ended with birth of something more complete which it seems to us today. In one word, there is something to speak of, to talk about, particularly in such a high forum. Here we have our esteemed colleagues; two more persons are to come now: they are Mr.Piotrovsky and Mr. Konchalovsky, they are on their way here, they were in the hotel in the morning, I saw them, and their chance to appear here soon is very high But to begin our forum I would like to give the floor to my distinguished colleague and compatriot Dmitry Bykov. Mr. Bykov, do please!

  Dmitry Bykov – Writer: Dear friends! Thank you for coming, first of all I must say that the topic is sufficiently complicated, and as you understand, not too easily pastime without a kind of interpretation, but I hope that after my explanatory presentation the passions will revive and we shall have a pleasant discussion. Once, when I learned literature from Andrey Donatovich Sinyavsky, I asked him a question which intrigued me very much: “Why does it horrify the Russian so much when there appears a vampire in their houses? Why not to be glad when a resurrected kinsman returns home?” Sinyavsky answered like this: “First it gladdens them, and then they understand that a dead man can live only on the account of live persons”. As a matter of fact, the vampire does not intend to bite his kinsmen. When we read “La Guzla” written by Mariamee or Pushkin’s versions, or the original grocery legends as they are, we notice that vampires, as a matter of fact, kiss, do not bite: it is an evidence of their aspiration for love, but they can not live without sucking the blood of others. And I remembered this formula by Sinyavsky very much: killing of the live – is the only form for the existence of the dead, only on the account of it the dead may suck fresh blood and ensure its life. In this sense the idealization of the past, which is current in many societies at present, seems to me very dangerous and, in the known to us sense, is vampirism. The tradition became such a refuge of incompetence, such a refuge of obscurantism which was chauvinism before.  One deprived of a particular talent will suffice to follow the tradition, according to Viktor Plevin it is equal calling for help his father or elder brother when quarrelling with someone. As soon as he leans on the tradition, he is pardoned everything and everything is written off. One may not love and understand Nabokov or Marcos, but rely on the tradition – it is a struggle for morals, i.e., struggle of morals for morals. One may not understand the modernistic culture and from the height of traditionalism criticize the modernistic masterpieces, the dark square rectangle is not obligatory; it may be more understandable in Picasso and etc. Tradition very often becomes a cover and justification for the vulgar ignorance. Umberto Eko in his article “The Eternal Fascism” gave an exact definition of the feature which distinguishes fascism from communism, why such a point of view is worse. Communism is also not a cake, as the majority of post-soviet people we know it from our own experience, the characteristic feature of fascism is its reliance on the past, on the ideal of the past, it speaks too much about the tradition, but communism aspires for future, what is modern, to things which are obscure. There is danger in it, idealization of the past is more dangerous, because there is fear for future, fear for novelty in it. For me it is not a secret that the modern civilization, as we know it, is stricken with a deep crisis. I would like to remind a remarkable phrase from the above-mentioned Lev Shestov that crisis is the normal state of the man able to think. Many people like to repeat this phrase, and it is to the point to say that clever and talented orthodox clergymen, for instance, Andrey Kurayev, who says that crisis, is the normal state of mind of the Christian; it is true that crisis is the sign of life, of being alive. And the second consideration, of course, the modern civilization experiences crisis, but it does not mean at all that it has broken away from its roots. All the dead people once ate cucumbers, but they died not because they ate cucumbers. The present crisis in the world outlook of the modernistic society is connected not with the breech with its traditional roots. Archaic is a system of taboo, a system of prohibitions which are of great historic-cultural interest, but cannot be a guide for action now, it cannot, unfortunately, be a part of the present because of the loss of many taboos, and it is the history of culture. Therefore I would have expressed very simply. It seems to me that the place of archaic in the world of post-modernism and instead of traditions in the world of post-modernism, the place of historic-cultural and tradition must know its place, not claim for the role of the regulator of the present life. The present-day man possesses wit and heart sufficient not to fall into the abyss of relativism. Thank you for the attention.

   Moderator: Thank you very much, I think that the beginning has been set sufficiently plebian, because such modernistic development today, particularly technological development, provokes the change of values, from my point of view, man is sufficiently conservative and becomes the bearer of the tradition. We have changed not much in the recent 2000 years not as a psycho-physiological being, but as a physiological being, something undergoes adaptation in our genotypes, but not so much as to enable us not to know our ancestors, let us say, those who lived 2000-3000 years ago. I give the floor to Rafiga Azimova, a remarkable philosopher, doctor of philosophy!

   Rafiga Azimova – doctor of philosophy: Thank you very much! My presentation has been developed under the impression of your presentation which you did yesterday, and it is not only full of impression of that presentation, I even felt in it close approaches to the present-day situation from the point of view of world outlook. Abusing the time-limit I would like to read my short report. The stripe of the transition period, which is our contemporary, led us to the highway of the third millennium. Not being able to understand completely and critically, generalize its lessons and contradictions of the past century, we have already outlived the first decade of the 21st century. Observations show that most probably it is an indicator of survival for man and mankind morally and physically in the same degree. In not simple conditions of searches for democratic forms of social existence the problem of the status of personality, as a free subject of activity of formation of his spiritual potential, acquires today an extreme topicality which disturbs and makes one be careful; undoubtedly there has remained something else which inspires man today. Which incomprehensible aspects of the soul and thinking of man compel him to deviation and destructive actions?”People on the planet, – said recently the Russian president, – undoubtedly want to be sure in the stability of its future”. One of the priority tasks in the social policy of Azerbaijan is the task of formation of the human capital, which has been stressed not once in the speeches of our President. Pay attention, I think that all the people of the world able to think noted that the economic globalization goes on with a growing speed, which we can not tell about the humanitarian globalization. What can the philosophers suggest today who all the time presented the spiritual elite of the society, because due to its subject wisdom formed foundations, philosophy was the herald of symptoms and tendencies leading to destruction of the foundations life and mankind. It is known that when the three leading religions began coexist in the new era there appeared great conjectures, pivots of conditions of survival and development of society. If we move away from phenomenological philosophy, mankind intuitively in the dawn of its formation survived owing to very proto-sciences. I do not know why today we forget it, that is, the intuitive truth, which according to Descartes is truer than deduction owing to its simplicity. Proto-science left for mankind pivotal intransitive values, when it was ignored by mankind in different spans of history, it led the mankind to deadlock situation. I think that we experience such a situation today. Pay attention, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Confucianism are directions which have in fact outlined the fate of philosophical mode of life and philosophical mode of thinking of the road of development of mankind. Only one example from “Avesta” in this sense: order in space, in society and in the life of individual is interdependent all the time. We are aware that violation of this interdependence has always led to grave consequences along the history. The idea of humanitarian globalization, to my mind, continues to remain as an idea and a subject for philosophers to meditate. But in the 21st century this idea worries not only the philosophers. Very often we observe that alienation and self-alienation from anomaly have become a norm and threaten to destroy the order of life in the world. Dear friends, we must note that today we observe how the humanitarian layer of the world processes speedily is settling and it gives reason to suppose that if the mankind at the dawn of its formation survived due to its wisdom, to a great degree because of the intentions of its soul, but today being proud of an immense growth of civil material wealth it has ignored the basic fundamental values and taken the road of unending conflicts. I speak with a heavy heart about the conflicts not only because my people in the course of 20 years bears physically and morally the burden of conflicts incited by close-sighted politicians. I speak about it because the world community seems has got used to live in extreme situations, in conditions of inter-state conflicts and accepts it as a natural mode of our living. This is what frightens and worries us. Thus, today after thousands of years the idea of human globalization everything is still hanging in the air from hair. It is necessary to understand that the contemporary political orientations are able to speed the process by taking into account all universal problems such as ecological, social and medical. I remember something from the works of Pitirim Sorokin written in the forties of the past century: in his work “Social and cultural dynamics” he foresaw ‘the birth of twilight of emotional culture” and tried to point out the ways out of this darkness, the duty of present philosophers is to do it. Politically destructive technologists used by the short-sighted politicians of the 21st century clearly make it understandable that democracy as a tool of power for them serves the role of the shield in the cause of realization of their ambitious fleeting, instantaneous plans, as a consequence we observe that the function of democracy, which in the course of centuries bore the idea of social equality and justice has again occurred under the pressure of double standards. We must note that the theory of the golden milliand, export of democracy did not suit the traditions and historical mode of life all the countries. Today universal human values of world religions are intentionally distorted, used by some political leaders for their ambitious political goals. I finish my report, but want to note only that the models of democracy proposed by Aristotle in his time are used today very often as instrumental values, and unfortunately, for pure ambitious goals of separate persons or separate short-sighted group. Slave-pathology draws the mankind into its net more and more. Philosophy in its relation to democracy as a tool of administration in the hands of some people can not suffice today with its moralistic and forecasting functions. In the 21st century the philosophy of life of separate persons and mankind call philosophy for cooperation with political science, politicians and philosophers, thus, the humanitarian globalization continues to remain on the level of an idea, which, unfortunately, with great difficulty is digested on the level of political consciousness. Mankind, I think, must find out the ways for the solution of the problems, in other word, the ways on which the idea of humanitarian globalization could finally be materialized in the practical life of the world community. I finish my report with a question: what do we leave for our future generations, children and grandchildren as a heritage? Here is the intesensia of the modern dilemma: to be or not to be on the flourishing planet of Earth? Thank you very much!

   Moderator: Thank you very much Ms Azimova! I thank everybody here, as it is a live discussion , I hope that all of you, dear colleagues, take part in it, let us try  to make it a live conversation. WE began with two topics: the problem of traditional values, and naturally, the sub-topic will be universalization, that is, universal values. We shall speak about the universalization of cultures, globalization and existing values, both modernistic and traditional in these systems, but I would like to attract your attention to one simple thing, naturally I do not call anyone to argue on this topic, because it is an infinity which will involve the discussion of many hours, but there are some problems more serious when we speak about the universalization of cultures, about globalization, we all speak of fundamental values, that is, there are values which undoubtedly are the same for all. But it turns out that it is not like that at all. Therefore I want now to give the floor to my colleague Mr. Guglin, who represents the Council of Europe, he will speak now about the human rights, democratic values which are understood differently in various societies. WE may talk as much as we like in New-York, Washington or Strasburg about political correctness, but if we begin to speak about it in Pakistan, it will be something different. It does not mean at all that such fundamental values do not exist, or are not understood in the Orient, but as soon as we set great hopes on globalization, which in fact was suggested by inventors in Europe, then we proceed from the fact that the processes of globalization are connected with development, with the European values, in the first place, not very much liked by the people living in Asia, Africa, ant it evokes certain tension. While, the civil things are the same be they in Vietnam, or Gabon, or Sierra Leone: microphones working not well in some places, may work better in others. But in reality comprehension of fundamental values is completely different; therefore, we must not set hopes on globalization as a means of solution of all conflicts. But our colleague, who is deputy chief of department for the issues of youth and sports in the Council of Europe, perhaps knows about it more than me. Mr. Ulrich Bunjes, the floor is yours!                                                      

   Ulrich Bunjes  – Head of Youth Department of the Council of Europe: Thank you, professor! Thank you very much.  I apologize that I speak neither Azeri nor Russian, so, I address you in a foreign language.  I will make two points.  One is directly linked to your last comment on the values that unite us and secondly, I would like to make comments on what we could call the operational side of these values.  The title of this session which is traditional value systems in the post-modern culture in fact raises a number of very difficult questions.  What is a traditional value?  What is a value system?  What is a modern culture?  What is a post-modern culture?  It would be difficult probably even in this room to achieve consensus on all these topics.  Take the example of social justice.  Social justice is a demand which you find in almost all kinds of current youth protests around the world.  At he same time, it is an integral element of many, if not all, world religions.  Is it modern or is it traditional or is it post-modern?  I’m working in the inter-governmental, international organization, the Council of Europe, which really has no mandate to express itself on the values of the citizens ofEurope.  We are convinced that cultural heritage expresses these values, has high value.  And we are also convinced that in order to progress in a globalized world, we need shared values, values to which all of our society is a principal and also each individual can agree.  We are convinced that we don’t look very far to find the values that unite us.  They are the universal human rights, the magna charter of the modern world, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and yet the European Convention of Human Rights and all the other international human rights instruments.  They are the yardstick to judge old and new values.  And these values are, of course, not static but they are instead of development. Yesterday we celebrated the European and international day against capital punishment.  In the European concept of human rights, capital punishment is a violation of human rights.  So, in our assessment, in our view, this is not a defensible tradition.  And if you put this into the framework of this entire forum which looks at the inter-cultural dialogue, you find that learning to live together is part of our security.  One could call part of our security.  Only if we learn to live together with different values systems, then, we can live together safely.

My second remark concerns the operational side.  The question how do we address these values? How can we make these values practical?  Allow me to start this point with a word of caution.  Several speakers yesterday mentioned that some of the Western-European political leaders recently criticized multi-culturalism as a failed policy.  Many observers in fact, were let to believe that Cameron, Merkel and Sarkozy criticized the fact that we live in a situation of cultural diversity.  But nothing could be further from the two.  In fact, the criticism and reactions to these criticisms showed once again that the term multi-culturalism is a very dangerous notion.  It comes with the high risk of confusion.  Because it is not clear, and we do not know whether it refers to an ideology, a set of practical politics, or to social reality.  This is precisely the reason why the group of eminent persons, which was mentioned yesterday also by the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, why this group of eminent persons proposed not to use this term to avoid endless misunderstandings.  Now, in the view of the Council of Europe, it is much more fruitful to address the operational dimension of the politics to address the cultural diversity.  The Council of Europe has done this in the ground-breaking document published in 2008 which is the White Paper on Inter-Cultural Dialogue which looks at the operational dimension and then, of course, it looks at many different challenges, it looks at legislation, it looks at the questions what do we have to do to educate, what do we have to do in the media, what do we have to do in urban planning, what do we have to do in the probation of social services.  They all must be adapted to address the multi-culturality, the cultural diversity in the midst of our societies in order to give everyone, regardless of cultural identity, regardless of values, regardless of the languages in which these values are expressed, a chance to enjoy equal dignity and to enjoy human rights.

And this, this is my final remark, is a task which is shared by many state orders.  It is shared by public authorities, by teachers, by civil society organizations, by religious communities, by minorities and majorities alike, by many others who are active members of our society.  I could give you many examples of how we address this.  Let me just give you one example which we think is important.  We are starting a project which trains young people not only in terms of human rights but also how to fight for these human rights on the internet.  We call it human rights defenders online.  Then, for us it is an advanced form how to translate these values of human rights in the era of what you might call post-modern society which is in fact, very often people from civil societies, people from youth organizations, from other organizations, also from religious communities in many cases who are the driving forces in this new form to express the values and to fight for the values with us.  And to rebuild a sense of togetherness in Europeand to continue to build a culture of living together, it is a basis for complete political action.  And that is a very modern and a very power taking value, at the same time also a very traditional one.  Thank you very much!

   Moderator: The problem touched upon by Mr. Ulrich is a kind of discussion at any rate and I appeal to all who takes part at the discussions, as far as the item touched upon by all of you is not only the matter of terms, the item you speak about is of human rights in internet and in online, the main matter is in the conception itself if it is changed when dealing with the human rights in a virtual world. My point of views is: it is really a serious problem for discussions and I want to mention it once more. There are some issues, solution of which causes great difficulties even with the help of correct municipal regulations. I hope you understand me. Because there are certain instincts inside of each of us, though Dmitri Lvovich considers it archaism, there is voice of blood inside of us if it was so simple. Everything is written in my beloved play written by Lessing “Nathan the Wise (Mudriy)”: three religious, three different roads, but one God. We keep saying it since XVIII century. The first staging of the play was in 1946 after the Second World War in Germany with Volfgang Haints in the leading role all the same as was mentioned above. Mr. Ilber Ortayli is a phenomenal multi-culturalist. He was born in Austria, studied in America and now he is director of the famous Topkapi Museum, he is also professor of two universities in Istanbul and Ankara, the biggest in the history of Turkey. Here is a shining example of winner, the winner of globalization of culture. Welcome Mr. Ortayli!

   Ilber Ortayli – Professor, doctor, Director of “Topkapı Palace” Museum: Thank you, dear Chairman! I am very glad to be here with you and I’d like to mention some items briefly. In the years of estrangement we have to preserve this historical environment in every city, not only in Istanbul, in Rome, because I think it is the common wealth of mankind and not only national wealth of mankind. And the next and the last point is very interesting. We live in the epoch of translation and the translations carry out everything very well, with great success. On the other hand, globalization of our world finds expression only in the English language. I think it is very dangerous. We have to go back to XIX century, when writing in Europe was in Greek and Latin, in Russia and in the Caucasus in Persian and Arabic. Sultan Mehmet II, our military leader knew Greek, Italian, Persian and Arabic. Since we are called Renaissance – the Epoch of Renaissance, we have to read classic literature, especially in Latin, Greek, Persian and Arabic. People in Israel speak in modern Ivrit and in classic texts taken from the Bible today. And we have to go back to the Epoch of Renaissance and it will be simply the birth of new epoch. Preserving of heritage means preserving historical thought, and I think it means a new humanitarianism. Thank you very much!

   Moderator: Thank you very much, professor Ortayli. We are very grateful to you for your speech and I know that you need to leave us now. Surely you can do it. Just I want to draw your attention to the fact that professor Ilber told us that we had to return to the languages of XVII, XVIII, XIX centuries. But I want to point out that all our graduates are eager to speak only English as they think English is the language of globalization. People used to speak Greek; all the population universe spoke Greek. It was the only language forGreece and its colonies. Now all our contemporaries try to speak English. The English language is the same at present like Greek at that time. Then the people began to speak Latin and they liked Latin then, like the people like English at present. Then the people began to speak Persian or in parallel with Greek. May be earlier the people spoke Persian. In fact, there always were the languages which were the languages for the huge civilized areas. May be we’ll like Chinese in 100 years. Surely, it is not desirable. I say it in general. When we speak about English like “the scoundrels make us speak English”, we are mistaken. No one makes us speak English. It is simply convenient for communication and for internet and no more. Therefore, I want to tell you that there were languages which are valuable for globalization at present. Gentlemen, I ask you to listen to Mr. Konchalovsky.

   Konchalovsky Andrei Sergeevich – Film writer: I think very much was said about globalization including your speech, but I think we don’t take into account the fact that Europe colonized whole world within 4 centuries. People have chosen English not because of it bad globalization, but because ignoring the great civilizations of the world Europe gradually colonized the world I think. It is point of view of Mr. Shvenk first of all. If we take the history of the world which we studied within 500 or 600 year, we can understand that those were the most obscure centuries. Everything began in Greece, Athena, Rome and Palestine, pantheism… I don’t mean Palestine, I mean Israel, Judaic culture which is Euro centrist and it led us, I think, to absolute distortion. If Europe colonized the world for 400 years, now the world is colonizing Europe, which was formerly considered the leading light for the whole world. I think nostalgia for XIX century is determined by the new phase which the mankind has entered today. I want to bring to your kind notice that a French philosopher told that some remarkable historical events took place as a result of positive new mentality of the people. Now I think that the mankind begins to encroach on a new and very important phase of the history. It is mostly determined by internet today. Internet has become a new source of information which creates absolutely new political situation in itself. I don’t consider it very attractive, because we all live with certain illusions but becoming older when the former illusions are changed by the new ones – Now we have illusion that we are gradually approaching the bright future when either information of the world of information will tell the mass about it – a colossal illusion. Recently I read, you know, that a housewife couldn’t get her house from the trade center after shopping because GPS in her car was out of order. The devise in her car always helped her, but now it was out of order and she was helpless. What does it mean? It means that internet not only provides you with information, but also deprives you study and spoils your memory. It is a very important problem which has a bad effect on the person. I call it barbarity. I speak about it because Europe is in its initial values. There are slavish – political proprieties. And these political proprieties are turned into a dictatorship leading to various unpleasant cases. Yesterday Sergey Leonidovich Kapitsa told me that not a young professor of an American University wanted to open a rather heavy door and help a girl with a printer in her hand and he was discharged from the University for sexual harassment. The political proprieties today deprive people the possibility to ask what is truth, or democracy. Everybody is talking about democracy today, even dictators. What is democracy if to take it outside of political proprieties? There are two postulates: rights for general elections and social guarantees for everybody. These are the main two factors in democracy. General elections in Africa, even not only in Africa, very often lead to repartition of property, spread of religious fanaticism and now it usually ends with dictatorship. Though general elections and forms of elections are formally observed, the people don’t think if it is truth or not, they are inclined to think more of it as a lie, and if yes, then what is the proportion of lie in it. General elections as well as democracy have colossal shortcomings in principle. Pope Benedict told about it nicely well. He was in Berlin recently and made a marvelous speech. I suggest you all to read it. He said that “the majority of problems regulated by law must be solved by the majority of votes. The support of majority may serve criterion for the adopted law. But still it is obvious that the support of the majority is not enough for the fundamental law concerning the human rights touching upon the dignity of a person as well as the mankind. Anyone holding responsibility has to find personally the criterion to be studied before adopting the law.” So in the given part of the above mentioned speech of Pope Benedict one can find that values must be reconsidered. I think it is of great importance. Pope Benedict told that when Tsar Solomon ascended the throne, God asked him what he wanted to get: power, health, money, and Solomon said that he’d like to get the “reasonable heart”. Pope Benedict called it an irrational approach and even titled his article as “Reasonable Heart”, and he commented that the clear reason was a positive and rational approach to one’s life. The illusion of clear reason is a triumph of positivism in Europe and leads to big problems today, said the Pope. Because clear reason dictates democracy to be create for the sake and with the help of changing the existing regime by force. Welcoming it in Libya we still don’t know what the final result will be. We are aware of the events in the Northern Europe, but know nothing about the real situation in the Northern Africa. We do not know what the final result of remarkable youth movement will be as they know how to destroy, but don’t know how to create and build. They have to build and restore the values of culture of one, or other nation achieved within centuries. There is an illusion that the values of every nation are the same. But this is one of the main mistakes and I think it is the result of haughtiness of the West as regards to others which started long ago, since the time of colonization. We ignoring at present the wisdom of China. The wisdom of the Moslem world, the wisdom of the Indian, but try how ridiculous it is, to teach them. Neither China nor India tries to teach others and may be that is the reason what we’ll never speak Chinese. To be obliged or to do it deliberately is different concepts. We can do it if only we want it. That is why I think such an illusion that we all move in the same and right direction is criticized by a good British philosopher, who is not so famous unfortunately because of his political incorrectness. His name is John Drake. He put forward a conception criticizing the positivism and liberal thought which is widely used in Europe. He said that the progress in itself, our belief in it, it is illusory because of accumulativeness of the speech at all. Science is extremely extending its knowledge, is improving and disseminating its knowledge of world, but still remains the same as it was 5000 years ago. It states that any civilization built in high ethnics may appear and as any new generation may come to absolute catastrophe and the barbarity may turn to the next generation. It is quite enough to see that a human being is turned into an animal in Abu-Grebe prison. It refers not only to prisoners, the overseers as well. A man can easily be turned into animal. Very often we forget about it and think that a man is a perfect creature. I think that it is a colossal illusion and the wisdom of the Ancients, of the present day religious and cultures and it confirms that a good will and an ill will exist side by side and live inside of a man since the very beginning. That is why we always live with certain illusions. I want to finalize my thoughts of illusions. A regular issue of the magazine “A Big City” is published. We have such a slogan here “Enough”! It has just been published, it is the last issue. “Be surprised when you are humiliated, stop fearing, and struggle for your values, demand honest elections, send both of them to retirement.” Here is one the remarkable illusions. If to send both of the to retirement, then you will immediately have a just state, where  everybody will feel free and at least flourishing life will start in your country, colossal liberal people will appear. The matter is nevertheless what happens. The idea is transformed in accordance with culture. Marxism in England remains a Marxist up to now, sitting at the fire-place and smoking his pipe and saying that it is early and the day hasn’t come yet. Marxism has slaughtered 9 millions of people within 4 years. That is why we have to be careful when speaking about universal values, the most courageous people who believe the reincarnation for the ones believing that much can be done, even maximum can be done within four years of presidential elections are greatly mistaken, I think.

   Moderator: Thank you very much! I’d like to put forward my arguments to each thesis of the speech, but it is impossible because of lack of time. Still I want to mention and I want to remind you, to come back to the thought that Europe is colonized by the world, as well as the world byEurope. When Europe was colonized by the world, when the world colonized Europe, when the Roman Empire collapsed and Asia colonizedEurope in IV-V centuries, about the great migration of people, which formed new ethnic groups as a matter of fact. I think we’ll not speak about it. I would ask professor, director of Vienne Academy of Arts Mr. Cerarrdo Lo Russo. Do please!

   Gerardo Lo Russo – Director of the Roman Academy of Arts, Professor: In the past we tried to find the exception on the fundamental principles. Thank you. I don’t speak English, so I will read only from the context. And after, if you like I will say something in Italian language.

Mentioning the paradox, if we want to know the cooperation between the process and the values, we approve them in four decisions. The present is like a mirror that reflects the past and the future. The achievement of idea for about the space led us to see, for example, the world like a frame. Today they mention almost over the same appearance that take the presence of a context: television, cinema, postcards and video, mobile phones at home or at work, at office or at holiday. We are always under their impressions. So the concept about the constant aspect is succeeded by this phenomenon.

I think it is important to lead the science for interpreting the fashion. As we are reading a comedy books, in fact, when people produce, when they will write the moments and simples, it means a capability of their creativity, in the Renaissance, for example. The human figure in the middle age was trend to lead the tension and knew what to do and how to use the meaning of the mis-tradition  ever life.Today there are many types of derivation: marks, logos, and it is completely difficult to use the part of humanity in the next fashion. Just we transmit the mind using the all I said about and all in the world that recognizes the gesture. But this is not the main concept we must take care of. We need to take care of these historical values more than ever. The transmission from old to new, the relations between teachers and students, between friends are so important. Because we need the physical contact, skin contact, need to use other senses that modern methods give us.

So if global system of communication decreases the difference, the traditional conception will be more important than in the past. In short, the difference is a great necessity for all humanity. And this is a paradox. For example, in a few years the shop assistants are more able to do simple calculations also using the electronic instruments. If you move the focus on the psychological aspect, the situation is changing more paradoxes for the dependence of post modernity and cultural growth of radical change but haven’t to generalize or dramatize. Admitting such confusion is an important meaning like the human right and like a grade between male and female. It depends also on the value of difference, the reach of the balance of the post modern culture. So I can say that post modern culture is reaching the highest attitude. It all depends on the probably context, even the continuing relation, that mentioned. We have sometimes an event, sometimes a progress .We don’t do a personal choice.

 All people must bring a new spirit to this sense. The human beings always support the paradox.  So if we see all the existing difference, one day may be we will become more educated about this. It is very important area in the national operation. Using the context, human figure mustn’t forget about the existence of paradox. It is necessary to use the intellectual ability to differ paradox prom the context. Thank you!

   Moderator: With great pleasure I introduce to you Mikhail Borisovich Piotrovsky, as Arabic was mentioned here as a universal language, and I think Michail Borisovich Piotrovsky, director of the State Hermitage, understands it better than any other one here.

   Michail Borisovitch Piotrovsky – Director of the State Hermitage:  Well, thank you! It is a great pleasure for me to take part at this discussion, I’ve just come from Rodos Island and there I took part at the International Forum on civilizations, and there were discussions related to the present day problems. Finally we all came to the conclusion that the problems today depend on the selection of culture. It embraces almost all spheres of the life of mankind today: economics, politics and all the rest is also a part of culture and it is proved today. The world crisis, existing or not existing or may emerge. Undoubtedly it is a cultural crisis, as crisis of such cultural stereotypes, it is a crisis as a result of which the word value begins to mean money, but it does not mean what very often we want it to mean, and to cope with it, it is possible to apply to it some cultural method, understanding that there are virtual situations and you will use all kinds of post-modernistic words as crisis, that is a system of simulators, and it is necessary to get rid off the existing idols and replace them with something else, and here is another remark that when we speak about the traditional values, that is, the traditional values of the present day – it is the market economy, it is the notion of the right of an individual, not merely of human. What is today’s post-modern or post-modernism. It is one of the synonyms we used, and a whole section was devoted to it, not to religion, but to post-singularity. I think that one of such examples for me, the symbol of postmodern of nowadays is Wikipedia. It is a symbol of information accessibility, symbol of non-professionalism in all spheres. It is the peculiarity of time. It is not something good or bad, it is only the peculiarity of the present day. It is one of the idols of our time. The main thing is in it, of course, is the peculiarity of the post-modernity. As it was already mentioned – it is irony, the ironic attitude towards cultural values. There were many accursed in the epoch of historicity of eclectic, there was a serious attitude towards traditions, to the Russian traditions, now that historical epoch has been rehabilitated, there is an ironic attitude to cultural values, to cultural heritage, a new historicity, a new form of cultural heritage and a new interest in the old is born from this irony. In this way things are transforming. I think that what is born from the mentioned irony and from the smirks at the carnivals, in general, understanding such a simple thing as a fact of devolution, in fact, a mutual assistance as an important form, which must replace, perhaps, competition in human relations and strengthen the significance of professionalism.

Another thing, in general, is post-singularity, it is the rebirth of religious sensation, religious institutions, but here also, it seems to me, it is necessary to remember and understand that the talk is about completely new things, yes, new religious sensations are born, institutions, but there appear new phenomena in the religion, of course, it is possible to break away from political correctness, for instance, here is all the fundamentalist Islam, but it must be mentioned that the present fundamental Islam is not the same as the medieval Islam, it is radically new. Jihad, which is in the foundation of Islam, is based on negation of reliability of tradition about jihad. In Christianity, in Protestantism the solution of such a question as the Christian Zionists is absolutely something new, a new phenomenon with very far-reaching consequences. In our Orthodoxy, I do not want to go too deep into it, that is, it seems that there are things connected with the emotion of restoration of justice which actually concerns not the restoration of justice, but has quite a different role. The family values, which are reviving now, are again family, family, family. Family is a society, and the society should be built as a family. If to address an Arab in Arabic in an Arab street, in the Arab world there is the notion of street, the Arab street teaches what it is to teach, and the youth act as the street dictates, it goes against the family values, and there is new family values contradicting the old ones. And it is in the same world, stored, certainly, in family values against which this new family very important thing acts here. Elements from this traditional heritage penetrate into the world through irony, such set of traditional virtues ,which the communists tried to introduce into the society, are lack of restraint, temptation, honor is here the thing which  they deprived our society, but which gradually comes back after much being scoffed. And the practical side of it. All the same I work in the museum, and the practical role of a museum in all these situations is very big and good. First of all, it is the transformation of idols into museum subjects, into pieces of art, that is, many representations are very important for the culture of the world, in general. Idols and struggle against them, their removal and destruction lead  to great cultural conflicts, but by the time when the Protestants in Europe started to destroy idols of the Mother of God, pictures, then there appeared the concept art, all the idols became objects of art subjects which one may admire, there appeared art markets, there appeared museums, therefore, in fact, the Protestants gathered collections of Catholic art, art antiquity, nobody object against it, particularly, because it was a museum art, and further they waited for the day when hour will come. Another important thing is museum itself, it is very important today for preservation of memory, that is, the Japanese tradition. What is memory, it is very simple. Memory is the main sign of human life. Memory is the right of our immortality. Correction of primitiveness of our life, events, changes which occur in it. We, not only in Russia, now have flat reforms which must level all, make everybody equal, in the real sense of the word. And here again the institutions of culture, non-standard, non-university, can play an important role. We have now an education reform, it is really good, because it allows come and study in Petersburg, Moscow, in the whole Russia, and it is really taking place, but in this case the level of education falls, and the level of people, who want to be distinguished, falls, too. In this process the museums play an active role, they deposit everything in reality. Now the reform in the army is coming, it is very good, a strong army is being created, but the notion of the code of honor and all the rest are being forgotten. The museums, including our Hermitage, are partly engaged in national, military ceremonies and many other things, may take part in them through discussions, and in this case the change of old idols and destruction of all their simulators and all kind of imitations takes place. In life we all make efforts to change something in exchange of an original thing, but I think that post-modernism lacks this originality, to introduce originality demands great efforts. Thanks!

   Moderator: Thanks! Colleagues, I am compelled, unfortunately, to hurry up, therefore simply I want to thank you for very interesting ideas, and we will move further. I would like all the participants of our forum to pay attention to the document which is among the materials received by you this morning. This document is called the Baku Declaration. As we are one of seven platforms, on which most different problems of today are being discussed, and all the platforms have this document, we have distributed them, by the end of the day we must have all your remarks and considerations, if there is any, we must either accept them or reject, and I am sure that it has been compiled well and with an easy heart. With great pleasure I shall ask Vidiadhar Surajprasad Naipaul, Nobel Prize writer, phenomenon of our globalizing world, to have the floor.

   Vidiadhar Surajprasad Naipaul – Nobel Prize laureate for Literature: I’ve heard English spoken faster that I’ve ever heard. I have heard the words which involved me like I still don’t have idea what has been discussed. But I got the simple clear points, this is the fact. It caused some problem and it will be like it with me. (The audience laughs and applauses). Speak what you want. That is a good way of getting information because I learnt so many subjects and problems, I heard about Asians, about Asians around the Europe, about homosexual marriages, about inventions in Europe  and other things that we speak about every day and it all have been discussed. I’ll talk if I’m asked to. I’ll make a speech in few words, I’m sure it will be few. I don’t have many words. I would like to talk about making a subject like multi-cultures, not rare subject, subject of few words, like subject for political rightness, for political practice – that’s where the problem begins. If you’re no longer looking at the facts of life but you’re dealing with what you consider,  with right views, you just get to nowhere because in the date of multi-culture it’s wrong to impose another culture of people who have their own already. I’m taking it off from England. England has its own culture but there is a movement to foot there in the name of multi-cultures also to impose the culture of eleven communities, and these eleven communities are from Asia mainly, also from Africa. Now you are taking them from Eastern Europe, and then got away from their own countries because their culture is too stifling. That’s one thing they do. They should celebrate one they have got for brave. There will be trouble there with this kind of language, with this kind of thinking. I’m sure that there’re people here who know how to deal with this kind of problem. I don’t want to know them all. I want to pass it on to the people who will get what I have said. Thank you!

   Moderator: You know that I want to tell only one thing. I do not think that we publicly argued. We are simple, that is everyone stated the point of view. But the today’s world so is arranged, it too probably, a postmodernism. Actually, we have felt ourselves as successors only. It is colossally a wearisome problem, from my point of view. Nelli Vasilevna Motroshilova nods in negation.. But I think that a problem of today, for many of us, anyway, consists in feeling plurality of novelties. It is very difficult actually because we not often speak about the Middle Ages, about man and all the rest, that is, we have connected it with a certain unity that is very difficult, it is possible, it is difficult enough, because  for the political writer to understand the scientist medievalist is  not less difficult than for the representative of the fundamental Moslem to understand the representative of the fundamental Judaism ,though there exits problems between them, I hope, that all the same, that when we speak about traditional values , you will forgive me. Let’s think that all people are more ideologized than me, all the same, the higher values on the earth are human life, and man, if we can agree with it, which is difficult, because a variety of people do not think so, and another half thinks about it quite differently. But if we agree that the supreme value is human life and mankind, it is all the same, every time it approaches to the to the edge and fall into the abyss, Well, anyway, in that history which we know, looking into that abyss, even sometimes plunging into it, then leaving it, we can agree on some compromise, because the non-conventional qualification for me and unique, perhaps, is human life. And further the set of questions for which have no answers at present, and if I had. I would not sit here, but be somewhere, probably, already in heavens. I once again thank all the participants of discussion.  Anton, you wanted to tell something, I am sorry, Dmitry, you also want some minutes, we shall give it.  Now I ask Andrey Konchalovsky to disclose his view.

   Andrey Sergeevich Konchalovsky – Film director: Here you speak if I remember the simple question: what is human life. It is, of course, humane from your point of view, and in general, to consider human life as the main value that provides human life. As if it is difficult to understand. Because human life, if it is under the influence of pacifism, where human life is the most important, it leads to ecological catastrophe for the sake of preservation of human life ,all is choked alive around and the mankind becomes similar to the most harmful fungus, and if to consider human life from the point of view of philosophy of cosmology, then respect for human life as for the life of any animal, and in general, to space as a whole, then human life should be considered that the person needs to be a little restrained, otherwise anthropo-centrism  will lead to ecological catastrophe. Thanks!

   Moderator: I Thank you! Well, man not simply an animal. Church representatives are sitting here, and they know it better than I. Well, please!

   Rafiga Azimova – Doctor of Philosophy: As the continuation of your opinion, the main problem of the day is that with the increase of civilized values we have not noticed the exhaustion of human resources and humane in the person. Therefore it seems to me that man gone off from nature is the most predatory exploiter of this nature, and from it there arises the conflict of the nature with man. Man can not cope with his internal claims. He is not capable, so it seems to me that he will return to his own self. And the greatest problem, that is the return to his own self, to his essence as man is impossible without the work of the soul, the soul ceases to work. Besides, who has been endowed by God this qualities. Thank you!

   Moderator: Thanks a lot! I would like to notice that we touched upon a very important problem. Certainly, besides the irrational values there are rational values. For rational and irrational values the topic is absolutely different, and in this case the greatest problem whether we bear in ourselves the ethic postulates, or whether it is outside of ourselves. This is a separate and completely serious topic. I adhere to the first position. Dmitry Lvovich, please!

   Dmitry Bykov – Writer: I shall express my opinion quickly and shortly. I will begin, of course, with human life as a supreme value, because it is anatomical, otherwise all values would have stopped living together with every living being that is the problem. Here Andrey Sergeevich in his brilliant speech and real rhetorical art, without any exaggeration, has shown a number enough serious substitutions. It seems to me that these substitutions should be discussed and clarified. Certainly,Europe has ceased to be the center of civilization of the world. Certainly, we will start talking Chinese, but not because the values of Europe have compromised themselves, that is whyEurope has refused them, and the West has refused them as a whole. Post-modernism it not the phenomenon of progress, this is the phenomenon of recession, a phenomenon which recoil in the cave, a phenomenon which refuses verticality. Europe returns to idols, America returns to idols, this refusal in itself is the consumer civilization, this civilization refuses progress, and because of it progressс has moved to China, China became strong not because of the quantity of values, not because of Confucianism, but because of a big jump forward, sufficiently abnormal, and then owing to that soft reaction of that non-foolish Den Siaopen progress still remains the main value.

   Moderator: You know such optimistic notes remind me the speeches of the times of my Komsomol youth. We, I think, we shall have break, because there are two more discussions very interesting discussions ahead of us. One of them will be led by my colleague and the organizer of all our victories, a remarkable person, rector of theUniversity ofLanguages, the third panel of modeling will be our colleague from Poland Cezario Vozinsky, and I hope that it will be interesting. Thanks all!

The text of verbatim report was provided by Azerbaijan Language University

Информация для участников

İştİrakçIlar üçün məlumat

Information for participants

Всю подробную информацию о предстоящем Бакинском международном гуманитарном Форуме, который состоится 2-3 октября 2014 года, вы можете найти в данном разделе:

You can find all detailed information about forthcoming Baku International Humanitarian Forum, which will be held on October 2-3, 2014, in the section below:

2-3 oktyabr 2014-cü ildə keçiriləcək Bakı Beynəlxalq Humanitar Forumu haqqında ətraflı məlumatı Siz bu bölmədə əldə edə bilərsiniz:

Регистрация на форуме

Registration

Qeydİyyat

Для участия в работе Бакинского международного гуманитарного Форума необходимо обязательно пройти процедуру онлайн регистрации в указанном ниже разделе.

Внимание! Не забудьте указать в регистрационной форме номер персонального пригласительного письма.

Информация о получении виз
Участники, приглашённые на Форум, в случае необходимости оформления визы для посещения Азербайджана, могут получить её, обратившись в Посольства и Консульства Азербайджанской Республики.

Боллее подробную информацию о визовом режиме вы можете получить на сайте Министерства Иностранных Дел Азербайджанской Республики

For participation in the work of the Baku International Humanitarian Forum you are required to go through online registration procedure in the below section.

Note! Do not forget to indicate in the registration form the number of your personal invitation letter.

Visa information
Participants invited to the Baku International Humanitarian Forum, in case they need a visa to visit Azerbaijan, can apply for visa at the Embassies and Consulates of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

For more information visit the official web site of the Ministry of Foreign Affairsof the Republic of Azerbaijan.

Bakı Beynəlxalq Humanitar Forumunun işində iştrak etmək üçün qeydiyyat prosedurasından keçməlisniz.

Vizanın alınmasına dair məlumat
Bakı Beynəlxalq Humanitar Forumuna dəvət olunmuş iştirakçılar Azərbaycana səfər etmək üçün viza rəsmiləşdirməsindən ehtiyac duyurlarsa, Azərbaycan Respublikasının Səfirlikləri və Konsulluqlarına müraciət edib əldə edə bilərlər.

Əlavə məlumatı Azərbaycan Respublikasının Xarici İşlər Nazirliyinin rəsmi internet səhifəsindən əldə etmək olar.

Туры по регионам Азербайджана

Tours to the regions of Azerbaijan

Azərbaycan regİonlarI üzrə turlar

Для участников Бакинского международного гуманитарного Форума c 4 по 5 октября 2014 года будут организованы туры по следующим регионам Азербайджана:

Tours to the following regions of Azerbaijan will be organized for the participants of the Baku International Humanitarian Forum 4-5, october 2014:

2014-cü il oktyabrın 4-5 -də Bakı Beynəlxalq Humanitar Forumunun iştirakçıları üçün Azərbaycanının aşağıda qeyd olunan regionları üzrə səfərlər təşkil olunacaqdır:

Контакты

Contacts

ƏLAQƏ

Азербайджанская Республика, г. Баку
Организационный Комитет
Бакинского Международного Гуманитарного Форума

тел .: +(99412) 492 89 50; 492 95 58
факс:+(99412) 437 19 23
э-почта: [email protected]



Republic of Azerbaijan, Baku
Organizing Committee of the Baku International Humanitarian Forum

tel.: +(99412) 492 89 50; 492 95 58
fax: +(99412) 437 19 23
e-mail: [email protected]


Azərbaycan Respublikası, Bakı ş.
Bakı Beynəlxalq Humanitar Forumunun Təşkilat Komitəsi

tel. : +(99412) 492 89 50; 492 95 58
faks:+(99412) 437 19 23
e-ünvan: [email protected]



Прогноз погоды

Hava proqnozu

Weather forecast