Information war: self-determination and disengagement. — Does the methodology continue to develop? — Now municipalities are obliged

Despite the fact that for the participants in the conflict and observers, the situation turned out to be painful and many do not want to remember about it, the chronicle of events can prevent the danger of disseminating distorted information about the situation and the participants, and can also serve as methodological material for analyzing conflicts at the micro level regarding conflict at the macro level.

It turned out to be impossible to hide the full name, since the situation became public, thanks to active followers in distributing the letter of Peter Shchedrovitsky to the maximum extent possible.

First letter Peter Shchedrovitsky: - In the group Technologies of thinking . SMD ontology (reposted by Vera Danilova). March 4, 2014 at 7:25 pm

There was and is no hysteria in the group. The intellectual potential of the group is quite capable of carrying out this. To publicly accuse group moderator Yulia Zubareva of rudeness, without providing text of confirmation, I consider the baseness and communal behavior of Peter, who makes such comments to himself without having any right to do so. Anyone can unfriend anyone they want. This is of no interest to anyone, this is everyone’s personal business.

Peter, you need to make a public apology to Yulia Zubareva, or I will unfriend you. Moderators are a democratic body and should not be indicated, but consulted before claiming their rights to the TM group. If Pyotr Shchedrovitsky’s address to the TM group is designed to condemn the actions of the moderator of the TM group, then I consider this a low, unacceptable action. The group was created only when active participation Zubareva Yu., while Pyotr Shchedrovitsky has not yet contributed anything to its development, either in time or in content. This is not an accusation, this is fact. Active participants in the methodological movement contributed to the development of the group. Pyotr Shchedrovitsky still needs to learn how to work in a team of moderators on a democratic basis, and not on shouting and false accusations. No one can liquidate the group except Yulia. But there is no reason for this. You never know who doesn’t like what. Open your groups and work in them.

Peter Shchedrovitsky:— ‎Dear colleagues! Two days ago, I posted on Facebook an appeal to the group members and the methodological community as a whole regarding the incompatibility of the mission and goals of the “Technologies of Thinking” project (1961 GPSH, 2008 PGSH) with the current discussion of the situation in Ukraine in the group. It seemed to me that my thesis was obvious and did not lend itself to ambiguous (ambiguous) interpretations. I repeat once again: the moderators of the group created to “support the project Business network ShKP And Georgy Petrovich Shchedrovitsky Foundation on the development of “thinking technologies” took advantage of the trust of the audience to change the topic and frame of discussion. I don’t even want to discuss that the very phrase “technology (?!) revolution” is, from my point of view, not only meaningless, but - worse - contains an open provocation. Continuing the discussion of this topic within the TM group harms the project, the image of the Foundation and the State Public Staff. Please take this as an official statement from the G.P. Shchedrovitsky Development Institute Foundation, of which I am the President.

Due to the fact that the group moderators and a number of group members ignored my statement or tried to give it a “communal interpretation,” I:

1) excluded from my friends on FB following also;

2) I warn you that I will consistently exclude everyone who takes part in the discussion of the “technology revolution” subtopic on the TM group and from my friends on FB (if they are) and from participation in all (!) further events of the Foundation and ShKP;

3) I suggest that the group moderators stop discussing this topic in the TM group;

4) if this does not happen within March 6 (Moscow time), I ask everyone who respects my opinion to leave this group. Once again I apologize to all constructive group members for this situation.

Tsoi L.N. ¨- About the situation in TM group. Due to the fact that Pyotr Shchedrovitsky is distributing statements on social networks discrediting the moderators of the TM group, I assert (the facts are in the TM group) that the communal conflict was provoked by himself, his unworthy interference in the process of the group’s work, threats, intimidation and discrediting the moderators of the TM group. What he hoped for is NOT clear! I, as one of the moderators of the group, will protect the integrity of the group by all means available to me, from such communal attacks by “methodologists”. To develop content and topics, there is a sufficient Methodologist in the group (example Georgy Petrovich Shchedrovitsky), this is NOT something that is inherited, but is revealed at every moment of communication and meeting with ANOTHER! Capture by thought is not capture by threats and blackmail, as Pyotr Shchedrovitsky demonstrated by setting his students against the moderators and declaring a boycott of those who would discuss controversial topics in this group. The topic of situational analysis of conflicts at different levels in this group will be supported by me personally. The moderators of the TM group came out of the communal conflict with dignity and defended the integrity of the group and self-organization from the blackmail and threats of Pyotr Shchedrovitsky.

If Pyotr Shchedrovitsky wants to exert meaningful rather than command-and-order influence (in the “dominance-subordination” model) on the development of the group’s topics and take the position of a methodologist in discussions, then I suggest to him:

1) Publicly in all his posts, which were reposted by his students on social networks - ask for forgiveness from Yulia Zubareva for blackmail and threats, as well as for the persecution that he organized against her and the moderators of the TM group.

2) Apologize to the group of group moderators for the intrusion and attempt to disintegrate the group, its takeover by aggressive methods and provoking a communal conflict. (There is enough such “goodness” in the group).

3) Actively participate in discussions.

4) Start the process of NEGOTIATIONS with a group of moderators and clearly answer the question: “What is the MEANING of a communal provocation aimed at the collapse of the TM group. (For the sake of abstract THINKING, communal provocations are not required, and the group is not the property of Peter Shchedrovitsy).

In custody.

1) TM group members respect Georgy Petrovich Shchedrovitsky and appreciate it work, trying to understand and master many complex texts, self-determination in position, situation and activity. This is exactly why the TM group was created.

2) No one will allow Pyotr Shchedrovitsky to destroy something that was NOT created by him and into which others have invested a lot of effort and time.

3) The only value of the methodological movement after the departure of G.P. Shchedrovitsky is groups that are organized in different formats on the principles of openness and self-organization.

4) The actions of Pyotr Shchedrovitsky and the reaction to his invasion are similar in model to what is happening in Ukraine (to intimidate and use the TM group in one’s own interests, by all means to maintain power and leadership over the methodological movement in Russia).

5) Organize a Maidan in the TM group, using the methods of the right sector, use members of the TM group, destroying the integrity of the group with provocative methods, to solve their own personal problems, hiding behind THINKING - I, as a group moderator, will stop this process. This is important conflict material for me.

Shchedrovitsky P.G.

Volume I

It turned out to be almost impossible to write about what the compiler of the dictionary asked me to do on 3 pages. Therefore, I decided to dwell only on the presentation of the very first stages of my apprenticeship and participation in the work of MMK.

With G.P. Shchedrovitsky, as the reader probably guesses, I knew from the moment of my birth. However, Georgy Petrovich’s communication with me as a father was quite rare and irregular due to his constant employment, as well as the difficult relationship with my mother, I.A. Shchedrovitskaya (Krivokoneva). Our relationship actually developed in the spring of 1974, when I began, moreover, to attend his seminars irregularly (most often in an apartment on Petrozavodskaya, where I moved in April 1976) and go with him to conferences (including “ Podolsk").

This went on for about three years. At that time, what I liked most was drinking tea in the kitchen with Kolya Shchukin, whom today in the methodological movement everyone knows only as the author of several interviews with GP, which formed the basis of the book “I Have Always Been an Idealist.” However, for several years he was one of my most active interlocutors, and largely thanks to him, I later took up Vygotsky’s legacy. No less important for me was the interaction with Mikhail Gnedovsky, who left the circle in the early 80s and is currently actively involved in cultural politics. With him I was lucky to jointly develop the topic of historical research methodology.

My actual training program at MMK began only in the spring of 1977, when I, a 2nd year student at the Pedagogical Institute, was preparing coursework and for this purpose, having begun to work through the problems of the teleological approach, I wrote a short text about the category of “goals”. At the same time, the GP involved me in the discussion new topic– programming research work (using the example of the work of students and graduate students of the Institute of Physical Education). In the summer, he actively discussed with me the issues of normative description of activity and the translation of normative representations of activity into instructions of various levels of complexity. And in August he unexpectedly announced that he had submitted abstracts on the problem of programming to the conference collection “Logic of Scientific Research”... under two names! And in response to my bewildered question about my false authorship, he answered: “You need to prepare - you will give a report. You said that you are working on the problem of goals and goal setting, so you will consider it in the context of programming”...

So, having unexpectedly become a participant in real work at the MMK, in October 1977 I gave a report in Sverdlovsk on the problem of goals, which was generally favorably assessed by the scientific community.

Only many years later did I learn that many of the works of the GP, written in co-authorship, were mainly educational or (similar to my situation) “provocative” nature. But I don’t delete those theses from my works either, considering that there is still a small share of my co-authorship there.

Since that October, I became a regular participant in the work of the Circle and the seminars conducted by the State Enterprise. And he, I must say, conducted from 4 to 6 seminars weekly, the composition of the participants partially overlapping.

There were those who went to all the seminars. But I quickly realized that if you don’t prepare for the seminars, especially if you transcribe tape recordings of discussions onto paper so that they are ready for the next seminar (in a week), then it is simply impossible to attend everything. Part of the content of the GP’s thoughts was certainly lost during such a forced “selective” visit, but I decided to fill this gap by reading the old texts of the circle. Moreover, they were placed above my bed... I lived in the MMK archives.

Around the same time, the seminars “moved” from Petrozavodskaya to Voikovskaya, to Gnedovsky’s apartment, and then to Lebedeva’s on Skhodnya. One of them, which I mainly attended, was “mathematical,” its regular participants were Fima Fried, Sergei and Natasha Kotelnikov, Sveta Polivanova, Nikita Bogomolov, Pasha Malinovsky, Tolya Yakovlev, Kolya Shchukin.

At this seminar I gave my first serious report - on the concept of model and simulation. It so happened that the GP could not attend the 2nd or 3rd continuation; Malinovsky chaired the meeting, for which I am still grateful to him.

As befits a young participant in the methodological movement back then, I quickly organized my own seminar. We gathered in the classrooms of the psychological and pedagogical faculty of the Pedagogical Institute. Lenin, where I had the good fortune to study then, and discussed the problems of psychology methodology. Once a month I organized open lectures for a wide range of faculty students, and once a week I held a chamber seminar.

There were few lectures, I especially remember the speeches of V.Ya. Dubrovsky and P.Ya. Galperin, who kindly agreed to speak to students on the methodology of their future professionalism. I was also lucky to catch last years life of N.F. Dobrynin, one of the founders of Russian psychology. Subsequently, this line of my activity grew into conducting psychological and pedagogical schools, of which there were five from the fall of 1978 until I graduated from the institute.

As for the chamber seminar, it worked with varying intensity until 1982. It included Shota Mindiashvili, Andrei Golev, Tatyana Tungusova, Alexander Anisimov, Kirill Mitrofanov, Oleg Khripkov, Alexander Klyachko, as well as a number of our colleagues from the psychological departments of Moscow and St. Petersburg universities. It was there that I first defended the main provisions of my work on the legacy of L.S. Vygotsky. This work, dedicated to the problems of philosophical and pedagogical anthropology, was quite active in 1979-81. and formed the basis of my thesis, and a dissertation defended only in 1992.

I think that my passion for Vygotsky and being, as it were, between methodological and psychological discourse, as well as in the force field of influence of two great thinkers of the twentieth century - Lev Vygotsky (based on work with his Archive) and Georgy Shchedrovitsky (based on work with his Archive and almost 7 years of active full-time apprenticeship) – had a fundamental influence on my intellectual formation.

In parallel with my participation in the seminars, starting in 1979, I became involved in the emerging practice of ODI.

By the way, I have repeatedly heard that many who came to the methodological movement after 1979 try not to distinguish between the seminar and play periods of the development of MMK. I think this is a misconception. From my point of view, these are two diametrically different modes of operation in their goals and values. And I am certainly grateful to fate that I caught the last years of the seminary history of the circle.

In the spring of '79, the GP conceived the idea of holding the first ODI. Preparation was active, but mainly on the basis of the Institute of Physical Education, where he then worked. Due to laziness and reluctance to travel far away, as well as for other reasons, I plunged into the game only in the compartment of the Moscow-Sverdlovsk train, where the GP instructed Misha Gnedovsky, Sergei Naumov and me to assemble a group on programming methodology. Starting from I-1 and until the game in Gorky in the fall of 1982 (I-20; “Programming and organizational design industrial practice and practical training of university students”) I tried to form a methodological position in the game (more precisely, in the games of the first generation, which were led by the GP). I must admit that this experience was overall unsuccessful, although useful.

It was during that period that my intuitive divergence from the GP in understanding the values and goals of methodological work in general and game practice in particular was formed and strengthened.

In addition to the “failures” on the gaming front, my research. In 1980, I entered graduate school at the Scientific Research Institute of Applied Sciences. V.V. became my supervisor. Davydov, and the topic is “Game as a method of complex socio-psychological research.” About a year later, I brought Vasily Vasilyevich the rationale for my dissertation work. After carefully reading it over the weekend, my supervisor called me for a “serious conversation.” His main moral boiled down to the following: “Remember, you are not a GP! He can afford general philosophical reasoning. But 20 years ago he did serious experimental work with his hands. His study of children's thinking based on solving arithmetic problems is a model of experimental work and an example to follow. The right to philosophize must still be earned. Therefore, don’t bring me this nonsense anymore, get busy, do real experiments and draw small but well-founded conclusions from them”...

I did not defend my dissertation on the research problem. In 1998, at the Faculty of Conflictology of St. Petersburg University, I gave six lectures on research methodology, based on my notes from 1980-82. Of course, the topic requires further study, and I definitely want to return to it in a few years.

And in 1993, when I presented you with my book “Essays on the Philosophy of Education,” he complained that our work had not gone well at the time. Maybe sincerely...

As a result of all these circumstances, in the fall of 1982, I left the circle. Today I often say that it was a temporary departure. In fact, I did not return to the circle and to the student position - I returned to the methodological movement in mid-1984 and, in fact, to a different situation and with different goals.

I continued to participate in events held by the GP for quite a long time: in some OA games that interested me thematically until 1988, in the so-called. “methodological congresses” - constantly (at all 4, since 1990), at conferences and meetings - occasionally with reports.

At the beginning of 1985, we concluded a well-known pact with Sergei Popov on joint holding of games. From this moment we should date the beginning of my second period of work and life in the methodological movement. But that's a completely different story.

Volume II

As I already wrote in my notes for the first stage of my participation in the work of MMK (1974-84), I began to participate in OA games from the moment their concept was formed. Subsequently G.P. Shchedrovitsky will name his work in the field of sports as one of the important factors in the development of ODI. I caught a number of important discussions in the period 1977-79, including several discussions on the preparation of the first game in New Duck.

Subsequently, I participated in the games conducted by Georgy Petrovich actually until 1989 and stopped participating in them simultaneously with the collapse of our organizational and methodological tandem with S.V. Popov.

Game practice received a conceptual understanding in my articles “On the analysis of the topic of game play” and “Game movement and organizational-activity games”, as well as in two unfinished materials devoted, respectively, to methods of designing game practice and the connection of game practice with individual personal development. All of them were written in 1984-1986. and since then I have not returned to these questions.

In this regard, the second stage of my participation in MMK was undoubtedly a gaming one. Chronologically it can be placed either in the range from 79 to 89, i.e. before the start of the implementation of my own project, called the School of Cultural Policy, or from 85 to 95 - from the moment of the formation of our alliance with Popov and until the completion of the ShKP-1 project, in which games, without a doubt, occupied the most important place.

In any case, the period of our collaboration with Popov - from the spring of 1985 to the autumn of 1989 - is fundamental for my personal and professional self-determination. This text will be devoted to a description and analysis of some events of this period.

Initially, many MMK participants were categorically against the holding of games and this predetermined (from their point of view) distortions and reductions in the methodology. However, the more objections of this kind were expressed by some members of the MMK, the more others and the new generation of GP students became involved in gaming practice. Already during the first games (from I-1 to I-12 - the last one took place in Kharkov in the fall of 1982), a group of people appeared who constantly discussed the possibility of holding their own games. V. Dudchenko and V. Zargarov (who at that time worked on the basis of the IPK Ministry of Energy) were among the first to hold their own games, then B. Sazonov (later joined by P. Baranov), A. Tyukov, P. Malinovsky and A. Veselov , S. Naumov, I. Zhezhko, N. Alekseev and his many students, then O. Anisimov, A. Levintov, N. Tsvetkov (in Moscow), V. Chistov, P. Kovalev and N. Tarasov (in Yekaterinburg), B. Khasan, V. Bolotov, I. Frumin and A. Gorban (in Krasnoyarsk), K. Vazina (in Nizhny Novgorod), A. Zinchenko (in Kyiv), A. Buryak, V. Vorobyov, Y. Mikheev and his group (in Kharkov), V. Ruttas (in Tartu).

The list goes on, because completely unknown people, having visited the games held by – let’s use a “ballet” analogy – the third team, enthusiastically began to “make” their own ODIs. It got to the point of being funny: at one of B. Sazonov’s games, when he fell ill, N. Alekseev was forced to lead the general meeting, after which he began... to hold his own games. Usually, all this began with the fact that the newly minted gaming practitioner declared his games to be radically different from GP games, often giving them a new name (organizational-thinking, imitation, communication, organizational-role-playing, etc.), after which the organizational and game form, as well as entire “blocks” of thematic content (many game programs were “exact copies” of certain prototype games conducted by the GP or other gaming practitioners).

The “conspiracy” or “conspiracy” between Yuri Gromyko, Sergei Popov and Pyotr Shchedrovitsky, which took shape on the Kiev-Moscow train in the spring of 1985 regarding the holding of their own games, was repeatedly described in the memoirs of the participants and retold in the tales of young game technicians, and was not something out of the ordinary. going out. This was a typical manifestation of the usual “autonomization” syndrome. As I wrote earlier, this syndrome was not specific to our generation, but unlike seminary practice, game practice gave the idea of “autonomy” the opportunity to be realized.

Gromyko's participation in our alliance was fleeting: he dropped out of our work already during the preparation of the first game - on environmental topics in Pushchino in May 1985 with the participation of children and teenagers.

It was there that the first substantive conflict in our tandem unfolded - over the issue of managing the game, the reason for which was the thematic program I prepared and comments on the game script. During the discussion, the issue of unity of command, traditional for any management system, arose. Simply put, Popov, having listened to my proposals, with the simplicity of a construction brigade, suggested that I either become the host of the game myself, or “not to show off” with my supposedly meaningful delights. After thinking for a few minutes, I agreed to continue to be “second” for the upcoming game, taking on part of the functions of methodological and communication support for the preparation and conduct of the game.

Today, for this situation, I am extremely grateful to fate and personally to S.V. Popov: I think that in my subsequent biography the ability to be “second” when necessary played and continues to play a significant role.

Let me emphasize: gaming practice is certainly of a very individualized nature - the style of communication management, the nature of the relationships in the team of organizers and game technicians, and the problematization method used are very important. And from my point of view today, the fact that our tandem lasted for four years is an amazing phenomenon and a consequence of goodwill on the part of both participants.

We jointly held about 23 events - both games and schools, competitions and examinations. For some reason, the list published several years ago by S.V. Popov did not include the entire series of the so-called. management schools, the first of which was held in Latvia in the fall of 1987, but it included the GP games, in which SV and I took part as much as we could.

All these games should be reflected, first of all, in the “track record” of S.V. Popova.

The first period of our collaboration with S.V. Popov, until approximately the end of 1986, had a “heroic” character. We simultaneously mastered the ODI technology itself, built and maintained our meaningful interaction and grew our own team of “game technicians”, which included T. Sergeitsev, R. Shaikhutdinov, D. Ivanov, G. Kharitonova, A. Pavlov, S. Andreev, as well as S. Tabachnikova and O. Alekseev.

It is also worth noting the emergence in 1985 of a specialized group of “ecologists” and experts who participated in the preparation of the environmental forum international festival youth and students (we held two games as part of the training program in June and July of the same year): V. Babich, T. Bochkareva, T. Vlasova, S. Gorlov, T. Kalinichenko, V. Kalutskov, L. Litovchenko, M Tkachenko and A. Cheparukhin.

A little later - after the first school on legal problems was held in Jurmala in March 1987 - a group of lawyers formed, focusing on the SMD presentation: S. Geitsev, A. Matyukhin, E. Mizulina, S. Mirzoev, S. Pashin, A. Semitko, S. Dancers and V. Yakushin.

The program for restoring the full structure of the ODI, which we proclaimed at the end of 1985, led to a number of interesting consequences - including the famous episode of “taking over” control of the game from B. Khasan in Krasnoyarsk in January 1986.

Despite the very busy schedule of our joint work, already from mid-1986, situations external to each of us began to arise, participation in which naturally led to the emergence of new obligations, new plans and new meanings that did not become integrated to the required degree. For me, such an independent line was, first of all, work with the Union of Cinematographers (which the State Enterprise began in 1986). Plus game development of programming technology - conducting specialized sessions of situational analysis, goal setting, thematization, which then led to a rethinking of the concept of “framework” and framework thinking techniques. For S.V. Popov, probably the line of interaction with the IPK of the Ministry of Automotive Industry and the Central Committee of the Komsomol, which ended with the holding of a competition at the RAF plant in January 1987 (although it would be more correct to ask him about this).

I would like to emphasize: despite the fact that we wrote a book about the competition together, I did not participate in the competition itself in Jelgava. The inclusion in the preparation and holding of a competition in the Artek pioneer camp (spring 87), the election project in Ekibastuz (was not implemented), the competition and elections of the headquarters of the Komsomol Central Committee of the BAM development zone (autumn 87) could no longer restore the level of content, and most importantly – organizational and political integration of our interaction. In fact, already at that time, a certain gap in understanding arose between us - not so much of the new technologies emerging on the basis of ODI, but of the target and value framework of our common action.

Most of the negotiations on holding new games, and then competitions and examinations, since mid-1987 took place virtually without my participation. Participants in the competitions - current heads of enterprises and organizations of the collapsing Soviet system - focused primarily on Popov as the organizational leader of our team. A number of participants and winners of competitions - such as V. Bossart, S. Gorbunov, I. Drugov, P. Zaidfudim, S. Pisarev, G. Shakhnazaryan, V. Shevchenko and others, were interested in developing joint projects - including how we would now say “commercial”. After the creation of specialized methodological and game-technical teams on the basis of RAF and Artek (Sergeytsev was sent to head the methodology laboratory at the RAF plant), a new range of orders arose in front of them on a large scale and, as it turned out, completely unexpectedly, which today should be classified in the field of management consulting. However, the methodological apparatus available at that time turned out to be completely unsuitable for solving such problems.

The unfolding of these processes led to the fact that I objectively found myself, as it were, pushed out to their periphery. I don’t think that on Popov’s part this happened on purpose and consciously, although I do not exclude such a possibility. I believe that at that time he assessed the possibilities of my participation in such projects quite low. Unfortunately, this did not and did not become the subject of special discussion.

Considering ourselves specialists in analytics and design, we devoted practically no time to analyzing and designing the structure and format of our partnership, including such prosaic issues that seemed to me like earnings and determining everyone’s share, political goals, and organizational development.

My attempts, starting in 1987, to build the so-called. “middle” level ontologies - economic philosophy, market philosophy and management methodology - at that moment were exclusively staged in nature. An attempt to assimilate the named problems through the institutionalization of the so-called. management schools (then conducted mainly on the basis of Mosoblpassazhiravtotrans, in which a laboratory of management problems was created) subsequently showed their ineffectiveness.

Since mid-1987, S. Popov, as the scope of work grew, focused on preparing a team of the so-called. "professional game technicians"

Holding open competitions in Moscow (on the basis of MOPAT - December-87), Jelgava-Riga and Artek-Gurzuf (March-89) formed a completely new team that had no experience of participating either in GP games, or, especially, in methodological seminars and , I would venture to say, also had no intention of reproducing methodological thinking. Faced with the task of large-scale training of new employees - to participate both in games and in organizational work - Popov, apparently, was again forced to return to the problem of unity of command. The frequent skirmishes and clashes between us on substantive grounds were completely incomprehensible to the new team and were interpreted exclusively in socio-psychological or, as the GP liked to say, “communal” reality.

Naturally, these situations also irritated me more and more, since I continued to consider myself a substantive and ideological leader, a bearer of paradigmatic methodological content.

The preparation and conduct of an environmental assessment on Lake Baikal in October 1988 was actually our last major joint project.

From the end of 1988 and especially at the beginning of 1989, our relations began to cool more and more.

The reason for the final divorce was a discussion at an internal seminar on the reflection of the game in Irkutsk (it took place in February of the same year). As I remember now, the subject of discussion was the nature of reflection and the possibility of its implementation from a game-technical position. Word for word, it came to personal attacks - Popov suggested that I either shut up or leave the hall...

Thus ended the four-year epic of our collaboration.

I must say that from November 1989 (during the game on the development of the Orenburg region) and until the summer of 2000 (when SV and I planned and jointly conducted a Methodology School in Crimea dedicated to the problems of “managing social change”) I undertook a number of attempts to restore one or another (and proposed a new) format of joint work.

Two years ago, one of the participants in our projects 1985-88. told me that, from his point of view, during that period - against the backdrop of the collapse of the USSR and the formation new system political and economic relations in the country – virtually limitless prospects opened up for our tandem. They could, he said, “become oligarchs or, in any case, divide the O most of the political and management consulting market.” These prospects collapsed “due to personal relationships" Maybe my colleague is right. However, all this did not happen, and in May 1989 I created the School of Cultural Policy. But that's a completely different story.

Main publications:

On the analysis of the topic of organizational-activity game. Pushchino, 1986.

Leadership competition. Moscow, 1989 (together with S. Popov).

The origins of Vygotsky’s cultural-historical concept. Moscow, 1992.

Essays on the philosophy of education. Riga, 1993.

Thinking is a profession. Moscow, 2000.

Tomsk lectures on management. Tomsk, 2001.

Development formula. Moscow, 2005 (team of authors).

In search of form. Moscow, 2005.

Industrial policy of Russia. Moscow, 2005 (together with V. Knyaginin).

Peter Shchedrovitsky

Job:
HOW CAN YOU THINK?

Answering this question for 500 years can only earn you a headache. No need to think thinking! You need to understand thinking, reflect and schematize the experience of mental work, think understanding and mental action... and there will be no false paradox. And, when you understand thinking, you schematize it and begin to think not about thinking, but about a special object given through the diagram. There is no need to move in rational forms. Where are we when we think thinking? Put the zone in which you are, when you, to put it mildly, think about thinking and do not draw identities between them. Think what can be thought, and if you want to deal with thinking, don’t think it, but do something else, no less intellectual in its internal nature and no less pretentious in its results and attitudes.

Remember, these are all projects. "Thinking" is great project XIX century, (and maybe even the XX and XXI centuries). It does not exist as a thing, it is built, built by us. To the extent that you can build your mentality, in particular such a private function as thinking, build it in such a way as not to fall into paradoxes. Or get caught up in paradoxes that will propel you forward. Rational oppositions and rationally fixed paradoxes are the result of the fact that you do not understand the design and program “nature” of the idea of thinking.

Sergei Valentinovich Popov loves to tell stories about Descartes. Why was Descartes so smart? Because he was in poor health. When all his comrades at the Jesuit college were fighting with swords in the yard, he lay there (because he was not allowed to fight with swords), but since he could not sleep (they were too ringing and screaming), he had to think. As a result, Descartes became so smart. Yet, since he did not fight with swords like all his comrades, he became so, so smart that he could no longer understand anything. And so he decided that he could lay out a method of thinking. Do “one”, do “two”, do “three”... and you will get the result. Descartes took it and wrote how to think. When he wrote and looked at it, he was horrified, they say that he even threw it away, but later he began to prepare to write again. I prepared all my life, then I wrote “Rules for Guiding the Mind,” and for the second time I wrote “Discourse on Method.” So what do we have? Emptiness.

It is impossible to think according to this scheme. Maybe you can try to do it according to this scheme, but it’s still better to do something else in order to get an intellectual result...

And all as a result of the fact that Descartes was in poor health. This is a joke, but there is a lot of truth behind the joke: since this position outer man and a specific attitude towards conveying to others the method of correct decision made Descartes himself a rational person, like many philosophers in general. The paradox is that only the rational is transmitted. It passes from generation to generation without changes, and for you it is the same as for me, since we have objectified it. The objectified (objectified) content was shoved into the “channels” of broadcasting and after that we are surprised that it is not possible to reproduce thinking and intellectual work.

I return once again to my main thesis.

Colleagues! The biggest problem is how to translate the problem (sorry for the tautology).

An example of this paradox that happened in my life is a story that happened at a game in Vilnius, at the Institute for Advanced Studies of National Economy Workers. After 7 days of hard work, the game groups had to write down what problem they came up with and hand in a piece of paper with a list of problems. The groups wrote and submitted to the game director. After the game, they brought these lists to their institute, drew them on a large poster, and hung them in the office where the academic council met. All the deans and heads of laboratories began to stare at this diagram. Then, two months later, they called me to Vilnius and said: “Help, we are completely confused.” I arrived, they were sitting, they had this poster hanging. They say: “We look at him, but we don’t see any problems. It seems like there were, there were problems, we even have one dean - he went crazy. (He was in a gaming group, unlike the others).” Those who lived through the game swear: “There were problems!.. but they disappeared somewhere...” Indeed, only names remained.

Please note this is the key issue of any management, this is the key issue of any communication, this is the key issue of any policy. And one should not be surprised at what is happening in the country now, since all political figures are alien to that problematic situation problem they want to solve, just like those they approach with their programs, projects and solutions.

Nikolai Hartmann understood this well and that is why he said that the key philosophical discipline should be aporetics or the doctrine of pure problems. I think many others understood this too.

Question: You spoke about the space of methodological reflection as a space of empty spaces. Is this space already built by someone in advance and in the process of reflection the empty spaces are filled? Or is reflection a process of building this space?

Answer: I will answer you both “yes” and “no”. What I am telling at the same time can be taken as an illustration of those problem points, which I will then once again specifically highlight. G.P. Shchedrovitsky wrote an article in which he outlined a diagram of the composition of the space of methodological thinking (reflection). I emphasize: composition diagram. Now the question arises: “What is this depicted there?”

On the one hand, you and I understand that thinking is something that is normative, in some sense universal and cultural, and therefore there are norms, in particular fixed in logics. The “nature” (I put the word “nature” in quotation marks, because we are talking about artificial and designed reality) of thinking is largely in this culture, normativity, logic, and therefore repeatability, reproducibility, etc. If G.P. wrote that this is the space of methodological thinking, this means that anyone, in the limit, can use this space as their own or as the space of their living thinking.

But no one can do anything like that! It can’t, because this is the space of thinking of a certain school, at best, and even more roughly, this is the space (terrible words!) of individual mental consciousness (thinking consciousness), more precisely, the space of that thinking that was formed in the individual history of this particular person. He can walk on it, he knows where everything is.

Oleg Alekseev told me here that in the film about Solzhenitsyn it is shown that he writes each book in a separate house on a separate table. And no one has the right to touch what is on the table. Because how it lies (in what order, or, more precisely, in what disorder) is its topic. I feel strongly about this story because every time I come home... (laughter in the audience) there was some cleaning or the children decided that it makes sense to lay out some of their important items on my table. That’s it, I can’t recover for two weeks afterwards.

How now to answer your question? What's in this diagram? When I come home, I know exactly where, on what shelf, the text I need is located. I put my hand in and take it out. And exactly the same in this space, since your individual history is behind this space and therefore you know where everything lies. But now an interesting point: who cares where you have what? No one except you will work in this space and will not go around all this in this order. If I now want to convey to you a certain movement pattern, a work pattern, then I must separate the topic as much as possible, as a set of empty spaces, from the content, which is the result of my individual, historical and, in many ways, conscious (conscious) work. This is a thing of little interest to others.

If I separated this and put it on the board between us, and now I stand behind the board with my content, then the condition for you to take it and understand it is that you have your own content. I cannot assume this today in relation to 99% of those present.

Therefore, what am I conveying now? Or what do I count on from you as understanding? I expect you to understand the principle of empty spaces. Because if you understand the principle, then with the condition of working 12 hours a day, you will build your own house, with your own pieces of paper, laid out in your own order. I see my task, on the one hand, as very simple, I need to gather you and say: “Guys, it’s still very simple - you need to think in empty spaces!” On the other hand, this task is incredibly difficult, because the practice of thinking in empty spaces develops as a result of the practice of freeing spaces from what other people have filled them with on their own or together with someone else.

Therefore, for some, what I will say will be superfluous (that is, it will not only not advance them along the path of thinking, but, on the contrary, will slow them down for some time), since I will put “my contents” in the empty spaces, they will lie there and prevent you from thinking for yourself. But I also know that there is no other way. The other part of the audience, as a result of what I will speak, will find themselves in a situation where it will be necessary to displace from these places what they already have there. And still others will already be quite free to put these empty spaces and fill them with this or that content. These three groups of listeners are always present in the hall and this must be taken into account.

But this is already a question of teaching thinking or teaching intellectual abilities in the form of teaching thinking.

Next, I would like to capture a few frames that can be marked in the margins. The first is a short story. A small history or, to speak in the language of this topic, a block of historical material in the space of methodological reflection, which is filled with various kinds of information, stories about what MMK did, wanted to do, did.

The Moscow Methodological Circle began with the proclamation of the Program for the Study of Thinking. This study was conducted on the material of texts containing, as representatives of the MMK believed, an expression of the thinking process (and especially evidence-based thinking or the thinking process containing a decision difficult task) and the results of thinking (the decision itself, etc.). It was about a mathematical or logical problem; about a logical-objective problem (like Marx’s “Capital”). Later I will specifically dwell on the internal paradoxical nature of this very attitude, but for now I would like to draw your attention to the fact that this program of research into thinking culminates in the idea of constructing a theory of thinking. I emphasize that they are not methodologies, but theories or sciences of thinking. The first program was theoretical, scientific (with a claim to be theoretical, with a claim to be scientific).

On the other hand, these people, specific representatives of different subject disciplines: sociology, psychology, linguistics, semiotics, cultural history - they met often enough so that the intensity of these meetings each time forced them to move forward and come up with something so as not to be black sheep. On the other hand, they did this not only and not so much over a cup of tea, but also in the form of fairly organized discussions and debates. They were forced to constantly reflect on what they were doing and understand what others were doing and saying; In this way, they gradually created a complex intellectual machine on themselves. In this intellectual machine or in this intellectual situation, thinking was present (among other intellectual processes or functions), and it was not always known where exactly it was present.

But it was present in him various forms or, say, in the form of the results of someone else’s thinking, in the form of some borrowings and transfers. And what was present in this intellectual situation or lived on this intellectual machine was different than what was described in theory. A little differently: what they did on themselves in terms of organizing their own thinking had a completely different history and a completely different status than what was recorded in theoretical forms and then became an element of this very science or theory of thinking.

Therefore, the last time Yegor Nikulin asked me about big and small history, I answered him very sharply: “There is no big history.” A little differently: “There cannot be a big story if you are not included in the history of a given intellectual machine. You will always work only with the top layer of objectified structures that have received the form of fixation, consolidation and expression that is commensurate with the declared programs and those accepted methods of expression performance results that are commensurate with the broader socio-cultural situation."

When I talk about a small story, I know for sure that I have at least two stories. There is a history of ideas, programs, theoretical schemes and some transitions, and there is a history of the machine of mental activity, the history of living intellectual work or intellectual work of a given group of people with thinking. I know that depending on the socio-cultural situation existing in the field of intellectual work or knowledge work, the emphasis may be different. To the extent that in the early 1950s in the Soviet Union there was neither journal communication nor the ability to print one's results, the emphasis was placed on the situation "here and now." What was later recorded in various concepts and theoretical schemes of thinking, in the descriptions of intellectual processes proposed by the MMK participants was, first of all, the result of an analysis of the intellectual machine being created.

From my point of view, this is not a specific difference between this group; This is a common situation, because all thinking, as its most important characteristic, has the characteristic of realizability. Theoretical schemes find their embodiment in the practice of mental or intellectual work. Aristotle's syllogisms are, first of all, forms of organizing the process of living thinking, a schematization of how Aristotle himself thought, or understood, or how he built mental communication, and then these syllogisms are secondarily placed as elements of theoretical ideas about thinking.

A small history is always the history of the formation and functioning of this kind of intellectual machine. Reconstruction of those meanings, concepts and ideas that arise in small history presupposes involvement in the functioning of this kind of machine. If we assume that intelligent machines are created by the efforts and will of individual people (groups) and die along with their creators, then there can be no history of thought.

I really like the thesis that there is no textbook of philosophy other than the history of philosophy. However, the principle of the implementation of ideas and concepts in the designs of intelligent machines forces us to assert that there can be no history of philosophy. What we have in the form of histories of philosophical teachings is only a superficial layer of ideas, the understanding of which is complicated by the fact that the observer (reader, critic, understander) is not directly included in the intellectual machine that produced (created) these ideas.

What are the prospects further development system-thought-activity methodology? As long as there is an opportunity to participate in the processes of living thinking of a certain group of people, as long as neophytes can be involved in the small history of understanding and knowledge, as long as there is an opportunity to acquire their personal history through participation in the small history of a circle (group, community) - we can talk about the reproduction of tradition and school, and in this context historical work is meaningful and productive.

Small history is a constructive element of the functioning of an intelligent machine. This is the history of the creation of such an intellectual machine, certain semantic connections, organizations, a history of mistakes and failures. A big history is always a history of the otherness of thinking, in which the meaning of individual moments (elements) of intellectual work is lost.

Returning to the problem of thinking, we can say that thinking is the infrastructure of intellectual work that is associated with normalization. Everything else is situational and depends on the short history of the participants. Thinking is that “part” in intellectual work that is translated and normalized. In the narrow sense of the word, “thinking” can only be discovered after something has been broadcast and what your students have taken.

Reply: After you died...

Yes. From this point of view, the program for constructing a “theory of thinking” requires close analysis and criticism.

It can be assumed that thinking is that “part” of the previous intellectual situation that allows us to develop (reproduce) a new situation.

In all cases, it is necessary to separate the plan of ideas, concepts and organizations (which probably has its own history) and the plan of functioning of the intellectual machine. One is implemented and determines the design of the machine, and the other is recorded in the description. There is no parallelism between these two plans. I don't know how to write a history of thought. All those “stories” and “historical stories” that I happened to read evoke in me a deep feeling of protest: it always seems to me that I am being cheated.

Second, a few words about the work of understanding.

I have already emphasized more than once that the main difficulty in understanding the text expressing the progress and results of methodological work is that the movement occurs simultaneously in several rows of categories. Understanding how these categories are used, what is the order of their application during ontologization and objectification, what is the structure of space, including the constitutive and regulatory plan, is extremely difficult. To the extent that many aspects of the work are expressed non-reflectively in the text, the speaker cannot fully imagine the order and structure of his work. Modern methodological culture is characterized by a constant shift in the quantifier of reality, a constant change in those ideas that are used on the objective and organizational-mental “boards”.

I remember Ilya Oskolkov’s story after his trip to Italy. There were a lot of students there who were working through Heidegger's Being and Time. And everyone was divided into young philosophers who read Hadegger up to page 15-20, and experienced ones (who ate the dog in philosophy) who had already reached page 100. This is how ratings are set in the work of understanding and interpreting complex text.

During the discussion of Dmitry Matsnev’s report, I asked the simplest scheme for interpretation [see: diagram 1]. The first frame specifies the tendency of the intellectual process; I am doing ontological work. The word "work" indicates direction as well as the presence of some fixed phases, steps, procedures and products. There is a set of “ribbons”, each of which has its own set of categories; in the simplest case, these will be categorical pairs or categorical oppositions, each of which has its own deployment ribbon. This space is divided into two subspaces: one contains logical (regulatory) categories, and the other contains categories used to draw the field of objects (constitutive). There may be difficult-to-understand cases where the same categories are used in two functions.

And finally, a space is fixed, which I call the “workbench” space. Initially, the idea of a “workbench” was taken in opposition to the idea of a “board of consciousness”: what you do on a “workbench” should be operationalized, standardized and, as a result, a result should be obtained that meets the requirements and norms of mental work (GOST).

The idea of the "workbench" is the ultimate expression of the principle of functional structures and the principle of emptiness. The place where we work must be empty before starting work and cleaned after finishing it. What is built on the workbench must be “transferred” to other functional blocks of the space of methodological reflection (thinking).

A note aside. I think that the main problem that German classical philosophy has not dealt with is the problem of the separation of functional and morphological structures, the problem of the existence of empty spaces, outside and apart from their filling. The main reason for these difficulties, in my opinion, is related to the lack of an ontology (ultimate category) in which pure functions could be objectified. This problem was solved in the works of MMK by the ontology of activity. If we understand that the ontology of “activity” has made it possible to objectify pure functions and functional structures, then we can understand the constant “mimicry” of thinking.

Thinking is forced to pretend to be activity in order to break through into the world of functions. Thinking is activity to the extent that the space of “activity” is the space of existence of functional structures and voids. At the moment when I talk about the “workbench” and the workbench organization of the space of methodological work, I interpret thinking as activity; The symbol of this active, functional and empty organization is the idea of the “workbench”.

This kind of approach makes me free to believe. Here I would like to once again refer to the theory of fictions developed in Germany at the beginning of the twentieth century, as well as to the famous work of H. Vaihinger (Die Philosophie des als ob), a German philosopher who introduced the principle of “philosophy as if” ". Once I've introduced the idea of a "workbench", I can put anything on it; I am not obliged to declare what I am building on my workbench to be a “picture of the world”; I can at any time transfer this content (content) to another block of the methodological work space and refunction it in relation to my further goals.

Refunctionalization is the technical side of problematization. Objective consciousness can never overcome this boundary; in an object holder, function is glued to morphology, and content to place. The use of the principle of functional organization makes problematization possible.

If you have accepted the principle of functional structures and functional organization of space, then you no longer have the problem of "beginning". If you have a functional structure, then you can start from anywhere. If necessary, you will go to another block, transfer the contents of one block to another, make a “copy” of the content and it will exist in two blocks at the same time. A functionally organized space lies before your eyes as a whole and you are not bound by the “filling” of this or that block. You can connect the contents that lie in different blocks, turn the content of different blocks inside out through one frame or another, focus on any block and “enter” it.

This is a huge opportunity and, at the same time, a huge existential risk. Therefore, I would like to specifically discuss the issue of anthropological (anthropotechnical) consequences of the methodological revolution.

Citizenship:

Russia

Father: Awards:

Pyotr Georgievich Shchedrovitsky(genus. September 17 ( 19580917 ) , Moscow) - methodologist and political strategist. Son of Georgy Shchedrovitsky. Consultant on spatial development, regional and industrial policy, innovation activity and personnel training.

President of the Development Institute named after. G. P. Shchedrovitsky, member of the board of the Center for Strategic Research “North-West” foundation. In the period from 2000 to 2005, he was an adviser to the Plenipotentiary Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in the Volga Federal District on strategic development issues. Currently he is an advisor to the Minister of Education and Science of the Russian Federation. And about. Deputy Director for Research.

Education

Career

Period	Job title
April 2011 - present	First Deputy Director
August 2006 - present	Chairman of the Board of Directors of JSC VNIIAES (Moscow)
2005 - present	President of the Non-profit Scientific Foundation “Institute of Development named after. G.P. Shchedrovitsky"
2005 - present	Advisor to the Head of the Federal Atomic Energy Agency of the Russian Federation
July 2008 - April 2011	Deputy General Director for Strategic Development - Director of the Directorate for Scientific and Technical Complex of the State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom (Moscow) Member of the Board of the State Corporation "Rosatom"
August 2007 - July 2008	Deputy Director of JSC Nuclear Energy Industrial Complex (Moscow)
August 2006 - August 2007	Chairman of the Board (President) of JSC VNIIAES (Moscow)
February 2005 - August 2006	General Director of FSUE "TSNIIATOMINFORM" (Moscow)

Participation in projects

2004

Consulting support for the activities of the office of the Plenipotentiary Representative of the President in the Volga Federal District, the commission for spatial development, the commission on ethno-cultural, religious and civil identity of the Volga Federal District (the project began in 2000).
Concept development and implementation of a series of pilot projects in the Volga Federal District (project started in 2000):
- competitive recruitment and training of personnel for the office of the Plenipotentiary Representative of the President (together with “CCT - XXI Century”, Moscow, and the Academy of Business and Banking, Tolyatti).
- Cultural capital of the Volga Federal District (together with the Cultural Capital Foundation).
- Fair of social projects of the Volga Federal District (together with ANO Megaproject)
- Forum “Regional Development Strategies”
- Institutions and infrastructures of the Innovative Economy: Venture Fair (together with the Russian Venture Investment Association) Business Angels Fair in the Volga Federal District
Preparation of the Report of the Center for Contemporary Art of the Volga Federal District “Russia: principles of spatial development” (together with V. Glyzychev).
Project and consulting support for a series of political companies (Arkhangelsk region - Mari-El Republic 2000, Penza region, Samara Region, Nizhny Novgorod region, Nizhny-Novgorod, 2001, 2002, Kirov region, Ulyanovsk region- together with Lengiprogor).
Preparation and organizational support for Readings in memory of G. P. Shchedrovitsky “The Legacy of G. P. Shchedrovitsky in the philosophical, methodological and socio-cultural context” (the project began in 2002 - together with I. Stepkina).

2003

Preparation of the Report of the Volga Federal District Center for Research “Creation of a national innovation system as the core of institutional reforms.”
consulting on the PFO project “Fixing the result: social dimension” (together with the ZIRCON research group).
Scientific leadership of the development of the “Main Directions of Industrial Policy of the Russian Federation” (together with A. R. Belousov and V. N. Knyaginin).
Management expertise and consulting for the political campaign of State Duma deputy candidate V. Zubov (together with A. Timanov).
Management expertise and consulting for the political campaign of the candidate for the post of governor of the Tver region D. Zelenin.
Development of scenarios for Armenia (commissioned by the Armenia 2020 club - together with the Designing the Future group).
Development of the outlines of the development strategy of the Republic of Armenia. Preparation of the Report “Expansion in the space of geo-economics” (project started in 2002 - together with V. N. Knyaginin).
Examination of the situation and development potential of the Faberlic company.

2002

Integrated design and organizational support for the campaign of the election bloc “Winter Generation Team” for elections to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (the project began in 2001 together with E. Ostrovsky).
Examination of the pre-election situation in the Krasnoyarsk Territory (in the elections of the Governor of the Krasnoyarsk Territory).
Preparation of the report of the Center for Contemporary Art of the Volga Federal District “State. Anthroflow."

2001

Scientific management of the development of the Doctrine for the Development of the North-West of Russia (based on the Center for Social Development "North-West" Foundation)
Preparation of the Report of the Center for Strategic Research of the Volga Federal District “Powers, functions and areas of competence in the strategic perspective of the development of statehood.”
“Sociocultural and political study of the preferences of the “Russian street” of Israel (together with Efim Ostrovsky)”
Development and implementation of the project “School of Personnel Reserve” (project started in 2000): Novosibirsk - June 2000, Izhevsk - July 2000, Vladivostok - September 2000, Dzerzhinsk - October 2000, Chelyabinsk - October 2000, St. Petersburg - November 2000, Ulyanovsk - November 2000, Samara - December 2000, Irkutsk - April 2001, Khabarovsk - September 2001, Krasnoyarsk - November 2001

2000

Organizational consulting for the Union of Right Forces faction (on regional development issues).
Design and creation of the Privolzhsky Center for Strategic Research federal district(CSI Volga Federal District). Preparation of the Report of the Center for Contemporary Art of the Volga Federal District “On the threshold of a new regionalization of Russia”
Development of a doctrine for the activities of the fund "Center for Strategic Research "North-West"
Preparation and holding of the competition “Anti-Crisis Manager-2000” (together with the State Corporation “Agency for Restructuring of Credit Institutions” (ARCO), the “Anti-Crisis Center” group and the Russian Federal Service for Financial Recovery and Bankruptcy.)

1999

Integrated design and organizational support for the campaign of the Union of Right Forces for elections to the State Duma of the Russian Federation (together with E. Ostrovsky).
Consulting for the socio-political movement “New Force” (together with E. Ostrovsky).
Development of the concept and group of pilot projects for the reorganization of RAO UES of Russia
Development of the concept of a PR company for GAVS and TCH (together with the Mikhailov and Partners Agency)
Development of a concept for the reorganization of city government in Omsk (together with the IMS consulting group, the project began in 1997)
Development and implementation innovative project“Municipal Technologies” (together with the IMS consulting group, the ZIRCON research group, the Academy of Urban Environment, the CONCEPT analytical center, the PROMETA design studio, the project began in 1995)

1998

Development of the concept and implementation of a PR campaign for the Minister of Agriculture and Food V. Semenov
External management of the political campaign of the candidate for the post of Governor of the Krasnoyarsk Territory V. Zubov
Integrated design and organizational support for the campaign of candidate for deputy of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine V. Khoroshkovsky (together with E. Ostrovsky)
Development of the outlines of the concept of a new positioning of the Russian Federation within the CIS (together with E. Ostrovsky, the project began in 1997)

1997

Development of the outlines of the concept of reorganization of the Federal Securities Commission of the Russian Federation
Development of the concept of market positioning and priorities for the Expert magazine (together with E. Ostrovsky)
Development of the outlines of a stabilization and development project management program for the Moscow region of the Russian Federation
Advising on the development of an anti-crisis program for the Krasnoyarsk City Hall
Development of a concept for the reorganization of OJSC Agrofirm Belaya Dacha
Development of a training module for training specialists in the field of personnel management (together with T. Bazarov’s group, the project began in 1996)
External management of the political campaign of the candidate for the post of Governor of the Amur Region Yu. Lyashko (together with E. Ostrovsky)
Development of a concept, layout and a series of training modules for training a reserve of senior levels of municipal government (Kaliningrad, Noyabrsk, Novy Urengoy, Moscow, together with the IMS consulting group and T. Bazarov’s group, the project began in 1994)

1996

External management of the political campaign of the candidate for the post of mayor of Krasnoyarsk P. Pimashkov (together with E. Ostrovsky)
Development of an anti-crisis program for the Arkhangelsk region of the Russian Federation.
Development of a concept for reducing damages from the bankruptcy of a large enterprise

1995

Development of the concept and implementation of the program for creating a university corporation School of Cultural Policy (project started in 1989)
Novgorod project: breakthrough into post-industrial society (together with the Gorbachev Foundation and ATT company)
Development of the project “Primary higher open humanitarian education” and organizational support for the implementation of the project in the city of Mirny, Republic of Sakha, Mezhdurechensk, Kemerovo region, Biysk Altai Territory(project started in 1991)

1994

Development of an action plan for the Government of the Republic of Sakha-Yakutia in the conditions budget crisis(together with T. Sergeitsev)
Pedagogical conveyor. Festival of Pedagogical Systems (Nakhodka, Primorsky Territory)
Development of the project “New professions for the sphere of education and culture” and organizational support for training programs in the field of cultural and educational management (together with S. Zuev, project started in 1989)
Development of the concept of social and economic adaptation of the city of Mezhdurechensk, Kemerovo region

1993

Conducting a non-fiction film festival and a seminar “Vertov’s Leap” (together with the European Documentary Film Institute)
Development of an in-house training system for a multinational company (JSC Almazy Rossii-Sakha, project started in 1991)
Development of the Nakhodka-2 project for the Administrative Committee of the Nakhodka FEZ
Development of a development concept banking in Ukraine (by order of JSCB INKO, together with D. Kulikov)

1992

Development of a system reorganization concept and preparation for the corporatization of Severovostokzoloto PA
Development of the concept of systemic reorganization of PNO "Yakutalmaz" - AK "Almazy Rossii-Sakha" (together with the company "Progressor", the project began in 1991)
Development of a series of projects for the economic adaptation of cinema industry enterprises (Sovexportfilm, VPTO "Videofilm", VPTO "Kinotsentr", "Forafilm", jointly by S. Kotelnikov and B. Ostrovsky)
Training for the cinema industry (together with the European Foundation for Image and Sound “Themis”, Moscow-Paris)
Project development and game development for a series of management schools and ODI “Organizational adaptation of traditional economic structures and new economic entities to the global economy”

1991

Development of the concept of sociocultural and economic development of the Republic of Sakha-Yakutia

Books and brochures

On the analysis of the topic of organizational-activity games. - Pushchino, NCBI AN USSR, 1986. -P. 42.
Leadership competition (together with S.V. Popov). - Moscow, Prometheus, 1989. -S. 92.
The origins of Vygotsky’s cultural-historical concept. - Abstract of the candidate's dissertation. Scientific Research Institute of Culturology, 1992. -S. 21.
Essays on the philosophy of education (articles and lectures). - Riga, Pedagogical Center "Experiment", 1993. -P. 156.
Thinking is a profession (collection of interviews). - Moscow, 2000. -S. 94.
Tomsk lectures on management (1998-2000). - Tomsk, 2001. -S. 111
Development formula. Collection of articles: 1987-2005. - Moscow, Architecture-S, 2005.-S. 224
In search of form. Digest of articles. - Moscow, FSUE "TSNIIATOMINFORM", 2005. - P. 179
Industrial policy of Russia - who will pay the costs of globalization (together with V.N. Knyaginin). - Moscow, Publishing House "Europe", 2005. -S. 160
I grew up in the MMK archive. - Moscow, Foundation “Institute of Development named after. G. P. Shchedrovitsky", 2006