Alexander Koptyakov
Applied Love

01 Problems

Writer: It was a warm, dry Moscow evening. We walked to the Hermitage Garden Park with my wife and her friend. I looked around so that by the time we got there they would not be hit by cars at traffic lights. They talked with enthusiasm about life. We haven't seen each other for a long time, the news has accumulated. I walked alongside and listened with the edge of my ear. “Problems” … Problems here, problems there, and with this and this, there are many problems. Oh, these women's conversations! What if it's really a problem ?! I felt uncomfortable. And it seems that, personally, everything is in order for me, but when you love someone, and that someone has problems, as if you have them. I decided to help somehow and carefully wedged myself into the conversation:

– Girls. Do you know how problems differ from tasks?

– How?

– Now, if you need to do something, but it is not clear how much time, money, or personal energy it will take, then this is a problem. But if you know about the time frame, and you will not need fantastic money, and you seem to be able to do it, then this is a task! Even if you need a lot of money, or time – a year or a few, it is still a big task, but a task. If we figure it out in this way – what do you have more: problems or tasks?

– Mmm… If you look like that, then there are no problems at all. There are many tasks…

We just came to the entrance to the park. My heart was relieved and it even seemed that the evening had become brighter. We could already hear the sounds of jazz from the stage, so we went straight to it and completely surrendered ourselves to music and relaxation…

Consultant: After all, a writer is a writer! How beautifully you know how to tell! Meanwhile, after you told me this story for the first time, I immediately used it in my book "Management for Dummies". You are a writer, but I write and publish books! Funny, isn't it?! :)

Engineer: FIRE!

Writer: Oh my God! What's on fire?

Consultant: Don't panic! We all get up together and calmly walk to the exit. We do not use the elevator, we go down the stairs.

Engineer: Stop, stop, stop. You don't have to go anywhere, I was joking.

Consultant: Joking?!

Engineer: More precisely, I conducted an experiment. To test a hypothesis. Look, I said just one word – "fire", and each of you started programs in the nervous system. The writer got excited instantly, and you have a program of action. And not surprisingly, you said that the security department conducts regular training fire alarms in your company there. So it turns out – one word, and immediately the release of hormones, increased heart rate, activation of certain nervous complexes. While you are calming down, I will finish the thought. It turns out that the Writer is absolutely right. You use the word “task” instead of the word “problem” and a completely different internal state, less anxiety, psychic energy is not spent on experiencing. Of course, without self-hypnosis – "I am the most charming and attractive", just a blow with facts and logic on problems! I draw on the board …

Consultant: I propose not to be satisfied with what has already been achieved and to deal one more blow to the problems. Here you drew an arrow to the problems when there is uncertainty. But we try to avoid problems – the so-called negative valence in Kurt Lewin's field theory. And if you imagine something for which there is no time, effort and money, but what we strive for, what we want to achieve or get. What's the best word?

Writer: Dream!

Consultant: Dream – great! Here comes the second blow to the problems!

Consultant: I remembered the third blow to the problems – anecdote …: A Jew comes to a rabbi:

– Rebbe, there are so many problems in life, so many problems! What to do?

– Don't worry, God gives a person as many trials as he can endure. Therefore, either you will cope with your problems, or these are not your problems! :)

Writer: It seems to me that we have groped for a good deed. By simply asking himself the right questions, a person can get rid of most of the problems in their head by transforming them into tasks or dreams!

Engineer: But you can even translate a dream into a task …

Consultant: Wait, wait. Don't touch the dream with your engineering hands! :)

But seriously, it is very sad to see how people thoughtlessly use words, and do not use the richness of the language. From generation to generation, the most frequently used words, which most fully reflect the essence of things, have been fixed in the language. Words, in turn, are connected at a deep level with neurophysiological programs, as you rightly noted: fire – we run, problem – we are worried, task – we do not worry and we solve the task, dream – we are dreaming :)

Writer: Writing was brought to Russia by the Slavic educators Cyril and Methodius, they created the alphabet and began translating from the Greek language, first of the biblical, and then of other texts. It's not just one word for another to change – it was necessary to convey the meanings! And this matter is more complicated than – "mirror" as "solid water" – for the natives to translate. It was necessary to put all the huge worldview and cultural layers of the Greek civilization accumulated at that time into Cyrillic texts for our ancestors. Just imagine the thought process of two holy people in the IX century, burying the gold of the Bible and ancient philosophers in the land of the Russian language between turnip and buckwheat under a torch burying the gold of the Bible. We still have to dig up and dig up. And we not only do not think about the roots and meanings of words. On the contrary, we use them so carelessly that a real devaluation occurs, and entire universes of meanings are cut off from human experience. Take the same “love”. Ask who on the street – what is “love”? What thoughts will move in your head? Hearts on postcards, sexual love, love for the homeland? Are there many meanings behind this? Eh, problem …

Consultant: Well, don't worry so much. Let's get back to the positive from where we started. There is a good approach for careful word handling that actually works. Many management techniques are ways to translate problems into tasks with the subsequent achievement of a result.

Engineer: Techniques, methods, methodologies … Just don't be offended. Personally, I believe in science. And now, as my wife says, “every gopher is an agronomist”. And everyone has their own ingenious idea, their own method.

Consultant: You are right, science is broader. But the distinguishing characteristic of any method is that it works, it actually works. Although, it is possible in a limited area. I have thoughts on this, but come on next time? I already got tired somehow.

Writer: Let's start with this. See you again, my friends!

02 Methods

Consultant: Well, well, I promised to tell you about the methods. Organizational development, which I am engaged in, is difficult to call an established science. Rather, it is a collection of theories and methods. At the same time, largely thanks to our conversations with you, it is no longer enough for me to simply apply working methods, knowledge and skills. I dug deeper. Now I'll tell you with a simple example… Who and when was the last one on a fishing trip?

Engineer: Oh … I haven't been for a thousand years. Work-home-work. I began to catch myself thinking that I was waiting for my retirement so I could start fishing again. As you and I were then at the end of school – the beginning of the university.

Writer: I'm afraid NOT to be mistaken if I say that the last time I went fishing was with you… twenty years ago. Have you decided to upset us?

Consultant: Not at all. Just a good example. Imagine: a person is hungry and wants to eat fish. What will an ordinary kind person offer? That's right – fish. What will the consultant-methodologist do? That's right, the methodologist will say – "I'd rather give you a fishing rod and teach you how to fish"! :) And then he will start to learn: first – there is no fish in the toilet! And in winter it is pointless to drill holes on the ice rink too. We need a river or lake. We take a fishing rod with a fishing line, a float, a sinker, a hook and go to the shore. We string a worm on a hook, throw it into the lake and wait. If the float moves, the fish bites. When the float has sunk – hook it! Pull the rod and haul out the fish – voila!

Engineer: Well, you somehow very primitively told. There are many subtle points.

Consultant: But just at the subtle points, differences in methodologies begin in an amount equal to the number of methodologists! :) What time do you need to start catching, where is it better to dig for worms, what kind of bait to throw into the water to lure the fish, and so on.

Writer: You also need to spit on the worm before throwing it into the water…

Consultant: Shh… !!! :) These are secret techniques, they are revealed only to the “elite” during additional personal trainings!

Engineer: For an extra fee?

Consultant: For an extra fee. :) But this is not the main thing. A person remains on the surface, without looking, so to speak, into the depths. Nothing is told or understood about how life is organized under water.

Writer: Does a person need this? After all, if the method works, if the bucket is full of fish, why know how everything is organized there under water?

Consultant: Exactly! I wanted to tell you about this. People learn a working technique and stop there. If there are more conventional “fish” than a neighbor's – it means that the technique is better, or it has been mastered better. You can calm down…

But suddenly, the situation changes. Instead of a calm lake, there is a turbulent river. The old approach doesn't work. We need a new method and a new methodologist. It may happen that there is no suitable method – there is no one to ask or the situation is unique, no one has ever encountered such a thing. What to do? Starving to death? Trying to go through all sorts of options with the hope that something will accidentally work and a new method will be found? Isn't it more effective to understand what is really going on under water? Then the techniques themselves will be baked like hot cakes. If the general principles are clear, the particular option is always obvious. I hope it’s clear that I’m not talking about fishing for a long time, but about any methods.

Engineer: It seems to me that you demand too much from an ordinary person. A common man needs a method when he can take money, go to the store and buy fish. If the store is closed – there is a 24-hour supermarket nearby.

Consultant: Well, of course I'm not talking about an ordinary person. You yourself asked about science and methods. Science looks at the root, understands the foundations. And the method is how knowledge is applied in a specific situation. Although, you know, sometimes, in general terms, for any person to be successful in his field of activity, it is necessary to “look under the water”. In my training sessions, I often start with this slide:

The first level of maturity of understanding is "HOW?"

"The little son came to his father and asked: what is good and what is bad?" At this level, they usually say, “Do it! Don't do that! ” Without much explanation. Our managers sin with this. They give orders and wait not for questions, but for exact execution. Subordinates in this case gradually degrade, turning off their own brain. Or they connect it only in order to think of not rushing to carry out the order, because it can be canceled or another, more important task will come down.

The second level of maturity is "WHAT?"

I remember that it was a real discovery for me in management training. Before that, I felt like a very cool specialist, who knew "HOW" in the first specialty. And then it turned out that the world is more complicated, and if you did the right thing that nobody needs, then I'm sorry … “HOW” was not enough to be effective. It was necessary to understand “WHAT” to do in the current situation, which can, of course, change.

The third level of maturity is “WHY? WHAT FOR?"

If knowing "HOW" is practical, knowing "WHAT" gives tactical advantages, then the answer to the question "WHY?" – strategic! This is about maturity, about long planning horizons. For large companies doing business for a long term, this is the main question – "WHY?" Because you can win all the battles, but lose the war. Simon Sinek talks and writes a lot about this in his books. One of them seems to be called – “Start with WHY”

Engineer: I also noticed how people seemed to make completely different choices in the same situations. Some thought in the category “I need it now, and then at least the grass won't grow!”, while others took into account the consequences that may come in the future in a few years.

Writer: Agree, in this light, the behavior of a true believer may seem less naive, who answers the questions “why” at a particular moment, having eternal life as the planning horizon…

Consultant: Well … three levels: "HOW", "WHAT" and "WHY". But I have defined one more – the highest level of maturity, the fourth – ONTOLOGY. This is a search for answers to the question – how everything is organized. For example, we do not ask ourselves a question – why not take a step from the roof of a 15-storey building? As if everything is clear: if you take a step, you will fly down and crash to death. This is how the physical world is organized. Therefore, I am sure that once you understand the ontology, you can very easily answer all the previous questions – WHY? WHAT? HOW? This means that it can help anyone in any area. Although in scale it already looks like science. And if the answers are given only on the first three levels, on the first two, or, in general – only to the question "HOW?" – this is definitely a methodology!

Writer: “Methodology” – from Greek – the teaching of methods. As I understand it from our conversation today: science is more powerful than methodologies, which can be many different on one topic. And you, by the way, do not bother that there are also a lot of sciences? A whole Academy of Sciences was established :)

Engineer: It's getting late, can we continue next time?

Consultant: I have an answer to your question! But, in order not to interfere in a heap, I agree – let's go next time.

Engineer: Fine!

Writer: Well, good. See you again, my friends!

03 Philosophy

Consultant: I definitely enjoy our philosophical conversations with you. At first, I confess, the Writer seemed too emotional to me. You, Engineer, were too rational. And the only common thing that united us then, as it seemed to me, was that together we graduated from one "applied mathematics" at the university, there are common themes and a common language. But then our life paths diverged, and when we began to communicate again, I asked myself – "why be together again if we have become so different?" Is nostalgia for adolescence a sufficient condition for friendship?

Writer: Heartless bastard!

Engineer: I agree.

Consultant: Wait a minute, let me finish! Engineer, do you remember how we argued about communism and capitalism? I had just finished my second managerial education and was trying to explain to you that “it's easier to break than to build”. That it is possible, probably, to return the plundered factories, but then they also need to be competently managed and developed. It is wrong to make a revolution, demolish the existing organization and say that you have done your half of the work and someone else has to continue somehow.

Engineer: I didn't say that. On the contrary, we then invited you to a meeting of our cell, so that you made a presentation about management to us.

Consultant: It was during the preparation of the presentation that I understood the main idea, which now I find more and more confirmation – we do not hold the whole one at a time! We, like those sages, hold some trunk, some tail, some something else. The elephant appears only when we get together and start communicating. Remember this picture?

Engineer: Sure. Square, triangle and circle are projections of a three-dimensional object onto orthogonal planes. If we position ourselves so that everyone can clearly see only one side, then everyone will see his own figure, different from the rest.

Consultant: Everyone will have their own truth. And until we get together and discuss something in common, but from different points of view, we have no chance to understand what we are really dealing with. One lives in the world of triangles, the other in the world of squares, and so on.

Writer: In the world of shadows. And if there is no source of light, then – generally in darkness.

Consultant: The most striking thing is that as soon as you have gathered an understanding of the subject from the three shadows, you can now change the lighting at any angle – you will still recognize this particular object in any shadow.

Writer: It's like a teacher who knows his topic well.. He can answer the question not with a quote from a textbook, but the way the answer is refracted in a specific situation, taking into account how old the student is in front of him and what are his abilities to perceive information.

Engineer: By the way, about perception. But an object, not a scientific object, but the one that is drawn on the board – after all, it can smell, make sounds, taste different, have different temperatures from different sides. Imagine how our brain, simultaneously collecting information from different receptors, collects a holistic multidimensional object and keeps it in focus and dynamics of change.

Writer: It seems to me that the person himself for another person is the most complex object, which is somehow collected in pieces in the head and then lives there. And every time you interact with this person, the projections of the whole are rechecked, something is added or removed, the model of this person is refined in the head.

Consultant: This is despite the fact that, as the Engineer says, we do not see the person directly. There are photons flying to the retina of the eye, there are sound waves, there are molecules of smell, the warmth of touch, and all this is combined with the image of this person in memory, which is refined with each new portion of information. Returning to our previous conversation: there is a person somewhere in the external environment, and in our head we see him only as a float on the surface of our consciousness… People, like fish in the ocean of life, touch our sensory hooks, fishing lines are pulled, and we sit on the shore of our consciousness and talk with floats :(

Writer: Have you ever wondered what “consciousness” is? Tell me, how many fingers do you see?

Engineer: Two.

Consultant: I do confirm, two. But what's the catch? It is the usual test for the presence of consciousness. When a person falls unconscious, after he is brought to his senses, he is asked about the number of fingers to make sure that it is adequate.

Writer: It turns out that you know that there are two of them. And you know. And I know. And we have “co-knowledge” or “co-science”! Latin roots confirm the same meaning: consciousness – shared knowledge. An interesting lesson is to take a close look at English words starting with “co-” and “con-”.

Engineer: It turns out that consciousness is somehow connected with language? We are with you in the Russian mind, the British in the English mind, the Chinese in the Chinese. And when we learn other languages, do we expand our consciousness?

Consultant: Square, triangle, circle…

Engineer: I disagree. “A chair” is “a chair” everywhere despite the wording of the language.

Writer: And what about different associations and connotations?

Engineer: It turns out that there is a certain capacity of the language, and it depends not only on the number of words, but also on the number of connections between them. Just like with human neurons! According to the latest data that I heard, there are about eighty billion of them, and there are more neural connections that these neurons form among themselves than there are stars in the sky! Some incredible numbers.

Consultant: I heard that a child, when he is born, has many more neurons than an adult. During growing up, those neurons that were not activated and did not begin to participate in neural connections die off. How a sculptor gradually removes everything superfluous from a single piece of marble and the figure remains.

Writer: The main question is – what is superfluous in our brain? Returning to the language. From the age of one, my wife and I taught our son three languages at once – English, French and Russian, of course. Courses for toddlers, tutors. The first words he began to speak in English. Apparently, because the words are shorter – "cat", "dog"… The idea to develop a child through learning different languages from childhood belonged to my wife, and at first I looked closely, but then I realized that there was no overload, languages were learned playfully – and I calmed down. It is interesting that during a conversation, the son freely switches from one language to another, never mixes them up. If I see an object, for example, an apple, then the Russian word “apple” appears in my head, which I can “translate” in the same head into “apple” in English. Just the way we learned languages – translation. And the son saw an apple for the first time, when he did not know any name, he just saw a tasty object. Heard three different names and remembered. That is, in my head “object – word 1 – then word 2”, and in his brain all connections are immediately ignited “object – word 1”, “object – word 2”, “object – word 3”.

Consultant: This is how our sciences are divided. Biologists have one language, chemists have a second, physicists have a third, but an apple is one object!

Engineer: Again – a square, a triangle, a circle…

Consultant: Yes, the world is complex and diverse. First there was philosophy, which posed general, existential questions. As knowledge accumulated, differentiation began, splitting into various sciences, in each of which related knowledge accumulated, its own language appeared. So much so that scientists have ceased to understand each other. But, by the way, there is a demand for the integration of sciences under one roof. All innovation is the result that appears at the junction of the integration of what was previously separated. To go far – as a consultant, I very often organize an environment in which employees from different departments finally begin to understand each other, although they seem to have spoken the same language before. And from this new understanding, there are explosions of efficiency.

Engineer: Now it is clear why our Doctor of Science is called “PhD” – Doctor of Philosophy. Ph.D. in mathematics, Ph.D. in physics, and so on. I just now realized.

Consultant: Apparently yes. How different methods relate to the same science. Similarly, different sciences belong to the same philosophy. And if a separate science answers the question – "How is the world organized in the plane of certain knowledge", then philosophy tries to answer one main question – "How is the World actually organized?"

Writer: Philo-sophy – from Greek – is the love of wisdom. But, if we are talking about a real questioning about the organization of the world, then religion appeared earlier. Appeared and developed. From answers to the questions “why the thunder is thundering” and “why the wind blows”, to the monotheistic religions of our time. At the same time, I consider it a profound delusion when they immediately slide down to the question “Who organized the World?” And argue whether “He” exists. From this all the problems. Religion answers precisely the question "How the World is organized" and "What is the place of human beings in the World?" The very word “religion” – “re-ligare” from Greek – reconnection, reconnection of what is already connected. Take two points in space. How many lines pass through them? One. The only one. And when we draw this line, or describe it by laws in science, there is a connection in our minds of two points, which are already connected, without you and me. In this sense, the concrete philosophy, which describes the World better than anyone else, approaches the concept of "religion".

Engineer: Personally, I can draw many lines through two points.

Writer: But only one of them will be a straight line, a trajectory along which the light travels!

Consultant: I'd rather stay on the philosophy floor. It is no longer as crowded as on the floors of methodology and science. In addition, the higher you are, as they say in our management, the less pressure on you from above! :) But I won't climb to the floor of religions. I'm afraid that at this altitude I may not have enough oxygen. In fact, historically, different peoples approached the ultimate foundations in different ways, so it turns out that there is nothing new – the same square, triangle, circle. You, the Writer, even though you say temptingly, that everything is simple and clear there, and the light in one straight line passes through two points. Well, do you at least admit that the light can be of different colors?

Writer: My light definitely shines and warms me, I will not tell about others and I will not impose. Each lamb will be hung by its own tail. See you again, my friends!

04 Knowledge and Faith

Writer: Who wrote this?

Engineer: I wrote this. This is the definition. You yourself said that no one understands what “love” is, and cannot express it in words if they ask what it is. I thought for a long time, found some elements, but finally the puzzle came together after reading the book you gave me.

Consultant: Bravo! The best writers and philosophers of all times pounded their foreheads in an attempt to express what “love” is, and our Engineer thought and thought and gave a definition! By the way, what book did the Writer give you?

Engineer: The Holy Bible. The Old Testament and the New Testament.

Consultant: ?!

Writer: What Gospel have you read in the New Testament? From Matthew, from Mark, from Luke, or from John. There, of course, all the books have the same story of Christ, but the first three were written independently for different communities: Matthew wrote for the Jews who believed in Christ, Mark wrote his Gospel for the Gentiles who believed in Christ, Luke has many historical details about the childhood of Jesus and his mother, Mary. And John wrote, knowing about the books already written, and his predecessors' stories are more supplemented than repeated.

Engineer: I read everything. Old and New Testaments – from Genesis to the Apocalypse. I can’t read books differently. I always read it completely first in order to understand the boundaries: what is at stake and what is not in the book. And then I go back to the moments that were hooked.

Writer: There are fifty books in the Old Testament, if you count non-canonical ones! I can't even believe that you have mastered everything.

Engineer: It was difficult, I will not hide it. But it was precisely while gnawing through the stories of the Old Testament with me that an insight happened, as our Consultant says. Just don’t be offended, it’s you who go to Church, and I am a man of science, I love facts and cause-and-effect relationships. Let me tell you in order how I saw it.

Consultant: It's getting more and more interesting!

Writer: Calm down, let him tell us what he understood…

Engineer: Let's start with the fact that laws are not invented, but discovered. The real laws, I mean, are related to the organization of the universe. Apples fell to the ground before Newton discovered the law of universal gravitation, and will continue to fall. In any case, first some pattern is caught, a hypothesis is made, the collection of facts begins, the identification of cause-and-effect relationships, the hypothesis is corrected. And only then, when the facts obtained by scientific methods are not refuted by experiments, a law is postulated. And even in this case, the field of application can expand, and new experiments will lead to a new law, in relation to which the old law will be a special case, working on a partial subdomain – one of the projections of a more multifaceted reality.

Consultant: Square, triangle, circle.

Writer: Don't interrupt! Please continue.

Engineer: It must be admitted that there are incidents in science. For example, the laws open to the microcosm do not work for the macrocosm and vice versa. String theory tries to combine the quantum mechanics of the microcosm and the general theory of relativity of the macrocosm, but we are already talking about at least ten dimensions of space-time.

So back to the laws and the Bible. In the Old Testament there are ten commandments, read – laws. There are only two in the New Testament, but they replace the previous ten. What are these laws about? About social behavior. What to do and what not to do. At first I thought, "Isn't Moses taking on a lot?" – where did he get these ten laws, why exactly these. And so, reading one of the countless stories about who gave birth to whom, who went where, who exterminated whom, it dawned on me: “Jews are a unique people!” It is not known why, but from the very ancient times they began to write down everything that happened to their people. Methodically, meticulously, in detail. For many hundreds of years, they have been fixing the facts of the life of the Jewish people with perseverance, which would be the envy of laboratory assistants and sociologists. And it turns out, having such records, one could see social patterns unfolding over the centuries, which is absolutely impossible for one person to do, observing the facts only during his life, even having the stories of his parents, who, as a rule, are also rejected in the heat of youthful immense energy.

Writer: This is how animals live. Instincts, copying of parents and own experience. It is confirmed that not only labor made a man out of a monkey, but also writing.

Consultant: The son of Abraham was Isaac… :)

Engineer: You're laughing in vain. When you have fourteen genera from Abraham to David, then fourteen genera from David to the migration to Babylon, and fourteen more genera from the migration to Babylon to Christ, and all the stories of each are described in detail, then you have such an array of data, such a Big Data that it is a matter of technology to bring out working social laws. I'll get better – social laws that work on the size of the population and on time intervals calculated in centuries. Although there may be exceptions when someone, for example, stole something and was never caught.

Writer: It's a matter of planning horizon.

Consultant: Wait, wait. So we can agree to the point that there is no Faith, but only there is knowledge and not yet open laws. The more I learn, the more the borderline with what I don't know. And if God is located in the area of faith, then by increasing knowledge, a person cognizes God.

Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».

Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.

Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.