In Search of a New Russia: Reflections on the Concept of Spiritual and Ecological Civilization (A.V. Ivanov, I.V. Fotievа, M.Y. Shishin)

Ugrin Ivan Mikhailovich PhD in Politics Scientific Associate, Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, State Academic University for the Humanities 109240, Russia, Moskva oblast', g. Moscow, ul. Goncharnaya, 12 ivan_ugrin@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Civilization and the fate of Russia^[1]Discussions about the fate of Russia have been going on for decades.

In recent years, the topic of civilizational development has increasingly come to the fore in these discussions. Questions about what civilization is, what the specifics of Russian civilization are, whether it exists at all, what Russian civilization can be in the context of globalization, what kind of civilizational development project Russia can offer itself and other countries are actively discussed in the scientific community. A team of Siberian scientists offers their answer: A.V. Ivanov, I.V. Fotieva and M.Y. Shishin. Their project of civilizational development was called "spiritual and ecological (noospheric) civilization". The authors assign a special role to Siberia in the implementation of this project. A separate monograph is devoted to the civilizational mission of Siberia within the framework of the general concept of spiritual and ecological development strategy. In this article, we would like to discuss the concept of civilizational development proposed by respected scientists, as well as express our thoughts on the opportunities that favor its implementation, and those problems that, in our opinion, the authors have not solved.

However, before proceeding to the discussion of the concept of spiritual and ecological civilization, it is necessary to outline in general terms the options for solving the problem of civilizational development for Russia. We understand civilization in the classical sense inherited from A. Toynbee and clarified by V.L. Tsymbursky as "a social community, primarily tied to certain geographical areas and acting as a carrier of such religion, ideology, social practices and cultural styles, which together constitute a special image of "humanity", but at the same time claim to be universal, worldwide significance" ^[35]. Three signs are characteristic of civilization as a socio - cultural community: These are the presence of a sacred vertical (regulating the role of religion or postulating "sacred" values of ideology, sometimes a mixed religious and ideological doctrine), a state-formalized "basic humanity" (L.N. Gumilev used the term "superethnos" to describe it) and "basic earth" (localization of "basic humanity" in a certain territory).

Localization of the Russian civilization occurs within the borders floating from the borders of the modern Russian Federation to the borders of the former USSR. To describe it, the concept of "Eurasian" is often used (following Trubetskoy, Savitsky, Alekseev and other theorists of classical Eurasianism). In our opinion, this term is very successful, and further we will use the concept of "Eurasian civilization" as a synonym for the concept of "Russian civilization". Its territorial core is definitely intermediate zones located at the junction of civilizations (Right-Bank Ukraine, Transcaucasia, Central Asia), gravitate to one or another civilization. The Russian state has played a decisive role in the development of civilization over the past few centuries, which allows us to speak of Russian civilization as a "state-civilization" ^[10]. However, in our opinion, it is not necessary to confuse the concepts of the state and civilization. The viability of the state, which allows the formation of a civilizational identity, is an important sign of civilization, but insufficient. Often, states that create conditions for civilizational development appear on the historical stage in an imperial form. But not every empire creates its own civilization. Let us recall, at least, the empire of Genghis Khan, one of the largest and most influential empires of its historical epoch, which, nevertheless, did not give rise to a separate civilization.

Returning to the theory of A. Toynbee, whose methodology we use in our study, it should be emphasized that he considered religion as "the leading consolidating principle uniting a closed society, and used it as a criterion for evaluating the activities of civilization, along with remoteness from the place of initial origin" ^[8]. The historical process seems to be asking a question to humanity, Toynbee called this question a "challenge". Humanity, represented by its representatives, that is, individual peoples, gives peculiar, taking into account the specifics of the circumstances, "answers" to the questions posed. This is how the development and self-knowledge of peoples occur simultaneously. Despite the fact that the responses of peoples can be localized (most often it happens) and are unique, not reproducible by other participants in the historical process, the scientist does not deny the principle of unity of world history. This unity is determined by religious meaning, and the transition to a new stage of development is a transition to a religion of the highest order, which not only sets new spiritual guidelines, but also contributes to material improvement ^[33].

Thus, the key feature that makes it possible to separate one civilization as a developing historical community from another civilization as a developing historical community in a different way is religion or a sacred vertical that connects the peoples living in it with a certain hierarchy of meanings and values. At the same time, not only meanings and values are important, but also cultural practices that support and reproduce these meanings and values. Recognizing this feature as a key one, we can distinguish five stages of civilizational development in the history of our country.

1. Domoskovskaya Rus (IX-XIV centuries). At this stage, the origin and formation of the sacred vertical in the form of the Orthodox religion, which subsequently managed to ensure the spiritual unity of the Russian population, takes place. At the same time, an autocratic model of the organization of power is emerging, largely as a response to external threats emanating from both the West and the East.

2. The Moscow Kingdom (XV-XVII centuries). After the fall of Byzantium, the question arises about the successor of the civilizational mission of protecting Orthodoxy. No other power, besides the Russian one, could claim this mission due to the objective state of things. Gradually, the fullness of power in Russia is concentrated in the hands of the Moscow prince. The ideologeme "Moscow is the Third Rome" arises, substantiating the messianic claims of the Moscow kingdom. In the XVI century, the Prince of Moscow became a crowned Tsar, that is, a sacred figure personifying the imperial idea. There is a further expansion of the kingdom, in fact already during the reign of Ivan the Terrible, which became an empire ^[11].

3. The Russian Empire (XVIII century – the beginning of the XX century). During the reign of Peter I, the status of the Empire was officially assigned to Russia. The Sovereign henceforth bears the title of Emperor. At the same time, the role of Orthodoxy is gradually beginning to decrease. Firstly, the Orthodox Church finally loses its independence from the state after the abolition of the institution of the patriarchate and the introduction of the post of chief prosecutor at the Holy Synod, which since the beginning of the XIX century has actually become the head of the ROC. Secondly, the influence of European culture on the upper strata of the population is becoming more and more noticeable, and Orthodox ethics ceases to be a force connecting the elite, the state power and the common people. Thirdly, the State continues to expand, including new peoples professing other religions. The idea of "Moscow-the Third Rome" loses its former appeal and becomes questionable from the point of view of the justification of the imperial policy. The symbolic expression of this is the transfer of the capital to St. Petersburg. 

4. The Soviet Union (1917-1991). The Orthodox Empire turns out to be unable to give adequate answers to the challenges of history that have arisen before it. Torn by internal contradictions, it plunges into a revolutionary process. In the course of revolutionary transformations, Russian civilization is being reborn. The old one is replaced by a new one. In our opinion, it is quite appropriate to say that the Soviet civilization is not just a continuation of the existence of the former Russian civilization in a new guise, but it is a new civilization, of course, having a certain cultural continuity from the old one. Confirmation of this thesis is the fact that the system of sacred values and meanings has become fundamentally different. Moreover, in the official rhetoric of the ideologists of the party, much attention was paid to anti-imperial and anti-religious motives. And although one can agree with N.A. Berdyaev (he was the first to express this idea, although many later repeated it) that, in essence, the Soviet government was an imperial power, and the communist ideology was quasi-religious, this does not negate the fundamental difference in the approach of building the sacred vertical, and hence the type of civilizational development as such.

5. Russian Federation (1991 – present). By historical standards, the Soviet civilization did not last that long. The significance of the Soviet experience will probably still be appreciated. The supporting structures of the Soviet system were dismantled under the idea of Russia's entry into the "civilized world". It was assumed that the Russian Federation, after a wave of liberal democratic reforms, would be able to become part of Europe, its equal member. However, neither in geocultural, nor in geopolitical, nor in geo-economic spaces, Russia has failed to become part of European civilization. At the same time, it should be stated that at the moment she has not developed her sacred values, has not presented her ideal of development. In the civilizational sense, modern Russia is in a state of uncertainty.

Five variants of the strategy of civilizational developmentBased on the selected stages, described very briefly, so that the logic of their allocation is as transparent as possible, we can identify five options for the strategy of civilizational development.

We repeat, according to our understanding, the main criterion for separating one option from another is a fundamental difference in basic meanings and values, which are, firstly, sacred to society as a whole, and secondly, represent a certain system that is not only reproduced in the sphere of culture, but also reflected in the daily practices of the life of its ordinary member. 

Accordingly, if the main criterion for separating one strategy of civilizational development from another is the presence of a sacred system of values and meanings reproduced in society and penetrating into all its main spheres, we can suggest that one of the previously dominant ones will become such a system in modern times after its revival: Orthodox or communist. Or, as such, there will remain a system of values borrowed from another (Western) civilization at the end of the last century, the dominance of which is partly (I would like to emphasize that only partly) It is still preserved in the Russian socio-cultural space today. Or there will be the appearance of some fundamentally new system of values and meanings, which will eventually displace or level the meaning of the former ones. And finally, another option is possible, namely, the synthesis of Orthodox and communist meanings, which, in our opinion, it would be fair to designate as a separate strategy. In addition, we can suggest that the Russian civilization has entered a phase of its extinction or decomposition (this assumption is quite consistent with the logic of the theory of local civilizations), but in this case it would be wrong to talk about the strategy of civilizational development, because decomposition by definition is not development, but degradation. Thus, there are five possible options for the strategy of civilizational development.

1. European Russia. This option implies an understanding of Russia as part of European civilization. The attempt to implement it falls on the 90s of the last century. In the last decade (and especially after the spring of 2014), there has been a clear turn from this trajectory of development, assuming a focus on traditional values^[2]. However, despite the anti-Western rhetoric of the current government and its almost open confrontation with the collective West, it is too early to talk about abandoning this option of civilizational development. Our political institutions were built on the model of Western democracies. Our constitution was written based on the main ideologems of Western civilization^[3]. Our economy is built according to the patterns of Western capitalism (one can argue about how successfully, what type of capitalism prevails, but one cannot deny the capitalist nature of the system built), and none of the high-ranking officials called for a revision of its supporting principles. And although the current foreign policy and geopolitical situation is such that, it would seem, it forces us to abandon the pro-European strategy of civilizational development, there has not been a paradigmatic rejection of it. Will it happen? This is a question. The rationale for this development strategy can be found both in the works of major statesmen who made a significant contribution to the formation of the post-soviet Russian reality, such as E.T. Gaidar, A.B. Chubais ^[7], E.G. Yasin ^[38], and in articles and monographs of prominent scientists and liberal philosophers, such as A.A. Kara-Murza ^[17,18], S.A. Nikolsky ^[25], I.M. Klyamkin ^[23].  

2. Socialist Russia. This option implies a return to Soviet values and the communist idea. Left-wing meanings are quite popular in our country. According to various sociological studies, they are close from 20% to 40% of the population (the percentage difference depends on what is meant by left-wing meanings, how the sample is made, what is emphasized in the questionnaires, etc.). Two left-wing parties are represented in the State Duma. Public opinion leaders who appeal to the Soviet experience and communist goals, but are not directly part of state structures, are widely known. For example, S.E. Kurginyan, A.A. Prokhanov and N.N. Platoshkin. This suggests that this option has a significant chance of being implemented in reality. Among those who seriously consider this scenario of civilizational development, there are rarely calls for uncritical copying of the Soviet model. As a rule, we are talking about a new socialism (in N.N. Platoshkin), an improved version of the Soviet Union (in M. Kalashnikov) ^[22] or even the "spiritualization" of communism through "red" metaphysics (in S.E. Kurginyan) ^[24]. In a number of scientific and journalistic works, S.G. Kara-Murza substantiates the socialist paradigm of the civilizational development of Russia, whose books are also in great demand ^{[19, 20, 21]}.3. Orthodox Imperial Russia.

For most of its history, Russia has existed as an Orthodox empire. Traditional Orthodoxy has become an integral part of the history of our country. In recent decades, there has been a revival of his role in public life. Is Orthodoxy capable of fulfilling the same role it performed before the revolution? To be the spiritual support of the imperial ideology, allowing the state to expand, strengthen and find its place in a rapidly changing world? A number of circumstances prevent this. Firstly, the fact that Russia is a multi–confessional country, therefore, the state ideology, which has chosen one of the religions as its support, is capable of causing rejection among adherents of other religions. Secondly, there is a high proportion of non-religious people in Russia who, in principle, do not identify themselves with any of the religions. Thirdly, the modern world is a world of globalization processes leading to the interaction and interweaving of diverse cultures, while understanding one of them as dominant or "saving" narrows the horizons and turns out to be unacceptable for the most educated and free–thinking representatives of society. Nevertheless, these factors can be leveled or taken into account in their own way. In any case, this is what the defenders of the idea of the revival of Orthodox civilization are trying to do. One of the most profound thinkers among those who stood in this position was A.S. Panarin, who justified his view in a number of major works ^{[27, 28, 29]}. Of course, the number of supporters of this variant of the project of civilizational development of Russia is not limited by the name of A.S. Panarin. Suffice it to say that among the authors and experts of the "Russian Doctrine", a very monumental work, postulating essentially the same approach and prepared with a claim to become the "state ideology of the Putin era", there are about 40 people, among them: V. V. Averyanov, A. N. Anisimov, I. L. Brazhnikov, Ya. A. Butakov, P. V. Kalitin, A. B. Kobyakov, etc. ^[39]. L.G. Ivashov also argues from similar positions, trying to substantiate them from the point of view of the concept of geopolitics developed by him ^[14].4. Orthodox Socialist Russia.

This variant of civilizational development presupposes a synthesis of the Orthodox worldview and the socialist idea. However, it should be noted at once that the question is not raised about the synthesis of Christianity and Marxism, since such is impossible in principle. In essence, this is also a variant of Orthodox civilization, which in its social aspect presupposes the revival of the tradition of Christian communal life. Just like Marxism, this approach negates the inviolability of the right to private property, although it does not claim that the solution of the most important historical problems lies in the socialization of the means of production. The sacred vertical in this project of civilizational development is set by Orthodoxy. The same as in the previous one. Hence the same difficulties arise for its implementation. Its appeal lies in the fact that it seeks to combine the cultural and historical heritage of the Soviet and pre-revolutionary eras. The idea of Orthodox socialism as a Russian national idea is substantiated in the works of such modern philosophers as A.L. Kazin ^{[15, 16]} and N.V. Somin ^[31]. It should be said that such representatives of Russian religious philosophy as N.A. Berdyaev ^[2,3], V.F. Ern ^[37] and S.N. Bulgakov ^[4,5] expressed similar views.

5. New Russia. This is a common name for a potentially endless series of projects of civilizational development, implying the creation of a fundamentally new ideological platform that allows the "reset" of Russian civilization. It is unlikely that the creation of a new sacred vertical and a new development paradigm will have at least a small chance of success without relying on the millennial experience of the state and cultural development of Russia. But reliance does not mean repetition. In this case, we are talking about a new system of meanings and values that cannot be reduced to either Orthodoxy or Marxism, although it may borrow some components from them. It should be not only a system of meanings and values, but also practices that allow these meanings and values to be embodied in reality. In the event that such a "new religion" or "new ideology" turns out to be truly in demand, will be able to provide acceptable and "working" answers to the challenges of our time, inspire the general population, the prospect of the rebirth of Russian civilization will open. If it happens, it will be another civilization, another Russia. The main difficulty on this path appears to be the difficulty of overcoming "inertia", which binds to past patterns of development, to the archetypes dominating in the collective unconscious. At the same time, today there is an acute demand for a new reading of the problem of civilizational development. People are waiting for new ideas, looking for new ways. The Russian people are looking for their truth with special force. And, perhaps, it is not in the past, not in what has already happened, but in what is to be realized.

These are the five options for the strategy of civilizational development of Russia. From a scientific point of view, we cannot say which of these options is preferable, which of them should be implemented, and which is not. We can only describe the obstacles and identify favorable conditions for the implementation of a particular project. The choice of the path of civilizational development is essentially the choice of the "sacred matrix". Such a choice is never purely rational. This is the choice of the spirit. The spiritual choice of a particular person, the spiritual choice of an entire nation. By making this choice individually, we hope and believe that Russia, of which we feel like a part, will make the same choice, because if certain values are true for us, we, as people who want the good of their country, want our compatriots to share this truth. But one important thing should be recognized here.

Science does not have sufficient means to justify the fidelity of certain values. For their fidelity is revealed in supersensible experience, and not in the ways of rational logic. The fate of Marxism is indicative in this respect. His claims to be scientific turned out to be untenable. Not in the sense that the theory of surplus value and class sociology proved to be untenable as scientific paradigms, but in the sense that Marxism, as an ideology calling for action, required a person to believe in the "saving" power of revolution. Russian Russian Socialist revolution took place in Russia, and not in England or Germany (according to their level of development of productive forces more suitable for this), not because the Germans and the British understood Marx worse than the Russians, but because the Russians found "faith" in the ideal that Marx shared, and in the means to achieve it, which Lenin proposed. When the faith of the Soviet people in communism, and with it the trust of the Communist Party, began to disappear, Soviet civilization entered a phase of stagnation, and then decomposition.

We do not know and cannot know what the Russian people will believe in the new era, which, according to many signs, is already on the way. Will he return to the old faith or will he find a new one. But each of us is able to make his own choice right now. And thereby contribute to the cause of the Russian civilization. Since there is no dispute about faith, it is pointless to prove the correctness of a particular choice. It will be confirmed or refuted by the practice of life. Here we can only fix the truth that there are certain chances for the implementation of each of the above-mentioned options. Somewhere there are more of them, somewhere there are fewer of them. But how to evaluate? Who could have guessed in the I century A.D. that the teachings of one crucified Jew would be laid at the foundation of the most powerful world religion? Everything is possible. Each of the five projects listed above has certain chances. Another question is, what do we want? And how do our desires correlate with the objective challenges of the world historical process?

In the opinion of the author of this article, the last option is the most desirable and adequate to the prevailing conditions. The New Russia project. And in this regard, the concept of spiritual and ecological civilization proposed by Siberian scientists is very interesting. Because it attempts to formulate the philosophical basis of a new civilization. At the same time, civilization is not at all breaking ties with the high culture of the past, but absorbing its best achievements into itself. At the same time, it sets a new vector of development. It is from this angle that I propose to look at this concept. To what extent does it appear to be well-off as an updated version of Russian civilization? What prevents the implementation of this "new Russia" project? What, on the contrary, contributes to this? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the project in the context of globalization processes and global realities?

Metacultural synthesisIn order to understand the essence of the concept of spiritual and ecological civilization developed by A.V. Ivanov, I.V. Fotieva and M.Y. Shishin, it is necessary to consider the perspective of the synthesis of religion, science and philosophy.

It is in this perspective that the contours of the foundation of the skeleton of the future spiritual-ecological or noospheric civilization are seen. First of all, the authors remove the superficial opposition of scientific and religious forms of cognition.

"Science and religion, rational and heartfelt cognition are equally necessary and equally significant forms of human spiritual experience. And it is very significant that in the last quarter of the XX century there was an increasingly intense and steady convergence of these seemingly opposite forms of comprehension of being and even their partial inversion. This is also one of the evidences of the fundamental noospheric turn taking place in modern culture. Thus, it becomes obvious that the truths of religion, while eternal and universal, nevertheless open up their new facets and with a new degree of depth in different epochs in different religious and spiritual teachings. Scientific knowledge, plunging into the depths of man and the Cosmos, reaches such levels of generalizations today that it inevitably begins to "play" on traditional religious "fields" associated with spiritual life and existential human problems" ^{[11, p. 87]}.

In addition, interfaith confrontation is interpreted as a product of ignorance, a false understanding of the truths of one's religion.

"Thanks to the development of cross-cultural humanitarian studies, the illusory nature of the confrontation of world religions and, on the contrary, the deep inner connection of their fundamental ethical ideas and metaphysical foundations is beginning to be more and more clearly revealed. This connection is most evident in the unity of the moral ideals of all world religions" ^{[11, p. 87]}.

There are eternal religious truths and eternal values derived from them, which lie at the core of ancient cultures. But due to the fact that these truths were proclaimed at different times in different languages under different circumstances, their perception and further refraction in specific traditions and mental modulations began to differ from each other so much that it created insoluble contradictions. Overcoming these contradictions is possible, firstly, through a return to the origins, purification of the original meanings, and secondly, through an appeal to modern teachings that reveal the same truths in the context of metacultural synthesis.

Science cannot rediscover these truths, but its experience of cognition of reality is quite consistent with the experience of religious cognition, it is able to clarify the higher "supra-rational" truths in their refraction through the prism of empirical experience and logical reasoning. 

"In the process of such convergence of various types of experience — religious and scientific — we get, on the one hand, the possibility of "earthly" confirmation and clarification of the truths given from the "higher heavens"; and, on the other hand, we gain a means of "heavenly" synthesis of existing and prediction of future "earthly" truths that do not contradict the laws the whole and not destroying it. As a hypothetical outcome of such a mutually respectful dialogue between science and religion, for the first time in history, we can hope for a life in faith that does not contradict our scientific reason; and for reasonable knowledge that agrees with our heart" ^{[11, p. 88]}.

Philosophy, as a separate form of cognition, which cannot be reduced to either science or religion, is able to play a role in this matter of convergence of the two main lines of human movement to the truth. Absolute truth, comprehended in religious intuition, and relative truth, comprehended in scientific research, converge in the process of philosophical understanding of the general issues of the universe.

"Philosophy, of course, has a huge role to play in affirming the fundamental values of the noospheric worldview and in organizing a productive dialogue between science and religion. A large stock of valuable ideas and approaches has accumulated, in particular, Russian philosophy, which, in our opinion, have a pan-Eurasian and global significance" ^{[11, p. 89]}.

The ascending Man

A person is not only a given, but also an opportunity. Is there a limit to human perfection? There is no such limit. A man ascending, a man infinitely perfecting himself in the movement towards the absolute, through this movement returning to himself and returning to the world, realizing his unity with the world, and giving to the world what was given inside to become manifest outside. Noospheric civilization is a civilization of people striving for their own transformation, people who know the highest truths, using private knowledge for the benefit of their own and the whole Cosmos. Not consumption, but creation. Not the complacency of personal opinion, but the search for truth. Not the relativity of the ugly and the beautiful, but the affirmation of genuine art, not only as a form of artistic creativity, but also as the art of life. This is the self-consciousness of a spiritual person who does not oppose his spirituality to the material, but transforms matter by the power of his spirit.

The anthropology of the authors of the concept of spiritual and ecological civilization is based on the teaching of Living Ethics. There is no place in this article to analyze this Teaching. By its type of presentation, it is of a religious nature, that is, it requires acceptance of the stated provisions with an open heart, on faith. The authors of the analyzed civilizational concept accept this teaching and, in the language of philosophical rationality, reveal a number of its semantic provisions in the monograph "Ascending Man: philosophical and scientific synthesis of "Living Ethics". Some of them are present in a condensed form in this quote.

"The doctrine of "Living Ethics" asserts the unity of man and the world, micro- and macrocosm in several aspects. Firstly, their essential, ontological and structural-functional unity in the form of isomorphism of the "organism" of the Cosmos and the human body is substantiated. Secondly, the fundamental coherence of the three lines of evolution highlighted above is revealed. Thirdly, man appears as a transmuter of cosmic energy flows, structuring primary chaos and acting as a participant in space construction. And, fourthly, the issues of the relationship between the higher (deep) and the earthly Self; the higher Self and the world (Cosmos); the Self and the Other; the one and the individual receive a subtle interpretation" ^{[12, p. 218]}.

In our opinion, this anthropology can be defined as the anthropology of transformation. Three features of it can be distinguished. Firstly, the understanding of man as a microcosm, living in an inextricable connection with the macrocosm and reflecting its structure. Secondly, the idea of a person as a subject in the process of continuous evolution, the responsibility for the successful course of which lies with him, and is not only a task given from above, but also a creative task. Thirdly, the boundlessness of the human spirit and his higher self is postulated, which means the fundamental openness of the flow of history, both in its personal and social dimensions, while such openness implies multi-stage development, transitions to qualitatively different states, including those inaccessible to the mind of an "earthly" person. The author of this article also agrees with these provisions.

Environmental friendlinessMan belongs to the Cosmos, just as the Cosmos belongs to man.

The inner world reflects the outer world. But what will become of a person's inner world if he refers to the outside, everything that lies outside of himself, or, more precisely, what he identifies himself with as a consumer? If the external – close people, nature, social relations, the state, other planets – serve only as a means to obtain additional resources, a person who has chosen such a life strategy gradually emasculates his own forces, directing them not to creative activity, but through consumer passion. Understanding the outside world as a home in which we live, and which we need to take care of as much as ourselves, is at the heart of eco-consciousness. Environmental friendliness in the broadest sense of the word implies a reorientation of a person from a consumer attitude to the Cosmos as a whole and the earth's nature as a part of it to an attitude of careful interaction with it. In the narrow sense of the word, environmental friendliness refers to the quality of human life, production or technology used, which allows not to harm the environment. In our opinion, the task should be not only the preservation of natural wealth, but also its increase. This understanding is fully consistent with the understanding of the authors of the concept of a spiritually eco-friendly civilization.

"In general, we can say that the common task of the peoples of Eurasia in terms of ecology is the preservation and increment of natural capital as the foundation of all spheres of human activity" ^{[13, p. 180]}.

V.I. Vernadsky believed that the degree of this impact in the near future would become so great (apparently, the near future for Vernadsky is the present for us) that humanity would be forced to take responsibility for the development of the biosphere on itself ^[6]. If it does not do this, if there is no solidary approval of international ethics, an integral part of which will be environmental friendliness, humanity will be threatened with death due to violations of the natural processes of reproduction of the biosphere. Human thought, according to V.I. Vernadsky, has turned into a powerful "geological force" transforming the planet. The formation of the noosphere is taking place – such a sphere of interaction between society and nature, within the boundaries of which the human mind becomes a decisive factor in evolution. In a certain sense, the formation of such a sphere has already occurred, but the question is not only what is the strength of the influence of the human mind on nature, but also what is the quality of human thought, and hence the vector of this influence.  It is the quality of thought that will determine the appearance of the future civilization.

Psychology has its own concept of environmental friendliness. The environmental friendliness of consciousness is a careful attentive attitude to the content of one's psyche. Everything that hinders the maintenance of harmonious relations with oneself and other people should be cleaned or changed. These are, for example, installations that postulate the normal violation of foreign borders. Or a negative attitude towards people with a different gender or national identity. Or the idea that my desire is always more important than the desire of another person. By the way, the opposite belief, namely that the desire of another is always more important than mine, will also lead to a violation of the principle of environmental friendliness, but at the expense of your personal resources.

Without delving into the psychological aspects of this principle, we will only note that its understanding can be very broad: psychological, social, biological, general humanitarian. His main task is to harmonize the relations between man, society and nature. Such a harmonization that will create conditions for the comprehensive development of a person as a spiritual being. This is the essence of noospheric civilization.

"The essence of noospheric civilization is that scientific and technological progress, the production of material goods and services, political and financial and economic interests should not be a goal, but only a means of harmonizing relations between society and nature, an aid to the assertion of the highest ideals of human existence: infinite knowledge, comprehensive creative development and moral improvement" ^{[11, p. 22]}.

Russia, Eurasia and SiberiaUnderstanding Russia as a Eurasian country that combines elements of the cultures of the peoples of the East and West is an important part of the concept of noospheric civilization.

The authors emphasize the spiritless nature of the technogenic-consumer civilization of the modern West and the possibilities for updating the development strategy through the activation of the spiritual resources of the cultures of the East. But it is not in the departure to the East that such a renewal is seen, but in the organic synthesis of European and Asian cultures.

"Thus, the unification of eastern and Western elements in the formation of the Eurasian cultural and geographical world is not their mechanical mixing, but represents an organic synthesis, a new quality, where each nation retains its own "facial features" - Russian, Mongolian, Kazakh, Belarusian and Tatar, Kyrgyz and Uzbek, Ukrainian and Turkmen. The traits of the Russian people include, first of all, the spirit of heartfelt openness, selflessness and brotherhood" ^{[11, p. 42]}.

These features allow the Russian people to act as a collector of lands and a unifier of different peoples.

"Russia is destined to fulfill some major world unification task, at least because of its vast spatial extent on the Eurasian continent and the unification of dozens of different ethnic groups in its composition: Slavic, Turkic, Mongolian, Ugro-Finnish and Paleoasiatic" ^{[11, p. 43]}.

The Eurasian worldview, the awareness of Russia as a middle country located in the center of the Eurasian continent, and by virtue of its position designed, on the one hand, to serve as a bridge connecting different states and civilizations, on the other hand, to express the synthesis of cultures of different peoples in itself, can be traced in many outstanding thinkers of our country. These include not only the Eurasians themselves (N.S. Trubetskoy, P.N. Savitsky, N.N. Alekseev, G.V. Vernadsky, P.P. Suvchinsky, L.N. Gumilev, etc.), but also their predecessors and their followers. A number of outstanding predecessors include A.S. Pushkin, A.S. Khomyakov, D.I. Mendeleev, F.M. Dostoevsky, and K.N. Leontiev. The authors rightly draw attention to this. This worldview is revealed in a new way in the concept of spiritual and ecological civilization.

If Russia is the center of Greater Eurasia, then Siberia is the center of Russia. If Russia has a special role to play in the history of mankind, then Siberia has a special role to play in the history of Russia. This idea is substantiated in three monographs at once and is fully revealed in the book "The Civilizational mission of Siberia: from the technogenic-consumer to the spiritual-ecological strategy of global and regional development", published quite recently, in 2022 ^[41]. The publication of this book, in our opinion, is very important and timely.

Firstly, it presents a study of the socio-cultural potential of Siberia and quite convincingly shows that the use of this potential in the perspective of changing the strategy of civilizational development can have a positive effect. Secondly, a proposal was made to consider the development of Siberia as the third Russian strategic geo-project and specific practical recommendations were given on updating the capabilities of the Siberian civilizational locus. Thirdly, the features of the Siberian socio-cultural space are identified and described, taking into account which, further development and development of the region becomes thoughtful, correlated both with the experience of past generations and with current sociodynamics. This work was performed at a very high level by a team of nine authors (A.V. Ivanov, Yu.V. Popkov, I.V. Fotieva, M.Y. Shishin, S.I. Bondarenko, T.A. Artamonova, I.N. Kalanchina, S.M. Zhuravleva, L.G. Apenysheva), which in itself allows us to talk about the preservation of the cathedral the spirit among Siberian scientists. In our opinion, this collective monograph needs to be popularized in the scientific community, and it is also a separate task to convey at least a number of its key ideas (especially the idea of the development of Siberia as the third strategic geo-project) to government structures.

In general, sharing the proposed paradigm, I would like to make one methodological remark. In our opinion, the classical division into West and East, and, accordingly, the desire to find Russia's place in this division as a civilization that does not belong to either the West or the East (recall P.Ya. Chaadaev), or, conversely, as being in the West and in the East (recall N.A. Berdyaev), in many ways no longer corresponds to the world architecture of socio-cultural formations. The differences between the civilizations of the East (China, India, Southeast Asia, the Islamic World) are too great to be attributed to one megacivilization. Those common features that stand out as common to the countries of the East ^{[41, p.19]} are questionable. For example, it is not clear what the statement about the deeper religiosity of the modern Chinese in comparison with the European is based on. Or about the greater role of the centralized state in the life of Indian society in comparison with the American one. A more productive research approach seems to be the division used by the leading leaders of civilizational theory (Danilevsky, Toynbee, Spengler) into separate macro-regions of the world without contrasting them by parts of the World. This approach will allow Russia to find its place in the world architecture without unnecessary identification with the West, the East or the West-East. Russia as Northern Eurasia is a separate independent civilization, and its uniqueness, in our opinion, should be determined not by its location, which has already been set, but by the contribution it is able to make to world culture, those ideals and projects that it is able to offer to the world community of countries.

With this understanding, Russia in general and Siberia in particular, as a kind of geographical heart of the Eurasian locus, is perceived as a suitable place to realize the best opportunities for the evolution of mankind in the current era. However, the availability of opportunities is not identical to the inevitability of their activation. In our opinion, it is preferable to talk about a civilizational mission that can be implemented in Siberia, as in the most suitable for this region of the world, but this mission itself is assigned not to Siberia, and not even to Russia, but to that part of the Russian people (however, not necessarily only Russian, international cooperation is also quite acceptable), who will be ready to take on this mission. And this mission is to change the course of human integration, not to abandon it, not to blindly oppose the process of globalization, but to discover ways of synergistic interaction between civilizations and the foundation on which a common home could be built for all peoples inhabiting the globe.

Convergent model of the economy

If we characterize the model of economic development proposed by the authors of the noospheric civilization concept very briefly, then it can be called a mobilization cooperative eco-friendly management system. It assumes, first of all, the postulation of humanistic goals, and not the subordination of a person to economic indicators (the level of profit, indices of competitive advantages, the amount of resources extracted, etc.), for the latter the authors criticize the capitalist system. The economy is understood as an "auxiliary tool" designed to provide:

1) - "the harmonious reproduction of man himself as a physically healthy, culturally enlightened and spiritually developed being;

2) - the existence of a system of rational and conflict-free social relations, where there is no violence and exploitation of man by man, but fraternal and kind-hearted relations between people, countries and peoples prevail;

3) - sustainable interaction of society and nature, whose resources belong not only to us, but also to subsequent generations of citizens of the Earth" ^{[13, p. 119]}

The paradigm of life underlying the capitalist (technogenic-consumer) economic system, encouraging the pursuit of an increase in quantitative indicators and an artificial increase in material needs, leads: "firstly, to the transformation of the person himself into a physically lustful, egocentric and aggressive spiritless being, prone to various mental pathologies; secondly, to the growth of pathological processes and conflicts in society on the principle of "man to man is a wolf"; thirdly, to irreversible degradation of the natural environment and exhaustion of resources" ^{[13, p. 119]}.

However, the authors do not propose to replace the capitalist model with a socialist model of the Stalinist type. Recognizing a number of advantages of the latter, they also recognize its shortcomings. In the present time, in their opinion, it should be a combination of socialist and capitalist elements, market and planned mechanisms for regulating economic relations. In essence, the idea expressed earlier by P.A. Sorokin about the convergence of two systems is repeated. The priority is not one or another form of ownership or management model, but the humanistic goals indicated above. Not a person for the economy, but an economy for a person. What will allow, taking into account modern conditions, to achieve the set goals?

The authors propose the following measures: 1) Activation of state resources for major projects that allow accelerated development of industry, agriculture, modernization of infrastructure, as well as to ensure the effectiveness of scientific research and improve the quality of higher education 2) Rejection of the dollar as the world reserve currency in order to ensure the independence of the national financial system 3) Coexistence and coordinated interaction of various types of property in such a way, to turn the country's economy into a single multi-level corporate-cooperative system. 4) The formation of a single Eurasian continental market taking into account the natural and climatic factors of the space of Northern Eurasia and the characteristics of the constituent macro-regions on the basis of a centralized plan 5) Intangible stimulation of collective and individual labor asceticism. 6) Rapid transition to a "green economy". Introduction of eco-friendly technologies into industry, and at the same time reasonable development and use of the reserve of natural resources without harm to nature itself ^{[13, pp. 129-134]}.

The proposals put forward in the general logic of the considered model of civilizational development of Russia, in our opinion, look reasonable and justified. Questions arise not in relation to the proposed measures that would make it possible to make a socio-economic breakthrough if they were taken at the time (8 years have passed since the writing of the cited monograph), but in relation to who will be ready to apply these measures, who is able to become a subject of development. To try to answer this question, it is necessary to move on to the political component of the content of the noospheric civilization project.

The State of Truth The authors of the project take the Eurasian idea of the "state of truth" as a political ideal.

In contrast to the rule of law, the state of truth or the guarantee state (N.N. Alekseev's term) sets its highest goal not to observe the formal rights and freedoms of the individual, but to provide conditions for the comprehensive development of a person, and, first of all, for his spiritual and moral improvement. The value of the right is not denied, but is understood as a component of the value of truth. Human rights must be guaranteed by the State. But the right itself makes sense not as a negative freedom "from", but as an opportunity for the realization of positive freedom "for". For good, for good, for beauty. The State undertakes to create such conditions for every person, regardless of their gender, ethnic origin, religious affiliation, place of residence and political beliefs. To create such conditions, the State undertakes to use all the resources and institutions available to it. Such a political ideal, in our opinion, fits organically into the general concept of noospheric civilization and, not least, largely corresponds to the traditions of Russian political culture.

The authors creatively continue to criticize liberal democracy, relying on both the classics of Russian political and philosophical thought and contemporaries. The sharp point of criticism is that this form of government is inherently hypocritical. Behind the "mask" of the rule of the popular majority hides the reality of the rule of a minority closed in its own interests. It is appropriate to recall the definition of democracy given at the time by A.I. Herzen, namely as "the power of an organized minority over a disorganized majority." Russian Russian conservatives in the person of K.P. Pobedonostsev and K.N. Leontiev, and Russian soil scientists such as N.N. Strakhov and F.M. Dostoevsky, and leaders of Russian communists, V.I. Lenin and L. D. Trotsky, and representatives of religious thought, including V.S. Solovyov and N.A. Berdyaev, and the theorists of Eurasianism, N.S. Trubetskoy and L.P. Karsavin, agree in their critical rejection of liberal democracy. Siberian philosophers continue this line. But what do they offer in return?

Instead of consistently rejecting the idea of democracy itself, the idea of organic democracy is proposed. Its weakness is seen not so much in the very possibility of carrying out appropriate institutional reforms, but rather in the lack of potential behind these reforms for a real solution to the problem of power. Democracy as a form of government implies the postulation of the position that the source of power is the "popular majority". However, the opposite is organic, natural for public life: the management of the minority by the majority. As much as we would like otherwise, there are many confirmations of this thesis in history. We believe it is appropriate here to recall the reasoning of P.I. Novgorodtsev (by the way, who treated the idea of democracy itself with a high degree of sympathy) on this topic.

"The degree of remoteness of modern democracies from the democratic ideal is recognized especially in one very significant point, namely, in the question of the actual implementation of democracy. Rousseau, of course, was right when he combined with the concept of true democracy the lively and direct participation of the whole people not only in legislation, but also in governance, when he argued that the system of representation is a departure from democracy in the strict sense of the word. But at the same time, he was well aware of how difficult it is to put into practice a genuine democratic idea; for, as he said, "it is contrary to the natural order that the majority govern and the minority be governed." And indeed, in democracies, with natural necessity, a few, a leading minority, leaders who direct the general political life are always put forward over the general mass of the people. It has been noticed for a long time and, moreover, a completely natural phenomenon that democracy almost always turns into an oligarchy, into the rule of a few" ^[26].

It is necessary to understand the stated idea correctly. It does not lead to a conclusion about the need to destroy the institutions of popular representation, only the emphasis is placed on the fact that the minority almost always plays a leading role in the social process. Either a minority, a group of individuals acting in their own interests, or a minority, a union of individuals capable of realizing the seriousness of the historical challenges facing society and accommodating a synthetic response to them. Such an answer, which, implemented in reality, will ensure the transition to the next stage of development. In other words, in the context of the problem of civilizational development, the question is raised about the subject who is able to take responsibility for the implementation of a new strategic project.

In order for something to be realized, a will directed towards the goal is necessary. In order for something to be realized in the social space, the will of the social subject is necessary, directed towards the goal shared by its members. The goal itself, the original meta-idea, can appear in the mind of one person. However, even if we assume that he will have a perfect will, without like-minded people, he will not be able to take even a few steps to implement his plans. The consistency of the wills of a certain number of people is necessary. The energy generated by this solidarity aspiration can subsequently capture the masses. But not at the first stages. If we raise the question of a new civilization, of a new strategy, the prerogative will be for a group of leaders leading themselves, and not led by some kind of "people's will", which in fact has almost never happened in history, perhaps, with the exception of extremely difficult situations, such as defensive wars, requiring general mobilization and cohesion.

Is it not because, in the conditions of increasing chaos in 1917, the Bolsheviks managed to take the initiative into their own hands and literally "recreate" the country on completely different grounds, that they represented a well-disciplined, centralized, solidary, ready for decisive action, group of people? They were sure they were right. What they were right about as a result, and what they were wrong about, is a separate topic. A sense of confidence in your beliefs allows you to act without unnecessary doubts, without hesitation. In political practice, especially in times of crisis, which require the authorities to be able to make decisions quickly, this is an important quality. Isn't Russia going through a transitional period right now that requires the coordination of the wills of people who are striving for the future and have one big goal?

N.N. Alekseev also understood the need to create such an association, union, party or "religious order". Siberian authors share his idea of the "state of truth". And they present it as one of the components of the concept of spiritual and ecological civilization. The author of these lines also shares the idea of the "state of truth". But otherwise they understand the mechanisms of implementation of this idea. Not through the re-establishment of institutions of representative democracy, which, as correctly noted in these monographs ^{[4, 7]}, have never really worked, but through the creation of a well-organized association of people interested in changing the strategic course of civilizational development. It is not necessary that all these people should be involved in political activities. Another thing is more important, mutual understanding between them and their mutual coordination in the general direction of versatile affairs. Such unity is achieved only on the basis of an integral worldview. This is how N.N. Alekseev understood the essence of the Eurasian movement.

"We are an ideological association and we always identify ourselves as such an association. We have not only a program, we are united by a doctrine, a set of dogmas, a whole worldview, a whole philosophy. In this sense, formally we are closer to socialists and communists, especially to such as Marxists. But we are decidedly separated from socialism by our entire worldview. Apart from the fact that we are building a completely different social system than socialism, we are also putting forward completely different moral, social, philosophical and religious teachings. We do not profess the Western religion of the public, we do not believe that the solution of the social issue is the last human problem, we reject the theory of an earthly paradise. Political action for us, as for socialists, is not an end in itself, we also strive for political action for special, supreme purposes, but these goals are not for us to achieve final social well-being on this planet. That is why our tasks are not covered either by politics or by plans for social transformations, as with the Socialists. In this sense, our association, if we characterize it by the target moment, is closer to such associations as a religious order" ^[1]. 

For one reason or another, the Eurasians failed to create a party, in its integrity, in the coherence of the organization and loyalty to the idea, similar to the Leninist Party of the Bolsheviks. When the dismantling of the Soviet system took place, there was no social entity that could replace the losing power of the CPSU. This is one of the reasons for the tragedy that happened. Nevertheless, the task of creating such a union or order, in our opinion, remained. Only the basis of the conciliar unity of the members of the union should be not Marxist dogmatics, and not Orthodox worldview (the latter was assumed by the Eurasians), but a new cosmic consciousness manifested in the thought and life of representatives of Russian cosmism, understood in the broadest sense of the word, and most clearly manifested in the teaching of Living Ethics, which has already been mentioned here. But again, we are not talking about some special "esotericity" or far-fetched election of the members of the union, but about their ability to synthetic thinking and righteous action.

Such an alliance, it seems to us, is capable of ensuring the transition to a meritocratic form of government, involving the delegation of authority to the most worthy representatives of society. The principle of hierarchy is one of the supporting principles of the entire universe. What does the observance of this principle mean in public life? It means that the most responsible, gifted, qualified and honest people are appointed or selected for the positions of heads of various enterprises, organizations and state bodies. But how to make a qualitative selection? If there is an out-of-state organization that is openly or invisibly present in various spheres of society (cultural, political, economic, civil, religious), helping its members in their promotion to high positions, to key positions of the social system, this selection can be made naturally while maintaining a balance between the support of the majority (popular vote) and sanctioned by an enlightened minority (elite consensus). There is no need to fear "elitism", one way or another, the elite is present in all countries and at all times intra-elite agreements have played a large, often decisive role in making decisions of national importance. We believe that the task is not to try to create a society without an elite, but to change the principles of elite formation. Just like the Eurasians, we believe that these principles should be related to the worldview (adherence to sacred values and meanings) of potential members of the ruling minority, as well as to the effectiveness of their practical activities to implement these values and meanings in public life.

Unlike the Eurasians, the term "ideocracy" seems inappropriate to us. As well as the term "hagiocracy" (lit. "the power of shrines"), introduced at the time by P.I. Novgorodtsev as an opposition to the democratic idea. The latter is also mentioned in the monograph "On the way to a new civilization" as a possible alternative to a democratic system. In both of these terms, there is a depersonalization of power. Power, by its very nature, is closely connected with the volitional aspect of a human being. Political power is always the power of someone, not something. From a psychological perspective, one can talk about the power of ideas, the power of passions, the power of music or the power of shrines. But in a social context, such reasoning loses its meaning. Perhaps a person who is subject to harmful passions or driven by a high idea turned out to be at the head of the state (in this sense, they will have power over them), but in the perspective of the relationship of this powerful person with other persons subordinate to him, it matters that he has a certain will that he transmits to people who are obliged to fulfill it. The poet in the classical typology of forms of government (monarchy, despotism, aristocracy, oligarchy, democracy, ochlocracy) solves the question of power through the designation of its source as a volitional subject. The concept of meritocracy fully satisfies this criterion, and therefore, in our opinion, it seems to be the most suitable as an integral element of the concept of spiritual-ecological (noospheric) civilization, especially since in essence it is quite coherent with the idea of the "state of truth".

^[1] The concept is presented in six collective monographs: A.V. Ivanov, I.V. Fotieva, M.Y. Shishin. The Tablets of Metahistory: creators and stages of spiritual and ecological civilization. Barnaul: Publishing House of I.I. Polzunov AltSTU; Publishing House of the Altai 21st Century Foundation, 2006. 640 p; Ivanov A.V. Eurasianism: key ideas, values, political priorities: monograph / A.V. Ivanov, Yu.V. Popkov, E.A. Tyugashev, M.Yu. Shishin. Barnaul: Publishing house "ABC", 2007. 243 p.; Ivanov A.V. Spiritual and ecological civilization: foundations and prospects: monograph / A.V. Ivanov, I.V. Fotieva, M.Yu. Shishin. Ed. 2nd, ispr. Barnaul: Publishing House of ASAU, 2010. 133 p.; Ivanov A.V., Fotieva I.V., Shishin M.Yu. Ascending man: philosophical and scientific synthesis of "Living Ethics". - Barnaul: Publishing House of the Altai - 21st Century Foundation, 2012. 512 p.; Ivanov A.V., Fotieva I.V., Shishin M.Yu. On the way to a new civilization (essays on spiritual and ecological worldview). — Barnaul: AltSTU Publishing House, 2014. 219 p.; Civilizational mission of Siberia: from technogenic-consumer to spiritual-ecological strategy of global and regional development: monograph (team of authors; edited by A.V. Ivanov) — Barnaul: New format, 2022. — 368 p.

^[2] In early November 2022, the President of Russia signed a decree "On the approval of the foundations of state policy for the preservation and strengthening of traditional Russian spiritual and moral values." This is a very revealing act, confirming the stated thesis.

^[3] Thus, the recognition of the highest value of human and civil rights and freedoms (Article 2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation) without mentioning other values along with it (for example, the value of justice, more significant from the point of view of historically prevailing sentiments in Russian political culture) is a clear sign of the liberal nature of the basic law of our country. The amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation adopted in 2020 are cosmetic in this regard, without affecting its basic provisions.