So, the Egyptian zhretses’ system “” – which is more perfect and unerring in making decisions than “odd” systems, thanks to the tandem principle – ceased to hold sway over the autocracy of its rulers and has been existing concealed for some time among the Jews. Later it revealed its upper part represented by two superior rabbis, heading the Great Synagogue since 230 B.C. till the time, when ancient Judea, in its turn, was made by it to play the same game as Egypt before – “the things are wiped out – to the Leta[102]”.
That’s all, generally, which could be found in well-known history of tandem’s principle role in the past. And before we move to the analysis of its opportunities in contemporary times and in the prospect, we should notice that psyche of ancient zhretses, acting on the base of tandem principle, was rather different from the psyche of the other part of zhrechestvo, which, like Kherikhor, preferred to administrate on the base of individual skills; and moreover, psyche of the rest part of population, not belonging to zhretses’ structures, was generally different from the psyche of superior hierarchs[103].
It’s only for the specialties in psychical structure and self-discipline of superior zhretses, mastering the tandem principle of intellectual activity, that it remains unconcerned with principles, well comprehended by ancient, as well as contemporary, crowd, – the principles of bribery and blackmail of the opponent in the case of disagreement. And those who think, that among able to function superior zhrechestvo one head-hierarch could bribe or blackmail another, should answer themselves questions as following: by what could such people bribe each other, when their word was really more powerful, than the word of Pharaoh, brought since their childhood in such way, that they weren’t slaves of instincts and passions, even if all society, subject to them, is seized by evil passions? What quarrels could arise between them, if their limited physiological and conditioned cultural (because of the upbringing) needs could be guaranteed by all the power of Egyptian state[104], not little even by our contemporary measure, all the more that the quarrels could destroy the vitality of “” structure, which supplied everything in their life, made them entirely independent from the society and its “opinion”, which was formed by themselves mostly?
But that means, that, being the base for liquidation and solving different “misunderstandings”, the realization of tandem principle demands for clear understanding of definite things and wilful coordination of each tandem participant’s behaviour with such understanding.
Firstly, it’s necessary to understand and submit, that the conception of “copyright” and “ right for the intellectual property”, considered to be one of the foundations of Western civilization, hinders free intellectual activity and perfecting the spiritual culture in society generally, as well as on the basis of tandem principle.
Tandem intellectual activity in any case bases on the acceptance of objectivity of the fact of independent existence of any tandem products and submission of each partner’s behaviour to this sufficing tandem fact. What is produced as the result of intellectual activity on the basis of tandem principle can’t be considered the product of intellectual activity of any of the participants. And it’s impossible to demarcate the “copyright” of each participant in the product of tandem activity, the “copyright” on particular, artificially distinguished, components of integral product of tandem activity[105].
Realizing of tandem principle is like playing dominoes: contribution of one participant in common tandem activity product is determined by pervious contribution of his partner, and, in its turn, makes requirements accordingly to future contributions of them both. Therefore all tandem products exist independently, and tandem participants are present at that. In tandem activity one of participants doesn’t wait on the intellectual activity of another[106].
All what was said is the key to tandem activity realizing, but not the list of rules for some intellectual “game”, which couldn’t be changed without the result of another “game” appearing and absence of alternative.
Every man, as a part of objective world, possesses his characteristic personal particular features, and that’s what is called “subjectivism”. In social life it’s the subjectivism of searchers, scientists, developers that is the source of new knowledge and skills in culture. But it’s also the source of different mistakes, because of limitation and insufficiency of subject. When someone expresses his opinion, which is not like generally accepted, or dominating, he is often reproached with the words like these: “A-a-a… It’s just your opinion”. But however, in most cases, those who reproach other people such way for having their own opinion, prefer not to think about the content of this opinion, its accordance with objective current of events of life, its subjective mistakes and psychical causes of these mistakes.
When raising all these questions, then all-sweeping scepticism and nihilism of “A-a-a… It’s just your opinion” will be transformed to one of two components of tandem principle. And if answers on those questions aren’t rejected by transmitter of the opinion with the words like that: “What?.. Who are you trying to teach me?” he will begin his part in tandem activity, and as a result, the original opinion may be changed and accompanied by some new opinion about the partner as human person and as a transmitter of some certain ideas and skills.
If the partner doesn’t reject this opinion on the question and accompanying opinion on his person or doesn’t interrupt discussing, the first act of tandem activity can be finished by producing the third opinion different from two original opinions in some details. Appearing of this third opinion will be accompanied necessarily by changes in self-appreciating of both participants in respect of their personal features, ideas and skills. If quite serious questions are raised there, collapse of personality can happen, in the case when personality continues insisting on the opinions incompatible with the Objective reality, or – its transformation.
Tandem effects in intellectual activity is the consequence of the fact that each participant of tandem considers his partner’s subjectivism as something like “scissors”; they delete the mistakes, caused by subjectivism of them both, from products of tandem activity; and as well they represent hammer for the personality of the partner, while tandem products represent anvil. In the course of such “blacksmith’s working” much “hull” of mistaking subjectivism is peeled from the person. This process is more painful and unpleasant psychologically, for those who more claim to “intellectual property” in respect to tandem activity products and their components, and who consider themselves to be the cleverest in their conceit[107]. When working on the person in the smithy of tandem relations starts, some persons lose so much husk, that few of former loud name rests, and such persons became entirely lost in its own husk. And it’s a fear of such losing the face in such clearing, which is the most important obstacle for overcoming the selfish individualism, and one should overcome it for becoming convinced on practice that “two heads are better than one”.
The more different is life experience of each participant and the more friendly and free are his or her interrelations, the brighter tandem effect is. And, accordingly, tandem effect vanishes in such situations as in the fable by I.A. Krylov “The Cock and the Cuckoo”, when the “Cuckoo” praises the “Cock” because the “Cock” praises the “Cuckoo”. But in the community of individualistically thinking intelligentsia such tandems as I.A. Krylov described in his fable, are can be met more often; and the same “intellectual” can be the participant of several tandems of mutual praising in turn. But if one of participants of mutual praising shifts to tandem principle realizing, he will risk to lose his partner and praiser, who will be displeased and insulted by such “working on” his conceit.