Theater as such. Using White Space for Emotional Response

The “Webest” team translated the article “How to Effectively Use Whitespace in Web Design” about the use of white space in web design, which allows you to focus users’ attention and correctly place accents.

Have you ever looked at a finished design concept and felt like something was missing? More specifically, have you come to the conclusion that the design is overloaded or empty?

For us designers, it is difficult not to pay attention to such things.

One of basic principles Our work involves removing voids using a creative approach. Despite the fact that it forms the core of our activities, it is not so difficult to do. How effectively do you use spaces in ?

Is it really empty space?

Have you imagined spaces as spaces between designs? This is the most common line of thinking when it comes to discussing empty areas of our design structures. But this approach is wrong. Gaps in design are not just fillers of space - they are its most important element in itself, which carries a semantic load!

Voids can be compared to the mortar between bricks or the glue in a stained glass mosaic. Our eyes are trained to admire blocks of content and colored glass of stained glass windows. Spaces are the filling between them that holds content areas together and helps shape the overall direction of the design.

Like a jigsaw puzzle laid without glue, our designs without spaces will just be a colorful mess. Once you learn the importance of white space in design, you'll be better equipped to use it in the most effective way.

Focus

Now that we've established the importance of whitespace in our work, the only thing left to do is figure out how to use it. To do this, let's do an exercise. Open a new tab in your favorite browser and go to google.com. What's the first thing that catches your eye? I bet you noticed the bright Google logo, right? Where it is located? Of course, your eyes did not find it in the top corner, although the search out of habit begins there. Why then did your attention immediately focus on the center of the page, bypassing the rest of it?

I'm sure you already get the gist. Spaces. Google effectively uses white white space to focus the visitor's focus on the center of the page, where the essence of the page is. Whitespace is one of the simplest and most useful methods of manipulating your audience's attention.

You can use them to place semantic emphasis in the layout. By focusing the audience's attention on these areas, we can highlight important content and more effectively convey its meaning to the visitor.

Organization

By directing the audience's focus, white space gives designers an easy way to organize layout elements. Just like we use empty seats to separate blocks of text and improve the readability of important places, you can also effectively use them to highlight important blocks of a page template.

Here's a helpful tip for maintaining consistency when inserting spaces in your layout. They can be used to group content blocks. Make an effort to streamline and unify the use of white space across margins, blocks, text, and graphics. Develop a unified system for highlighting content with blank spaces for all pages.

One of the nice things about spaces is that they are very easy to customize. At the same time, they can give an amazing effect. Don't be afraid to experiment!

Accent

With its magical ability to direct the audience's eye to the right places, white space can really help highlight the most significant design elements. Based on the advice in the previous section, breaking up a continuous flow of content can quickly draw attention to the desired sections. Manipulate this property skillfully and accurately.

Systematic use of white space in your work will also help create style recognition in the eyes of your audience. As visitors explore the pages you've put together, they will develop a lasting impression of branded, high-quality design. The calling card of your work is the skillful use of empty areas to focus on the main thing.

An excellent example of the simplest implementation of this principle would be to slightly change the spacing between letters in the headings that you want to highlight. When you feel the result, move on - try changing the amount of spacing between sections of elements in your layouts. It will work.

Voids don't have to be white

All of the above refers to the direction of view of the site visitor. That is, what the use of spaces is best for. Just because the name “space” itself does not lead to the conclusion that it must necessarily be white! There is no unwritten design law that forces you to use one color or no color between key elements.

A great example to illustrate this is the Gucci fashion trend one-pager. If you're limited to just one page of content, effective use of white space becomes critical. This helps focus the audience's attention on the product, as in this particular example. Blocks of content are often designed to create continuity between them - one flows into the other in a logical way. By changing the color of the empty space in them, you can make each area stand out, while delineating their significance.

But this already depends on the layout of the blocks and colors. This way you will achieve emphasis on the content of each block without mixing the entire page into mush. I hope these tips will help you reconsider the gaps in your design work and open up new perspectives!

From the author: In web design, white space refers to areas without text or images. We can say that this is “visual silence”. For our design to function, it is necessary to properly combine empty space with used space.

Before you start, watch the video below. Rowan Atkinson: Welcome to Hell:

What did you notice? Of course, Rowan's incredible wit. But have you noticed how he uses silence to make people laugh? This technique is called comic timing, one of the most important skills a successful comedian must have.

Imagine a Rowan Atkinson performance without these pauses. Not very funny, because silence is what makes a joke funny. This silence has a very important task.

The same can be said about music. Although there it may only be a lull before a sharp increase in rhythm, and not complete silence.

Notice how in the example above the bit “drops” at 0.45 and 1.29? Silence adds drama to future events. I took the dance track, but I could have easily taken Beethoven's fifth symphony.

In both examples, silence is a critical factor in attracting attention. White space works the same way. In web design, white space refers to areas without text or images. We can say that this is “visual silence”. For our design to function, it is necessary to properly combine empty space with used space.

While Google hasn't always been known for their design skills, they have always been big believers in white space, as can be seen in their homepage. Google launched its redesign when the pages of their competitors like Yahoo! were densely packed with weather forecasts, news and mail. The no-frills interface allowed users to focus on the main task - searching the Internet, without being distracted by things they don't need.

It's hard to truly appreciate how radical design decisions have been over the past 20 years, but we know who to look for in this regard.

Two types of empty space

Active White Space: The space between design elements, often used for visual emphasis and structure. This is an asymmetrical type of space that makes the design more dynamic and active.

Passive white space: The space between words on a line or the space around logos and other graphic elements.

Take a look at home page 500px, how it uses active and passive white space.

When working with space, we mostly look at active white space, but passive space also needs a fair amount of attention and how it works with the design.

Two sizes of empty space

Microspace: This term refers to small areas of empty space between letters and words, and between several graphic elements. Properly setting up an empty microspace sets the overall tone for the entire design without changing its main component. Something similar to the rhythm in dance songs. The song is the same, but somehow sleepy.

The screenshot above shows the empty microspace between the Log In and Sign up buttons, as well as between the heading and paragraph.

Macro Empty Space: This term describes large amounts of empty space. For example, the space between columns or paragraphs. Optimizing macro space can often make a dramatic difference to your design, potentially improving the flow of attention and rhythm on a web page.

In Tumblr's design, empty macro space is clearly visible in the empty footer and sides.

White empty space?

The term white space implies a lack of color or tone, which can be confusing. White space can actually be any color that represents emptiness in your design—yellow, blue, green, or even a texture (like the Todoist example below).

Your choice of color doesn't matter, but don't forget that colors and textures are much more pleasing to look at than stark white. The principle remains the same even if you choose a different color or texture.

Where and how to use white space

White space and call to action (CTA) elements

Always imagine that the user doesn't know where to go next and design the white space appropriately. The idea is simple - if there is nothing next to a button on the page, then you need to click on it. Conversely, if the page is cluttered with elements, the user won't even notice the button due to the clutter.

Modern tendencies and approaches in web development

Learn the algorithm for rapid growth from scratch in website building

As you can see from the image above, the second CTA element is much more attractive than the first because it is not cluttered with other elements.

Using White Space for Emotional Response

There are many ways to evoke emotion in a design, including fonts, color, and imagery. All of these techniques help add drama, but white space is the strongest component and the least expensive. Some call it good investment funds.

In the screenshot above, you can see how Todoist uses the white space around the title, making the background image shine and convey a positive vibe. They also took an image of a happy guy, not an app, which is also a big plus.

How to overcome the desire to fill voids

As designers and people, we have a natural desire to fill empty space. When we buy a large closet, garage or house, it doesn't take us long to fill this new space.

This habit often carries over to design. Once we notice an empty area in our design, we begin to think, “What should we fill it with?” This kind of thinking can cause problems for designers.

Don't fill your design with elements, try placing one CTA button in the center and creating a "safe zone" (white space) around it. Remember that empty space is not wasted space.

Who makes good use of white space?

Throughout its history, Volkswagen has been a master of using white space in magazine advertising. From the very beginning, their simple but dynamic layouts stood out among the static magazine advertising.

The macro space is clearly visible above and below the car, which puts the car in the center of attention. The asymmetry of the empty space forces us to move our eyes around the car, down to the text and back up. The eyes don't stand still. What if we cut the VW ad a little?

the car seems less impressive;

the gaze no longer so easily flutters over the layout;

It’s harder to present a story about a man who fainted.

As you can see in the images below, from the 1960s to today, Volkswagen has used white space to great effect.

Compared to Volkswagen, Apple is a newcomer, but has already proven itself to be a strong believer in white space design - from their website, products, to their iconic design and architecture. Apple store.

Conclusion

We learned that white space is not white, and also that it is a place in design where nothing happens. An extremely important principle in design that designers should not forget about. It's the white space that decides whether a page can be worked with or not, and whether any element needs extra attention.

We learned that white space comes in two types (active and passive) and two sizes (micro and macro). We looked at an example of the equivalent of white space in comedy (comic timing), how it makes people laugh, and also looked at an example of white space in music.

Finally, as a designer I would like to add “less is more.” Start from this in your work. White space can make or break a design. I hope these ideas help you with your next design.

There is no doubt that theater occupies a special place in life that belongs to it alone. It is like a magnifying glass and at the same time like a diminutive lens. It's a small world. But it can easily go from small to insignificant. It is not similar to the life around it, so it is easy to separate it from life altogether. On the other hand, although everything is changing and we have to live less and less in small towns and more and more in endless megalopolises, the theater remains the same: the community composition of performers is the same as it has always been. Theater narrows life, it narrows it in many ways. It is difficult to set just one goal in life; in the theater, however, the goal is clear and united. From the first rehearsal she is always in sight, and not too far away. Everyone participates in achieving it. We see some social factors come into play: the tension of the premiere creates such cohesion, such passion, such energy and attention to each other's needs that governments begin to fear whether there will be an opportunity to start new wars. In our society as a whole, the role of art is not fully defined.

People for the most part can exist perfectly well without any art, and even if they regret its absence, this, in any case, does not affect their activities. In the theater everything is different. In any case, every practical question is at the same time an artistic question. Even the most unlucky imperfect performer finds himself drawn, along with experienced masters, into problems of space, intonation and rhythm, color and form. At a rehearsal, the height of the chair, the texture of the costume, the brightness of the lighting, the degree of emotion always matter. Aesthetics becomes practice.

It would be wrong to say that this happens because theater is an art. The scene is a reflection of life, but this life cannot be relived without a certain system of rules based on the observance of certain value judgments. The chair moves on stage because (it’s better this way). Two columns do not sound, but add a third and you get what you need - the words “better”, “worse”, “not so good”, “bad” are used every day, but the words themselves that guide decisions do not carry any moral sense.

Anyone interested in the phenomena of natural life will be rewarded by the study of the theater. His discoveries in this area will be much more applicable to the life of society as a whole than the study of bees and ants. Through a magnifying glass he will see a group of people living all the time according to precise, defined, but nameless standards.

He will see that in any society the theater either does not have any special function, or it is the only one of its kind. The uniqueness of this function is that the theater offers something that cannot be found on the street, at home, in a pub, in the company of friends or in a psychiatrist's office, in church or in the cinema. There is only one curious difference between cinema and theater. Cinema brings images of the past to the screen. Because this is what the mind is occupied with throughout life, cinema feels intimately real. There's really nothing like it. Cinema brings joy by prolonging imaginary everyday experiences on the screen. Theater always asserts itself in the present. This is exactly what can make it more real than the usual stream of consciousness. This is what can make it so exciting.

It is the attitude of censorship towards the theater that speaks eloquently about its hidden power. Under most regimes, even when the written word is free, the visual arts are free, and sienna is the last to be free. Instinctively, governments know that a live event can cause a dangerous outbreak, even if, as we see, this happens quite rarely. But this ancient fear is a recognition of ancient possibilities.

The theater is an arena where live action can take place. Focus large group calls people total voltage, thanks to which the forces that at any time control the daily life of every person, finding themselves at that moment isolated, can assert themselves more impressively.

Now I have to be indiscreet. In the three previous chapters I dealt with various forms of theater in general, as they develop around the world and, naturally, in my own practice. If this last chapter, which inevitably turns out to be a conclusion in some way, will result in a story about the form of the theater, which I seem to recommend, then this is only because I can only talk about the theater that I know. I will unwittingly have to narrow my field of vision and talk about theater, as I understand it, autobiographically. I will try to give examples and draw conclusions based on my own practice - this is what my experience is made up of and my point of view is born. The reader, in turn, must remember that this is inseparable from my passport, nationality, place and year of birth, physical characteristics, eye color, handwriting, Moreover, all this is inseparable from today. This is a portrait of the author at the moment of work - a seeker in a dying and evolving theater. As my work continues and new experience accumulates, my conclusions will seem less and less convincing. It is impossible to pinpoint the purpose of this book - but I hope it can be of benefit to someone trying to resolve Svan own problems in other conditions and at other times. If someone is going to use it as a manual, I must warn you in advance - it does not contain universal formulas, it does not offer a method. I can describe an exercise or technique, but anyone who tries to reproduce it from my descriptions will be disappointed. I would undertake to teach anyone everything I know about theatrical techniques in a few hours. The rest is practice, and this cannot be done alone. We can only try to trace something by analyzing the process of preparing the play for the performance. In the performance, relationships are in the foreground; actor - (thing) - audience. At rehearsal: actor - (thing) - director. At the earliest stage: director-(thing)-artist.

Scenery and costumes are SOMETIMES born during rehearsal at the same time as the entire performance, but often practical considerations force the artist to present a completed work by the first rehearsal. Often I design the performance myself. This gives certain advantages, but for a very special reason. When the director acts at the same time as an artist, his general theoretical understanding of the play and its embodiment in form and color appear in the same rhythm. Sometimes the director does not succeed in a scene for several weeks, some part the scenery turned out to be unfinished1 - then, in the process of working on the scenery, the director can suddenly find a moment that had eluded him; As he works on the structure of a complex wall, he will suddenly grasp its meaning in the expressions of stage action or in the change of colors. In the work of a director with an artist, consistency of rhythms becomes most important.

I have had the pleasure of collaborating with many wonderful artists, but at times I have fallen into strange traps - for example, in cases where the artist has too quickly found an undeniable solution - so that I find myself forced to accept or reject certain forms before I myself could feel which of them were organic for the given content. When I accepted an artist’s obviously wrong idea because it was not MINE to find a logical justification for refusal, I fell into a trap under which the production could never come to fruition. As a result, I staged a very bad performance. I have often noticed that the scenery is the geometry of the performance, so that the scenery that does not correspond to the plan makes some scenes unfeasible and sometimes paralyzes the actor’s capabilities. The best artist is the one who works step by step with the directors, going back, changing, discarding as the entire interpretation takes shape. A director who makes sketches himself never naturally considers that the completion of work on them in itself is the end of the work as a whole. He knows that this is only the beginning of a long cycle of development of the idea, since he himself still has the entire process of creating the performance ahead of him. Many artists tend, however, to believe that once the set and costume designs have been submitted, the bulk of their creative work is truly complete. This is especially true of good artists when they collaborate in the theater. For them, the finished drawing is complete. Fans visual arts They can never understand why stage design is not entrusted in all cases to great artists and sculptors.

What is essentially needed is an unfinished drawing, a drawing in which there is clarity without cruelty: one that could be called “open” as opposed to “closed.”

This is the essence of theatrical thinking: for a true theater artist, his drawings will always be in motion, in interaction with everything that the actor brings to a given scene as it develops. In other words, and unlike an easel artist who works in two dimensions, or a sculptor who works in three, a theater artist thinks in the fourth dimension, the movement of time, creating not a stage picture, but a kind of stage film frame. The film editor gives shape to the material after it has been shot; the theater designer often acts as the editor of a film reminiscent of Through the Looking Glass, giving shape to the material before it occurs.

The later he makes a decision, the better.

It is very easy - and quite common - to ruin an actor's performance with inaccurate costumes. An actor whose thoughts on a costume design are asked before rehearsals begin is in the same position as a director who is asked about his decision before he has made it. Plastically, the actor has not yet had time to feel the role, so his opinion is pointless. If the sketches are cleverly executed and the costume itself is beautiful, the actor will often agree with the designer, only to discover a few weeks later that the costume does not correspond at all to what he is trying to express. The artist's main problem is what should the actor wear? The costume is not born in the artist’s head: it arises from the environment. Take, for example, a European actor playing a Japanese man.

Even if all the details were taken care of, his costume would always lack the appeal of a samurai costume in a Japanese film. In authentic scenery, the details are true and interconnected; in copying based on the study of documents, a number of compromises are almost always inevitable; the material is only more or less similar to the real thing, the cut is simplified and approximate; the actor himself is not able to get used to the costume with the instinctive precision of the people for whom it is organic.

If we cannot decently portray a Japanese or an African by imitating them, then the same applies to what we call “era”. An actor whose work looks authentic in a rehearsal costume loses integrity by wearing a toga copied from a vase in the British Museum. In the same time; wearing casual suits is not a solution; as a rule, they are unsuitable for the performance. For example, in the Noh theater, ritual costumes of amazing beauty have been preserved. Church vestments have also been preserved. During the Baroque period there was a concept of “magnificent attire” - it could become the basis for costumes for opera or drama. The Romantic era shaft was a chain source for such outstanding artists as Oliver Messel or Christian Berard. In the USSR, the white tie and tailcoat, which disappeared from everyday life after the revolution, became elegant and indispensable professional clothing for musicians, immediately emphasizing the difference between rehearsal and performance.

Every time we start work on a new production, we are forced to raise this issue again. What should an actor wear? Does his behavior reflect the spirit of the era? What era is this? What are its features? Is the information we get from documents reliable? Perhaps a flight of imagination and a certain amount of inspiration will better convey the spirit of reality? What are the dramatic goals? Who needs suits? What does an actor need plastically? What does the viewer's eye need? Should you follow the taste of the audience or act contrary to it? What can enhance color and texture? What can they mute?

The distribution of roles gives rise to a new set of problems. If there is little time allotted for rehearsals, a typical distribution of roles is inevitable, but everyone is naturally upset. Any actor would like to play all the roles. In reality he is incapable of this. Each of them is constrained by its own limits set by its type. All that can be said is that in most cases, trying to predict in advance what an actor cannot do is usually futile. What is interesting about actors is their ability to reveal unexpected traits during rehearsals: disappointment is caused by an actor who submits to the prevailing ideas about him. Trying to assign roles “consciously” is usually a futile exercise.

It is much better to have the time and conditions under which it is possible to take risks. At the same time, you can make a mistake, but in return you will receive completely unexpected discoveries and solutions. No actor remains motionless in his creative biography. The easiest way is to imagine that he is frozen at a certain level, when in fact invisible but significant changes are ripening within him. An actor who seemed great at an audition may actually be very talented, but this is unlikely - most often he is simply a highly skilled actor and his skill is QUITE superficial. An actor who does very poorly at an audition is most likely a lousy actor, but this does not have to be the case, and he may well turn out to be the best. No rules apply to this: if production conditions force you to cast actors you don't know, you have to rely on guesswork.

At the beginning of rehearsals, the actors are not at all the calm, relaxed creatures they would like to appear to be. They come, burdened and constrained by their own worries and experiences, and these experiences are so varied that we are sometimes faced with the most unexpected phenomena. For example, a young actor playing with a group of inexperienced colleagues may suddenly discover talent and skill that puts the professionals to shame. And take the same actor, who has already proven his abilities, and surround him with older comrades whom he respects very much, and he may become not only clumsy and frozen, but his talent will not show itself in anything. Put him next to actors he despises and he becomes himself again. Because talent is not static, it ebbs and flows depending on many different circumstances. Not all actors of the same age are at the same stage of professionalism. For some, the mixture of enthusiasm and experience is supported by confidence based on small successes in the past, and not undermined by the fear of complete failure. They begin rehearsals in a completely different way than, for example, the same young actor who has already made a big name for himself and began to wonder how far he will go, whether he has achieved something, what his position is, whether he has recognized what lies ahead for him in the future . The actor who believes that one day he will play Hamlet has inexhaustible energy, while the one who realizes that the world is by no means convinced that he will ever play the leading role paralyzes his strength with painful self-analysis with its consequent need. in self-affirmation.

When a troupe gathers for its first rehearsal (whether it be a team or a permanent troupe), there are always a number of unspoken personal questions and concerns hanging in the air. Of course, they are all aggravated by the presence of the director: if he himself were in a state of absolute peace sent down to him from above, he could help, but most of the time he is also in tension and busy with the problems of the performance, and the need to publicly fulfill his obligations only adds to this fuel to the fire of his vanity.

A director can never afford to stage for the first time. I once heard that a novice hypnotist would never admit to a patient that he was hypnotizing for the first time in his life. He had already “done this successfully many times.” I started with the second production because, when at seventeen I found myself face to face with a group of ironically and critically minded amateurs, I was forced to fantasize a non-existent triumph in order to instill in myself the confidence that both sides desperately needed.

The first rehearsal always feels like a blind man leading the blind. On the first day, the director can give a formally structured speech, explaining the main tasks of the upcoming work. Or he can show models and costume designs, or books and photographs, or just make a joke, or have the actors read the play. Sometimes you can have a drink together, or play something, or take a walk around the theater - it should all work in the same direction. Since no one can truly internalize what is said, the purpose of everything done on the first day is to get closer to the second day.

The second day is completely different; after the past day, each individual factor and the relationship between them have subtly changed. Everything that happens during rehearsal affects this mechanism. Cooperative play and about something - a process that produces certain results, such as trust, friendliness, simplicity of relationships. Even during an audition, you can play something to create a more relaxed atmosphere. Play is never an end in itself - and the short time provided for rehearsals and freedom of communication are insufficient. Painful joint efforts in the scenes of improvisation of madness in the play “Marat/Sade” brought certain results: the actors, who shared the difficulties, open up to each other and to the play itself in a completely different way.

The director knows that rehearsals are an evolutionary process. He foresees everything that will come in due time in this process, and his art is the art of determining the decisive moment. He knows that he should not suggest any thoughts prematurely.

Otherwise, he will have to see the expression on the faces of a seemingly calm, internally tense actor who is unable to comprehend what is being said to him. Then the director will understand that he can only wait, without pushing the performer too much. In the third week, everything will change and a word or a nod of the head will create an instant connection. And the director will find that he, too, is not standing still. No matter how hard he works at home, the director is unable to understand the play alone. Whatever thoughts he brings with him on the first day will gradually develop and be enriched by the process in which he participates with the actors, so that by the third week it will become clear that he himself perceives everything differently The actor's perception becomes a spotlight for his own, and he either moves on or becomes acutely aware that he has not yet discovered anything of value.

In fact, the director who comes to the first rehearsal with a ready-made script and recorded movements is a dead man in the theater.

When Sir Barry Jackson invited me to direct Love's Labour's Lost at Stratford in 1945, it was my first serious production. But by that time I had already worked enough in small theaters to know that actors, and most importantly, administrators, most of all despise people who, as they put it, do not know what they want.” So on the eve of the first rehearsal, I sat in a state of shock in front of the mock-up of the scenery, realizing that any further delay would mean death. I was handling pieces of cardboard in my hands - forty pieces, symbolizing forty actors, to whom I had to give clear and precise instructions the next morning. Again and again I came up with the first way out to the trial, realizing that it was on him that “sink or sink” would depend; I numbered the figures, drew diagrams, moved pieces of cardboard back and forth, making large groups of them, then small ones, on the side, behind, on the stairs, on the lawn, then swept everything away with my sleeve, cursed everything in the world and started from the very beginning. As I did this, I wrote down every movement and... when no one saw, I crossed it out and wrote it down again. The next morning I showed up at rehearsal with a thick notebook under my mouse. They placed a table in front of me, respecting the plump volume I had brought.

I divided the performers into groups, numbered and arranged them in their original positions and then, loudly and confidently giving instructions, began the first scene. When the actors began to move, I saw that all this was no good. They were by no means pieces of cardboard - these huge living creatures rushed forward with a swiftness that I could not have predicted. Some of them continued to move without stopping, staring straight at me; others, on the contrary, lingered, stopped, turned their backs to me with a deliberate grace that surprised me. We had only completed the first stage of the movement, the letter “A” on my diagram, but no one was already in their assigned place, so it was impossible to move on to paragraph “B”. My heart sank and, despite all my preparations, I was completely at a loss. Should I start over, training these actors to the point that they will submit to my plan? Some inner voice told me that this is exactly what I should do. But there was another who pointed out that my version was much less interesting; that this new one, being born before my eyes, saturated with personal energy, individual characteristics, colored by the activity of some and the inertia of others, promises a wide variety of rhythms and opens up many unexpected possibilities. The critical moment has arrived.

Looking back, I think that my entire future, my entire creative destiny, was at stake. I stopped working, walked away from my notebook, approached the actors and since then have never looked at the plan I had drawn up. Once and for all I realized how stupid and presumptuous it was to assume that an inanimate model could replace a person.

Naturally, any work involves reflection. To reflect means to compare, to make mistakes, to go back, to doubt. This is what an artist does, and so does a Writer, but alone with himself. The theater director has to reveal his doubts to the actors, but as a reward he receives material that develops before his eyes; the sculptor claims that the choice of material always makes its own adjustments to his creation - living acting material constantly speaks, feels, studies. Rehearsing is thinking out loud.

Let me give you one strange paradox. Only a very bad director can be compared in effectiveness to a very good one. Sometimes a director is so bad, so directionless, so incapable of expressing his aspirations, that his lack of ability becomes a positive factor. It drives actors to despair. Gradually, creative failure leads him to an abyss, on the edge of which the performers find themselves, and as the premiere approaches, the horror that grips them forces them to make immediate decisions. It happened that at the last moment the troupe gathered its strength and played the premiere in such a way that the director was later praised. When such a director is fired, the person who takes his place often has an easy job ahead of him. Once I had to completely remake someone else's production in one evening - and as a result I gained undeserved success. Despair had so prepared the ground that only a gentle push was required on my part.

However, when the director is competent enough, relentless enough and confident enough to inspire the actor's partial confidence, that's when the result most easily misfires. Even if the actor does not agree with what he is told, he still shifts part of the burden onto the director, internally feeling that “perhaps” he is right, or at least realizing that the director, after all, “is responsible for everything.” answer” and will be forced to “save the situation.” This finally relieves the actor of personal responsibility and eliminates the possibility of spontaneous combustion of the troupe. A modest, unpretentious director, often a pleasant person, should be trusted least of all.

Everything I said can easily be misinterpreted. Therefore, directors who do not want to be branded as despots are sometimes forced to do nothing, cultivating non-interference and believing that this is the only form of respect for the actor. This is an erroneous attitude - without leaders, the troupe cannot achieve results in the time allotted for rehearsals.

The director is not free from responsibility - he is responsible for everything, but he is also not free from participation in the process itself, he is part of this process. From time to time an actor comes into the world who claims that directors are not needed - actors can do everything themselves.

Perhaps that's fair. But what actors? For actors to create something themselves, they must be at such a high level that they hardly need rehearsals.

Once they read the play, they will be able to reproduce the invisible essence of it in the blink of an eye. This is unrealistic: this is what a director is needed to help the troupe achieve such an ideal state. The director is here to attack and retreat, provoke and retaliate until something starts to work out. An opponent of directing rejects the director from the very first rehearsal. The director always disappears, a little later, during the first performance. Sooner or later an actor must appear, and then the ensemble begins to control everything. The director must feel what the actor wants and what he is avoiding, what obstacles he creates to his own intentions. No director gives an actor an exact model of the game. In the best case, the director allows the actor to reveal his own capabilities, which may have remained unknown to him.

The game begins with a slight internal push, so small that it remains almost invisible. This is noticeable when you compare acting on screen and on stage: a good theater actor can act in films, but not always vice versa. What's going on?

I suggested the following to the actor’s imagination: “She is leaving you.” At this moment, somewhere in the depths of his consciousness there is a slight movement. This happens not only in actors - the same movement begins in everyone, only in non-actors it is too insignificant to somehow manifest itself; the actor is a more sensitive instrument, he has an impulse - in cinema it is immediately recorded by the lens, so for the film the first impulse is quite sufficient. In the theater, at the beginning of rehearsals, the impulse does not go beyond a slight thrill.

Even if the actor wants to enhance it with maximum psychological stress, it will happen short circuit and grounding. In order for this impulse to embrace the entire organism, a general emancipation is necessary, either from God or developed in oneself.

This is what rehearsals are for. In a sense, the game is mediumistic, in Grotowski's terminology. the actor is “permeated”, permeated with himself. For very young actors, obstacles can be easily overcome, and “permeation” can arise with surprising ease. As a result, they produce complex and skillful incarnations that plunge those who have spent years perfecting their craft into despair. However, later these same actors develop barriers within themselves. Children often play with inimitable naturalness. Non-actors, taken from real life by the director, look great on screen. But for mature masters the process should be two-way; Excitation coming from within must be facilitated by a stimulus from without. Sometimes thoughts and knowledge can help an actor get rid of preconceived judgments that block his path to a deeper understanding of the material, and sometimes vice versa. In order to understand a difficult role, an actor must exhaust his capabilities to the fullest, but great actors sometimes go even further. While pronouncing words, they simultaneously listen sensitively to the echoes that arise within them.

John Gielgud the wizard. His acting art goes far beyond the ordinary, standard, and banal. His manner of speaking, his vocal cords, his sense of rhythm constitute an instrument that he consciously developed through the process of creativity throughout his life. His inner innate aristocracy, his personal and social convictions, determined many of his qualities, helped him realize the difference between sublime values ​​and counterfeits, and finally convinced him that the possibilities of sifting, weeding, selecting and purifying are endless. His art has always been more vocal than plastic: even at the beginning of his career, he decided that his mind was more flexible than his body. This limited himself in his acting material, but he did wonders with what he naturally had. It is not the speech itself, not the melodies, but the constant interaction between the word-forming mechanism and consciousness that makes his art so unique, so exciting and especially so meaningful. In Gielgud we feel both the meaning of what he expresses and the art of the performer. Such a high degree of skill only enhances our admiration. I always remember working with him with great pleasure.

Paul Scoffland speaks to his audience differently. Whereas in Gielgud the instrument is midway between the music and the listener and thus requires a skilled and prepared performer, in Scofpled the instrument and the performer are one - an instrument of flesh and blood, opening itself to the unknown. Scofield, whom I met when he was still a very young actor, had a strange peculiarity: he was not good at poetry, but he created unforgettable prose poems. It was as if the act of uttering a word caused vibrations within him that reverberated with meanings far more complex than his rational thinking could create. He uttered the word “night”, and then was forced to pause, listening with his whole being to these amazing impulses arising somewhere in the mysterious chamber inside him. Thus he experienced the miracle of discovery at the moment of its accomplishment. These pauses, these deep insights imparted a purely individual structure of rhythms to his performance and conveyed to the listener a hitherto hidden meaning.

While rehearsing a role, he passes over and over again through words his entire being, consisting, as it were, of millions of ultra-sensitive sensors. During the performance, the same mechanism is triggered, thanks to which everything that he has already recorded appears every evening both as before and in a completely different way.

I have cited two well-known names as examples, but the phenomenon itself constantly appears during the rehearsal, re-raising the problem of spontaneity and experience, spontaneity and rationalism. There are things that young and unknown actors can do that experienced actors cannot do.

The history of theater knows times when the work of an actor was based on certain generally accepted means of expression. There were fixed performing techniques that have been abandoned in our days. On the other hand (although this is less noticeable), the freedom offered by the system in choosing expressive means in equally limited because, based on his everyday observations and the immediacy of his own perception, the actor does not draw from the depths of creativity. He turns to himself for the alphabet, also fossilized, since the language of signs from life, with which he is well acquainted, is in fact not an invented language, but a language inherent to him. His observations of behavior are often observations of projections of himself. What he considers spontaneous is filtered and controlled many times. If the dog in Pavlov's experiments had improvised, it would still have salivated when called, but it would have been sure that this was happening on its own initiative. “I’m drooling,” she would say, proud of herself.

Those who work on improvisation see firsthand how quickly actors reach the limits of so-called freedom. Our public exercises with the Theater of Cruelty brought the performers to a state in which they mostly varied their own cliches, like the hero of Marcel Marceau, who, having escaped from one prison, suddenly realized that he was in another. We did an experiment with an actor opening a door and discovering something unexpected behind it. He had to react to this unexpected either with a gesture, or a sound, or with his entire appearance. The first reaction was required from him: an exclamation or movement - whatever he pleased. At first, everything shown was a stock of acting imitations. Open your mouth in surprise, step back in horror - where did this so-called spontaneity come from? It is clear that a truthful and instantaneous internal reaction was at one time recorded by consciousness, and now, with the speed of lightning, memory has replaced what it once saw with external imitation. Not knowing what to do, the actor at first feels on the verge of disaster, but at the right moment a saving ready solution comes. This is how the Inanimate Theater creeps into us.

The goal of improvisation during the rehearsal process and the goal of the exercises are always the same: to move away from the Inanimate Theater. This does not mean at all that the actor should choke in splashes of pleasure, as it seems to outsiders. The task is to bring the actor again and again to his own barriers, to the moment where he replaces the newly discovered truth with a lie.

An actor who plays falsely throughout a long scene appears false to the public because, step by step recreating the image of his hero, he replaces authentic details with artificial ones. Even insignificant fake passions are conveyed with the help of contrived theatrical poses. However, in the process of rehearsing large passages, this is difficult to overcome - there is too much going on at once. The goal of the exercise is to go back and, gradually narrowing and narrowing the area, to find the place where the falsehood was born.

If the actor manages to discover this moment, he is obviously capable of a deep, truly creative impulse. Something similar happens with two actors playing together. We know mainly the external signs of ensemble performance.

The basic principles of collective creativity, which the English theater is so proud of, are based on politeness, politeness, prudence: Your turn, I’m after you, etc. - a facsimile that works when the actors find themselves in the same performing manner, that is, the old actors play superbly with each other friend and also very young. But when they unite both of them - with all their correctness and mutual respect - nothing good will come of it. In the play that I staged in Paris based on Genet’s play “The Balcony,” I had to employ actors of various genres - classical repertoire, film actors, ballet actors and, finally, just amateurs.

Long evenings of improvisations on obscene topics served one purpose - they helped this motley group of people come into contact with each other and find opportunities for direct communication with each other.

Some exercises reveal actors to each other in a completely different way. For example, multiple actors can play completely different scenes side by side. At the same time, they should not enter into a conversation at the same moment, so everyone has to carefully monitor everything that is happening in order to understand in time exactly which moments depend on him. Or again: the development of a collective sense of responsibility for the quality of improvisation and the search for new forms as the old ones become dull.

Many exercises are given primarily in order to liberate the actor, to help him realize his own capabilities, and then force him to blindly follow instructions from the outside. Then, having trained a sensitive ear, he will be able to sense impulses within himself that he would never have felt otherwise. For example, a Shakespearean monologue broken down into three voices like a canon would be an excellent exercise. It requires three actors to read it several times at breakneck speed. At first, the technical difficulty absorbs all the attention of the actors, then gradually, as they overcome the difficulties, they are asked to reveal the meaning without violating the rigid form. Due to the speed and mechanical rhythm, this seems impossible: the actor is deprived of the opportunity to use his usual means of expression. Then he suddenly breaks the barrier and then realizes how much freedom is hidden in the depths of the toughest discipline.

Another example is to take the words “To be or not to be, that is the question” and distribute them to eight actors, one word each. The actors stand in a tight circle and try to pronounce words one after another, trying to create a living phrase. It is so difficult that even the most intractable actor becomes convinced of how deaf and insensitive he is to his neighbor. And when, after a long work, the phrase suddenly sounds, everyone experiences a trembling feeling of freedom; for the blink of an eye, they suddenly see what the possibility of group play means and what difficulties it contains. The exercise can be developed further by replacing the "" verb "to be" with others with the same degree of affirmation or negation, and finally, sounds or gestures can replace one word or even all of them and still try to preserve the lively dramatic impulse of all participants in this experience.

The purpose of such exercises is to bring the actors to a state in which, if one does something unexpected, but reliably, the rest pick up on it and respond at the same level. This is ensemble performance or, in theater language, ensemble creativity. It would be completely wrong to think that exercises are a school that an actor needs only at a certain stage of his development. An actor, like any artist, is like a garden, so it would be useless to try to weed it out once and for all. Weeds constantly grow - this is completely natural, and they have to be removed, which is also only natural, but also necessary.

Actors must learn to change their means of expression. They must be able to select.

Staniol's title "Creating Character" is misleading: character is not static and cannot be built up like a wall.

Repetitions do not lead directly to the premiere. This is extremely difficult for some actors to grasp - especially those who pride themselves on their craft. For mediocre actors, the process of character creation goes like this: at the very beginning there is a painful moment: “What will happen this time? I have already played many successful roles, but will inspiration still come today?” Such an actor appears at the first rehearsal, gripped by horror, but gradually his standard techniques fill the vacuum created by fear. As he “discovers” the technique of creating each passage, he reinforces it, feeling relieved that he has again avoided disaster. So on the day of the premiere, although he is nervous, his nerves are the seals of a marksman who is confident that he can hit the target, but is afraid that he will not be able to hit the top ten in the presence of friends.

A truly creative actor experiences a completely different kind of and much deeper horror during the laziness of the premiere. During the rehearsal, he was constantly occupied with character traits, which he constantly feels as particulars, much less significant than the truth itself, so that, being an honest artist, he finds himself forced to endlessly reject something and start something again. A creative actor is always ready to abandon frozen forms at the last rehearsal, because it is with the approach of the premiere that his creation is, as it were, illuminated by a powerful spotlight and he sees its pathetic inconsistency. This actor also strives to preserve everything he managed to find, he also wants to avoid injury at all costs by appearing in front of the public naked and unprepared, although this is exactly how he should be. He must be able to break everything and refuse results, even if the new ones turn out to be no better. This is easier for French actors than English ones, because by temperament they are more ready to accept the idea that everything is no good. And this is the only way in which a living person can be born on stage, instead of being artificially constructed. The role that has been created is the same every evening - except that over time it will slowly be covered with erosion. In order for the role that was born to always remain the same, it must be born again, which makes it always different. Of course, when we are talking about long-running performances, the attempt to recreate each day becomes painful and almost unbearable, so that the result is that an experienced creative actor is forced to go back and turn to the second level, called technique.

I staged a play with such a perfect actor as Alfred Lunt. In the first act he had to sit on the bench. At rehearsal, he suggested taking off a shoe and rubbing your foot as a reality of life. He then added shaking out the boot before he put it back on. One day, when we were on tour in Boston, I walked past his restroom. The door was ajar. He was preparing for the performance, but I realized that he was waiting for me.

He beckoned to me excitedly. I entered the restroom, he closed the door and invited me to sit down. “I want to try something today,” he said. - But only if you agree.

I went out for a walk today and this is what I found.” He held out his palm. There were two tiny stones lying on it. “In that scene where I shake out the shoe,” he continued, “it always bothered me that nothing was falling out of the shoe. So I decided to try putting some pebbles in there. When I start shaking them out, you will see how they fall and the sound of falling will be heard. What do you say to this? I admitted it was a brilliant idea and his face lit up. He looked tenderly at these two stones, then looked at me - suddenly the expression on his face changed. For a long time he looked at the pebbles with concern. “Do you think it would be better to be alone?” The hardest task for an actor is to be sincere and detached at the same time; It is usually drilled into the actor that sincerity is all that is required of him.

With its moral overtones, this word causes great confusion. In some ways, the most powerful characteristic of Brecht's actors is the degree to which they are "insincere".

Only through his detachment will the actor be able to see his own cliches. There is a dangerous trap hidden in the word “sincerity”. First of all, the young actor discovers that his work is so grueling that it requires certain skills from him. For example, he must be heard, his body must obey his desires, he must become the master of concerted action, and not the slave of random rhythms. Therefore, he looks for technical means and soon acquires certain skills. Mastering techniques can very soon become a source of pride for an actor and at the same time lead him into a dead end. It becomes skill for skill's sake, rather than an expression of art - in other words, art becomes insincere. The young actor, observing the veteran's insincerity, is disgusted. He is looking for sincerity. Sincerity is a loaded word. Like “purity,” it carries childish associations with virtue, decency, and truthfulness. It seems to be an ideal, a goal more worthy than the constant improvement of technology, and since sincerity is a feeling, everyone can always tell when he feels that he is sincere. You can find your way to sincerity through emotional surrender, commitment to something, truthfulness and, finally, as the French say, “diving into cold water.” Unfortunately, this sometimes gives rise to the worst manner of playing. When it comes to other arts , no matter how deep the immersion in the creative process goes, there is always the opportunity to step aside and look at the result. When the artist moves away from the canvas, new senses are included in the work, which can warn him about excesses. A trained pianist’s head is physically less occupied. than his fingers, so that no matter how far he is carried away by the music, his ear retains its share of independence and the ability to objectively control. Acting is in many ways unique in its difficulties, since the actor has to use treacherous, changeable and mysterious material - himself. He is required to be completely captured, but to remain at a distance - detached, but without detachment. He must be sincere and must be insincere: he must learn to be sincerely insincere and to lie with absolute truthfulness. This is almost impossible, but it is very important and is easily forgotten.

Too often actors - and it is not their fault, but those of the dead schools with which the world is filled - build their work on the scraps of doctrine. The great system of Stanislavski, which for the first time approached the art of performance from the point of view of science and knowledge, has brought as much benefit as harm to many young actors who have misread it in detail and have been able to extract from it only hatred of doctrine. After Stanislavsky, Artaud's works, equal in importance to him, half read and understood 1/1, gave rise to a naive conviction that emotional return and decisive self-expression are all that matters. In our time, this is additionally reinforced by the poorly digested and misunderstood provisions of Grotowski. Now there is a new form of sincere performance, which consists in the fact that everything must be passed through your body. This is a kind of naturalism. An actor of the naturalistic school sincerely strives to imitate the experiences and actions of people in the world around him and live the role in exactly this way. Following a new form of naturalism, the actor similarly gives his all, while trying to avoid the naturalistic. This is self-deception. It is only because the theater with which he is associated is at the other pole from old-fashioned naturalism that he believes that he, too, has managed to move far away from this manner he despises. In fact, he approaches the picture of his own experiences with the same conviction that every detail must be reproduced with photographic accuracy. The result is often vague, sluggish, and unconvincing.

There are groups of actors, particularly in the United States, who were brought up by Genet and Artaud and who despise all forms of naturalism. They would be indignant if they were called actors of the naturalistic school, but this is precisely what limits their creative possibilities. To be involved in the action with all the fibers of your being - this is general involvement, but true art requires something else and needs more stingy, and sometimes completely different forms of expression. In order to understand this, it should be remembered that along with emotionality there is always a need for intellectual comprehension, which does not exist in itself, but which must be developed as an instrument of selection.

The need arises for a certain detachment, in particular for following forms that are not always easy to explain, but which have to be obeyed. For example, actors must play a fight with great dedication and genuine strength. Each performer is prepared for death scenes and conducts them with such spontaneity that he hardly has time to realize that, in essence, he knows nothing about death.

In France, when an actor comes to an audition, he asks to be shown the most emotionally charged passage, and without any hesitation plunges into it to demonstrate his skill. Playing the classic role, the same French actor pumps himself up backstage and then rushes onto the stage. He measures his success or failure by the degree of emotional return, whether his internal charge has reached maximum strength, and from this comes faith in influx, inspiration, etc. His weakness is that in this way he tries to play generalizations. I mean that in the "angry" sienna he becomes angry, or rather charges himself with anger, and this charge mechanically drives him throughout the sienna. This gives him a certain power and even at times a certain hypnotic power over the public, but this power is mistakenly seen as “sublime” and “transcendental”. In fact, such an actor becomes a slave to his passion, and he is not able to get out of it, even if a trifling change in the text requires something new from him. In a monologue in which elements of everyday speech are intertwined with the sublime, he pronounces everything with the same pathos, as if all the words are equally full of meaning. It is precisely because of this inflexibility that actors look stupid, and pompous performances deprive the character created by the actor of the inner naturalness.

Jean Genet dreams of theater breaking out of banality, and he wrote a number of letters to Roger Blain when he was working on the production of “Screen”, urging him to direct the actors towards “lyricism”. This sounds good in theory. What is “lyricism”? What does an extraordinary style of play mean? Does it imply a special voice, a pompous manner?

The actors of the classical school pronounced the words as if in a chant. Can this be considered turning traditions into relics? At what point does the search for form result in the acceptance of artificiality? For us, this is now one of the most difficult problems, and as long as we retain the inexplicable conviction that grotesque masks, exaggerated makeup, hieratic costumes, recitation, ballet plasticity are to some extent “ritual” in their essence, and therefore lyrical and deep, we will never escape traditional paths in the theater.

Anything can serve as a means to express something, but there is no such universal means with which everything could be expressed. Every action is valid in its own way, and every action is analogous to something else. I crumple up a piece of paper. The action itself is smoky. I can appear on the scene, and what I do should not go beyond what is happening at the moment. But it could also be a metaphor. Anyone who has seen Patrick Mengee slowly tear apart a newspaper exactly as in life, and yet in a very special way in Pipter's "Birthday", will understand what I mean. Metaphor is a sign and at the same time an illustration ; thus it is an element of language. The tone of speech and its rhythmic structure are linguistic elements that perform different tasks. Nothing often looks as bad as a well-trained actor reciting poetry.

There are, of course, academic laws of prosody, and they help the actor understand certain things at a certain stage of his development, but in the end he must understand that the rhythms of each image are as clear and unique as fingerprints. Then he has to learn that every note of musical literacy corresponds to something - but to what exactly? He must also establish this himself.

Music is the language of the invisible, through which “nothing” suddenly takes shape: it cannot be seen, but it can be felt. Declamation is not music, and yet it is something different from ordinary speech. Carl Orff staged a Greek tragedy accompanied by percussion instruments, using the elevation of rhythmic speech, and the result was more than astonishing.

Essentially, it differed both from the tragedy that is pronounced and from the trage that is sung.

This was something completely different. We cannot separate the structure and sound of Lear’s “forever, forever, forever, etc.” from its semantic meanings, and we cannot “single out Lear’s “monstrous ingratitude” without immediately seeing how the short length of the poetic line imbues the syllable with a special stress. Behind the words “monstrous ingratitude” there is excitement hidden. The texture of the language here is similar to Beethoven’s construction of sounds. In at the same time, this is not music, for these sounds are inseparable from the meaning.

We once did an exercise, taking the sienna of Romeo and Juliet's farewell from Shakespeare and trying (artificially, of course) to unravel the interweaving of different styles.

Siena sounds like this: Juliet. Do you want to leave? But the day is not soon; The nightingale was not a lark, That his fearful ears were confused by his singing, He sings here all night in the pomegranate bush.

Believe me, dear, it was a nightingale.

Romeo. It was a lark, a harbinger of the morning, - Not a nightingale. Look, my love, - With an envious ray, already in the east, Dawn cuts through the curtain of clouds.

The night puts out the candles: the joyful morning stands on tiptoes on the mountain steeps.

To leave is for me to live; to stay is to die.

Juliet. No, it’s not the light of the morning - I know that: It’s a meteor that separated from the sun, To serve you as a torchbearer And to illuminate the road to Mantua.

Stay a little longer, no need to rush.

Romeo, Well, let them catch me, let them kill me!

I'll stay if that's what you want.

I will say that the pale light is not the eye of the morning, But Cyptia’s brow is a misty reflection, And those sounds that pierce the vault of heaven There, in the heights, are not the trill of a lark. It’s easier for me to stay, there is no will to leave, Hello, oh death! Juliet wants it this way.

Well, let's talk to you, my angel: The day has not come, there is time ahead.

The actors were asked to select only lines that they could play about a real-life situation, words that they would feel comfortable using in the film. From this came the following: Juliet. Do you want to leave? But the day is not soon.

It was a nightingale (pause), not a lark (pause).

Romeo. It was a lark (pause), not a nightingale.

I could, my love (pause), if I left, I would live, if I stayed, I would die.

Juliet, No, it is not the morning light; (powyaa) stay a little longer. There's no need to rush.

Romeo. Well, let them catch me, let them kill me.

I’ll stay if that’s what you want (pause).

Hello, oh death! Juliet wants it this way.

Well, let's talk to you, my angel. The day has not come, there is time ahead.

The actors then acted it out as a realistic scene from a modern play, full of lively pauses: say the chosen elephants out loud, and say the missing WORDS quietly to yourself, to establish unequal lengths of pauses. The resulting fragment would be good for cinema, since passages of dialogue, interconnected by a rhythm of pauses of unequal duration, would be supported in the film by close-ups and other silent visual devices.

As soon as this crude division was made, the reverse became possible; play the cut out parts as if they had nothing in common with normal speech. You could then experiment with them in different ways - turning them into sounds or in motion until it became absolutely clear to the actors that there were several cores in each speech line colloquial speech, around which unspoken thoughts and feelings are wound, expressed in turn in words of a different order.

This change in manner from colloquial to stylized is so subtle that its work can be swept under the rug without being prepared. When an actor begins a monologue, trying to find a form for it, he must remember that it is not so easy to establish what is musical and what is rhythmic. For an actor playing Lear in a thunderstorm scene, it is not enough to start reading with a jerk, viewing his monologue as magnificent peals of thunderous music. There is also no point in saying these words in a hushed tone on the grounds that this is Lear's internal monologue. A passage of verse can be viewed, rather, as a formula with many characteristics - a code, and in which each letter has a function. In thunderstorm monologues, explosive consonants - in order to resemble thunder, imitate rain and wind. But consonants are not everything: inside these rattling letters lies a meaning, a meaning that is in constant motion, a meaning that depends on its carriers, images. Thus, “let it rain like a bucket and flood it”... is one thing, but scatter the prototypes of things and the seeds of ungifted people into dust!” is something else. To write it so succinctly requires an unsurpassed degree of skill: any loud-voiced actor can shout both lines at the same level, but a true artist must not only convey to us with absolute laziness the image in the spirit of Hierohim Bosch - Max Ernst in the second line where it says about the heavens casting down seeds, but I must portray this in the context of Lear’s rage..

He will again see that in the verse great importance is attached to the words of “ungrateful people,” and this will become for him a remark extracted from Shakespeare himself. He will feel this and begin to look for a rhythmic structure that will give these words more power and weight, long line, and then in the general plan of the man and the storm his unshakable conviction in human ingratitude will flare up in close-up. Unlike the close-up in cinema, this type of meaningful close-up frees us from focusing solely on the person himself. The whole complex of our sensations is included in the work, and mentally we place “ungrateful people” both over Lear and over the world itself, his and ours at the same time.

We must be able to use common sense, especially when a correctly found technique sounds pompous and false. “Would you like whiskey” - the content of this phrase is better conveyed by conversational intonation than by chanting. “Would you like some whiskey” - this phrase has one dimension, one weight and performs one function. However, in Madama Butterfly these words are sung, and this one phrase by Puccini made the entire opera ridiculous.

“Dine” in Lear’s Siena with the knights is like “would you like whiskey.” Performers of the role of Lear often recite this phrase, introducing artificiality into the play, while Lear at the moment of uttering these words is not a participant in a poetic tragedy, he is simply a man demanding that dinner be served. Both of these lines: “ungrateful people” and “to dine” are taken from Shakespeare’s tragedy, but require completely different styles of execution.

At rehearsal, form and content are sometimes considered together, sometimes separately. Sometimes the study of form can unexpectedly reveal to us the meaning dictating it, and sometimes a detailed study of the content gives us a fresh sense of rhythm. "The director must look for the place where the actor is confused in his decisions, and here he must help the actor overcome difficulties. All this is dialogue and dance of the director and the actor. The dance is, of course, a metaphor, a waltz of the director, the actor and the text. The movement goes in a circle, and who leads depends on where you are. The director will understand that new means are required every minute. Arriving at the conclusion that any rehearsal technique has its own meaning, but there are no techniques that could cover everything. Following the laws of crop rotation, he will make sure that such sources as explanation, logic, improvisation, inspiration dry up quite quickly, and. then he will begin to move from one to the other. He will become convinced that thought, emotion and body cannot be separated, but nevertheless, artificial separation is often required. Some actors do not respond to explanations, while others do the opposite. All this changes from time to time, and one fine day, quite unexpectedly, it is the non-intellectual actor who will understand the director through words, and the intellectual one through show.

In early rehearsals, improvisation, sharing associations and memories, reading written material, studying documents related to the era, watching films and works of art - everything helps everyone to understand the content of the play. None of these methods by themselves mean much - each is just a stimulus. In the play “Marat/Sade”, when kinetic images of madness arose and took possession of the actor, and he, improvising, surrendered to them, the others watched and made comments. Thus, a truthful image was gradually born, unlike those standard techniques that are certainly available in the arsenal of every actor for scenes of madness. Then, when the performer had succeeded in simulating madness and satisfying his colleagues with its apparent truthfulness, he had to face a new problem. He could have used an image drawn from his own observations, but the play was written about the madness of 1808, that is, before drugs, before treatment, when society treated the mentally ill differently, and they in turn reacted differently to it, etc. To show it. the actor didn't have it external model- he perceived Goya’s lines not as role models, but rather as incentives that confirmed his thief’s need to follow the lead of the most persistent internal impulses. He had to completely submit to these inner voices and, at his own peril and risk, abandon external models. He had to constantly maintain a state of obsession within himself.

As he moved away from this, a new difficulty arose before him: his responsibility to the play. And the trembling, and the screams, and all the sincerity in the world will not move the production from its place. An actor must say the words; if he creates a character that cannot say them, his work will be worthless. So the actor faces two opposing problems while working. There is a temptation to compromise - to somewhat weaken the impulses of the image so that they meet the needs of the scene. But its true task is the opposite - to make the image alive and effective. How? This is where the need for intelligence arises. Sometimes you need to analyze, study history and documents, and sometimes you need to scream, roar, and roll on the floor. It happens that there is an opportunity for respite, entertainment, and sometimes silence, discipline and complete concentration are needed. Before the first rehearsal with our actors, Grotowski asked to sweep the floor and remove clothes and all personal belongings from the room. He then sat down at the table, addressing the actors from a great distance, not allowing anyone to talk or smoke. Such a tense atmosphere created a certain creative atmosphere. When you read Stanislavsky's books, you see that some things are said specifically in order to put the actor in a serious mood, but the overwhelming majority of theaters treat this carelessly. However, sometimes nothing is more liberating than the absence of ceremony and the rejection of contrived forms of communication. It happens that it is necessary to focus all attention on one actor, and sometimes the collective process requires stopping individual work.

It is not necessary to design every detail. Discussion of any possible option with all participants slows down the rehearsal too much and can be detrimental to the work as a whole. In this case, the director must have a sense of time, he must feel the rhythm of the process and follow it very accurately at every single moment. Sometimes it is necessary to discuss the general direction of the play, but there comes a time when it should be forgotten, paying attention only to what can be revealed through easy fun, extravagance, frivolity. There comes a time when no one should be concerned about the end result. I do not tolerate the presence of strangers at rehearsals, because I consider this work to be purely intimate, 4 closed: the actors should not be upset that they look stupid or make mistakes. Much in rehearsals is incomprehensible to an outsider - excesses are not only allowed, but sometimes even provoked, to the surprise and indignation of the troupe, until the moment comes to put an end to it all. And yet, even during the rehearsal period, there comes a day when the presence of strangers is necessary, when those present whose faces seem to express malevolence can cause new tension in the work, and tension in turn - a new rise. During the rehearsal process, the forms of work must inevitably change. And here is another requirement for the director: he must unmistakably feel the moment when the performers, intoxicated by their own talent and inflated by the creative process, lose sight of the play itself. One fine morning, the work changes radically: the result becomes the most important thing. Jokes and liberties are mercilessly eliminated, all attention is paid to the performance, the manner of pronouncing the text, performance, technique, diction, contact with the audience. It would be stupid for a director to take a doctrinaire position, that is, either to use technical terms when talking about tempo, fullness of sound, etc., or to completely avoid such concepts, since they are anti-artistic. It doesn't cost a director anything to get stuck in the system. There comes a moment when talking about pace, accuracy, diction turns out to be the only important thing, “Faster”, “keep going the same way”, “boring”, “change the pace”, “for God’s sake” becomes the only language understandable for the actors, while another week ago, such outdated terms could negate the entire creative process. The deeper an actor delves into the task facing him, the more instructions he is required to select, perceive, and carry out simultaneously. He must mobilize his subconscious, completely subordinating it to the demands of reason. The result as a whole is indivisible. However, emotions are constantly illuminated by the intellect, so that the viewer, who has been influenced either by persuasion, or pressure, or alienation, forcing him to change his assessments, as a result experiences something equally indivisible. Catharsis can never be simply an emotional cleansing: it must be addressed to the whole person.

There are two ways to get to the performance, if it takes place - through the foyer and through the exit to the stage. Are they, metaphorically speaking, connecting links or symbolizing disunity? If the stage is connected with life, if the audience is connected with life, then we also need free access to the theater, the task of which is to simplify the transition from outside world to the meeting place. But since theater is essentially artificial, then going on stage reminds the actor that he not only finds himself in a special world that requires costume, makeup, transformation, but that the audience also dresses specially in order to escape from everyday life and in red carpet to go into the sanctuary. This is equally true for both actors and spectators, since in both cases we are talking about completely various possibilities associated with different social conditions. The only thing that unites all types of theater is the need for an audience. And this is not just a truism: in the theater the audience completes the act of creation. When it comes to other forms of art, the artist can raise the idea of ​​working for himself as a principle. However great his sense of social responsibility, he can always say that his best criterion is his own instinct, and if he feels satisfaction when left alone with a completed work, there is a hope that others will also feel satisfaction from it. in the theater the situation is different due to the fact that it is impossible for one to take a last look at the completed work. Until the public appears, the work is not finished. Neither the author nor the director, even in a moment of megalomania, will want a performance for themselves. Even an actor who revels in himself will not want to play for himself, for the mirror. In order for the author or director to work only in accordance with their own taste and on the basis of their own judgments, they must work almost for themselves in rehearsal and only for themselves, surrounded by a dense wall of spectators. I think every director would agree that his own view of his work changes completely when he is in the audience.

It’s a strange feeling you experience at the premiere of a play you’ve staged. Just the day before, sitting at the rehearsal, you were convinced that such and such an actor was playing well, that such and such a scene was interestingly solved, that the movements were elegant, and that the entire passage was full of clear meaning. Now, surrounded by an audience, part of you reacts along with her, so your self says: “I’m bored”, “This happened before”, “If she behaves in such a suggestive way again, I’ll go crazy” or “I I don’t understand what they want to say at all.” Even if we take into account the super-nervous tension of the premiere, what is actually happening to change the director’s attitude towards his own work so much? I think that, among other things, it is a question of the sequence of events. Let me explain this with an example. In the first scene of the play, the girl meets her lover. She rehearsed this passage very softly, very truthfully, and found a form of simple, intimate address that touched everyone - but without context. In front of the public, it became absolutely clear that previous words and actions had not prepared this in any way. The audience was busy following completely different lines, relating to other characters and events, and suddenly they were shown a young actress muttering something inaudibly to a young man. In a later episode, when silence would have reigned on the stage during the action, this muttering would have been in place - but here it sounded formless, the intentions turned out to be vague and unclear.

The director tries to keep a picture of the performance as a whole in his head, but he rehearses in fragments, and even when the run-through comes, he inevitably perceives them as parts of a single whole.

But when the audience is present, forcing him to react with it, this vision of the play as a whole disappears, and for the first time he receives the impressions of the play in proper temporal sequence, one after another. It’s not surprising that everything looks different then.

That is why every experimental artist is concerned about all aspects of the relationship with the audience. By placing the audience in different ways, he tries to identify new opportunities for himself. A proscenium, an arena, a light-filled theater, a cramped barn or a room - this in itself already colors the event differently. But the difference may be purely external: a deeper difference arises when the actor is able to conform to the changing internal relationship with the audience. If an actor manages to capture the viewer's attention, thereby weakening his defenses, and then convince him to agree with a completely unexpected decision, then the viewer becomes more active. This is an activity that does not need to be manifested. The public, which instantly reacts to what is happening, may seem active, but in reality this kind of activity is imaginary.

Genuine activity may remain invisible.

What distinguishes theater from other arts is the absence of unshakable foundations. And yet, certain fixed criteria and rules are easily applied to this moving phenomenon (due to critical habit). Once, in the English provincial town of Stoke-on-Trent, I had the opportunity to watch the play “Pygmalion,” staged in the theater-in-the-circle. Thanks to the lively actors, the beautiful venue, and the cheerful audience, the most brilliant parts of the play sparkled in a new way. She “walked” great. The audience directly took part in the action. The performance seemed the epitome of perfection. However, all the actors were too YOUNG for their roles: the makeup was very rough, and the gray hair was painted directly on the hair. If by some miracle they had been transported at that moment to London's West End in a typically London theater filled with London spectators, the performance would have sounded extremely unconvincing, and the audience would have remained dissatisfied. But this does not mean that the London standard is better or higher than the provincial one. Quite the contrary. Because it is unlikely that anywhere in London this evening the theater temperature would rise as high as. in Stone. But such things should never be compared.. You should never set up a test for a hypothetical “if”, when it is not about the actors or the play, but about the entire performance as a whole.

In the Theater of Cruelty, the object of our study was partly the audience itself, and our first public performance turned out to be an interesting experiment in this sense. The audience who came to the “experimental” evening brought with them that mixed feeling of condescension, playfulness and slight disapproval that the word “avant-garde” usually evokes. We showed a number of excerpts. Our own task was purely selfish - we wanted to see what some of our experiments looked like under the conditions of a performance. We did not give the public any program, no list of authors, no titles, no commentary on what was happening.

The program opened with Artaud's three-minute play "A Stream of Blood", in which there was more Artaud than Artaud himself, since we completely replaced his dialogue with exclamations.

Some of the audience sat spellbound, some giggled. We staged the play as a serious one. Then they showed a small interlude, which we ourselves regarded as a joke. Now the audience was confused: the merrymakers did not know whether to continue laughing; those who were serious and did not approve of the laughter of their neighbors were in turn perplexed. As the performance continued, the tension grew. When Glenda Jackson stripped herself of everything, as the situation demanded, tension of the first kind set in: now, obviously, everything could be expected from the performance. We had the opportunity to observe how unprepared the audience was for momentary assessments of what was happening. At the second performance the tension eased somewhat. No critical articles appeared, and I don’t think that many of those who came to the second performance were prepared in advance by friends who had been there the day before. And yet the audience no longer felt such tension. I believe that, most likely, new factors have come into play. The audience knew that this play had already been performed, and the very fact that nothing appeared in the newspapers was a safety signal. Apparently, nothing terrible happened in the theater. If one of the spectators had been injured or if we had set fire to the building, it would have been printed on the front page. No news - good news. As the play went on, word spread that it consisted of improvisations, a few dull passages, a bit of Genet, a mish-mash of Shakespeare, and a lot of loud noises. So a select audience had already appeared; some, naturally, preferred to stay at home. Gradually, the hall was filled only with enthusiasts and convinced scoffers.

When there is a failure in the theater, at all subsequent performances the theater is filled with a small audience filled with great enthusiasm, and on the last night of the failed performance there are always cheers. Everything affects the behavior of the public. Those who come to the theater, despite negative reviews, do not flatter themselves with hope - they are ready for anything, even the worst. As a rule, we take our seats in the theater, already having in reserve accurate information that puts us in a certain mood even before the start of the performance. At the end of the performance, we automatically get up and leave.

When, after the play “We,” the administration invited the audience to remain in their seats in complete silence, it was interesting to observe how this offended some and was liked by others. In fact, why is it necessary to push people out of the theater immediately after the end of the performance. IN in this case many remained sitting in silence for 10 minutes or even more, and then began to exchange impressions. It seems to me a more natural and healthier conclusion to a shared experience than immediately rushing for the exit, of course, to the extent that this is dictated not so much by habit as by necessity.

Today, the audience question seems to be the most important and most difficult. We came to the conclusion that ordinary theater audiences are not the most emotional and not very loyal, so we had to start looking for “new” viewers. This is quite understandable, but at the same time quite artificial. As a rule, it is quite clear that the younger the audience, the more mobile and free their reaction. It is quite natural that young people are scared away from the theater by the worst that still exists in it. Thus, by changing theatrical forms in order to attract young people, we seem to be killing two birds with one stone. At football matches and greyhound races it is easy to notice that the ordinary public is much more immediate in its reaction than that; called the middle layer. So, obviously, it makes sense to attract the common public through simple means.

But this logic is easily refuted. The common public, of course, exists, but it is still something illusory. When Brecht was alive, his theater was filled with West Berlin intellectuals. Help for Joan Littlewood also came from the West End, and she was never able to survive on the working class audience of her area during her difficult times.

The Royal Shakespeare Theater organizes traveling performances in factories and youth clubs (following the continent's example) in order to introduce the theater to those sections of society who, perhaps, have never set foot in its doors, convinced that the theater does not exist for them. All this is aimed at arousing interest, breaking down barriers, making friends. This is a great stimulating activity. But behind all this there arises a problem, perhaps too dangerous to raise, - what is actually being traded? We instill in the working man that the theater is part of culture, in other words, part of the contents of the great new basket of goods available to everyone today. Behind all attempts to lure the public there is always something patronizing: “You can come too tonight,” and, like all patronizing, there is a lie hidden in it. The lie is the desire to suggest that the gift is worthy of being accepted. Do we really believe in its value? When people who remain outside the theater because of class or age get into it, is it enough to present them with “highest quality”? National theaters offer "top quality". At the Metropolitan Opera in New York, in a new building, the best European singers, under the baton of the best Mozart conductor and assembled by the best producer, performed The Magic Flute. In this case, the cup of culture was filled to the brim, since, in addition to music and performance, the audience had the opportunity to admire the magnificent paintings of Chagall. According to the accepted view of culture, there is nowhere to go further, as they say. A young man who invites a girl to The Magic Flute reaches the pinnacle of what society can offer him, in the language of civilization. Tickets are "scarce" - but is the evening itself worth it? In a sense, all forms of luring the public are a dangerous juggle with the same offer - come take part in the good life, which is good because it should be good, because it is of the “highest quality”.

And this will not change as long as culture or any of the arts remains an appendage to life, completely separable from it, and once separable, obviously unnecessary. Only an artist for whom it is vitally necessary fights with full dedication for such art.

When it comes to theater, we always return to the same thing: it is absolutely not enough for writers and actors to feel an urgent need for lei: it must become equally necessary for the public. So, in a different sense, this is not only a matter of attracting the public. It's more complex problem creativity, which should become as urgent a need as water and food.

A true example of the need for theater seems to me to be an evening of psychodrama in a madhouse. Let's see what's happening there at this moment. There is a small community leading a measured, monotonous lifestyle. On certain days, for some of its inhabitants, an event occurs, something unusual that they look forward to - an evening of drama. When they enter the room where the evening will take place, they already know: whatever happens here, it will be different from what happens in the yard, in the garden, in the room where the TV is. Everyone sits in a circle. At first, the participants in the evening are suspicious, hostile, and non-communicative. The doctor in charge of the evening takes the initiative and invites patients to name topics. Proposals are made, they are discussed, and topics of interest to many are gradually identified, topics that literally become points of contact between them. The conversation develops painfully around them, and the doctor immediately moves on to dramatize them. Everyone in the circle gets their role, but this does not mean that they start playing. Some actually come forward as protagonists, while others prefer to remain seated and observe, either identifying with the hero or following his actions in a way that is both critical and detached.

The conflict continues to develop. This is real drama because people here will actually talk about the issues that concern them and everyone present in the only way in which these issues come to life. They may laugh. They may cry, they may not react at all. But behind everything that happens in the circle of these so-called insane people, there is hidden a very simple, very healthy basis. They all sincerely want help to get rid of their illness, even if they don’t know where the help will come from and what form it will take. Here I would like to clarify that I do not at all consider psychodrama as a type of treatment. It may not produce lasting results at all. But such an immediate event always leads to an unmistakable result. Two hours after the start of the evening, the relations between those present are somewhat modified due to the fact that they were all drawn into what was happening. As a result, a certain revival arises, a certain feeling of liberation, and contacts arise between people who seemed boarded up tightly. When they leave the room, they are no longer the same as when they entered it. Even if what happened turned out to be painfully unpleasant, they are excited to the same degree as if they were dying there from fun. Neither pessimism nor optimism in themselves mean anything: some participants simply find themselves returned to life for a while. If it disappears after leaving the room, it doesn’t matter either. Once having tasted such a state, they will certainly want to return there. An evening of drama will seem like an oasis in the desert of their lives.

This is how I understand the theater that is necessary: ​​a theater in which the actor and the spectator DIFFER from each other only functionally, and not essentially.

When I write these lines, I still cannot imagine how the renovation of the theater will take place: is this realistic only within the modest confines of a small community, or is it possible on the scale of a large theater in a capital city. Will we be able to achieve the same results based on the requirements dictated by modern life What did the Glindep-bourne and Banrept theaters achieve under completely different conditions, from the standpoint of other ideals? In other words, will we also be able to shape the views of the public even before they cross the threshold of our theater?

The theaters of Glindenbourne and Bayreuth existed in harmony with society, with the classes they catered to. Today it is difficult to imagine that a living and necessary theater does not conflict with society, but glorifies legalized values. And at the same time, the artist does not exist to make accusations, read morals, make speeches, and least of all to teach. After all, he is one of “them.” He truly challenges the audience when they are ready to challenge themselves. He sincerely rejoices along with the audience, becoming their mouthpiece when they have reason to rejoice.

If new phenomena were to arise right before the eyes of the public, and if the public were ready to perceive them, the stage and the auditorium would inevitably collide with each other. If this had happened, capricious social thinking would have centered around the most important motives of life: some serious tasks would have been rethought, revised and revalued. In this case, the difference between positive and negative attitudes, between optimism and pessimism, would become meaningless.

In a world where everything is so changeable and mobile, the search itself automatically becomes a search for form. Destruction of old forms, experimentation with new ones, new words, new relationships, new spaces, new buildings - all this relates to the same process, and any single production is nothing more than a single shot at an invisible target. It is foolish today to expect that a certain performance in itself, a style or direction in work will lead us to what we are looking for. Theater cannot develop only in a straight line in a world that moves not only forward, but also sideways and backward.

That's why it hasn't existed for a long time uniform style for the theaters of the world, as it was in the 19th century.

However, not everything comes down to only movement, only to destruction, only to fashion.

There is also something unshakably strong. Performances of mass play arise somewhere, a theater of an actively acting spectator is born, proving the absurdity of the artificial division into the Inanimate, the Rough and the Sacred. In these rare cases, the theater of joy, catharsis, celebration, the theater of experiment, the theater of unanimity, the living theater are one. But now the performance is over, time has passed, and it cannot be restored by slavish imitation - the dead creeps in again, the search begins again.

Each instruction to action releases the inertia hidden within it. Take the most sacred of arts - music. Music is the only thing that reconciles many with life. Listening to music for many hours reminds people that life is worth living, but at the same time dulls the feeling of dissatisfaction and thereby prepares a person to accept the intolerable aspects of life. Or, for example, stunning stories of atrocities, photographs of a child struck by napalm - these are the cruelest manifestations of reality, but they open the audience's eyes to a need to act, which eventually becomes somewhat dulled. It is as if the feeling of such a need is simultaneously strengthened and weakened. What can be done?

There is one serious test in the theater. When the show is over, what's left? Pleasure is forgotten Furthermore- even strong sensations disappear. And all reasoning loses track. But when sensations and arguments are used so that the public can peer into itself, then something ignites in the consciousness. An event scorches the memory, leaving in it an outline, a taste, a trace, a smell - a picture. What remains is the central image of the play, its silhouette, and if the elements are correctly combined, this silhouette will be its meaning, this form will become the essence of what it must express. When, YEARS later, I think about the most powerful theatrical impressions, I find imprinted on my memory: two tramps sitting under a tree, an old woman pulling a pike cart, a dancing sergeant, three people on a sofa in hell - or sometimes a trace that turned out to be deeper, than the image itself. I have no hope of accurately reproducing the meaning, but such a trace makes it possible to reconstruct the chain of meaning. A few hours could change my attitude towards life. This is difficult to achieve, but it is worth striving for.

The actor himself hardly remains scarred from the intense stress. Any actor, after playing a scary, awe-inspiring role, is both relaxed and happy.

It feels like a person carrying a large physical activity, it is useful to let strong sensations pass through yourself. I am convinced that it is useful for a man to be an orchestra conductor, it is useful for him to be a tragedian. As a rule, they live to a very old age. But I also understand that there is a price to pay for this. The material you use to create these imaginary people (after the performance you throw them off as easily as a glove) is your own flesh and blood. The actor wastes himself all the time. Using as if his erudition, as if his intellect, he creates images that cease to exist when the performance is over. The question is: can we prevent the public from experiencing something like this?

Will the audience retain a sense of catharsis, or will the joyful consciousness of their own well-being be the limit that is available to them? Here, too, many contradictions arise. The impact of theater is liberation. Both laughter and strong experiences cleanse the body, and in this sense they are the opposite of what leaves a trace in the memory, for any cleansing is associated with renewal. And yet: are influences that liberate and influences as a result of which something remains so different from each other? Isn’t it naive to believe that they are almost opposed to each other? Wouldn't it be more correct to say that during the update process everything can happen again?

There are many rosy-cheeked old men and women. These are those who have retained amazing energy, but these are big children: without a wrinkle on their faces, cheerful, joyful, and have never matured. There are others - not grouchy or decrepit, but wrinkled, who have experienced a lot and yet are radiant, renewed. Even youth and old age can overlap each other. The question for the old actor is whether he will be able to discover new possibilities for himself in the art that so renews him? For the audience, happy and renewed by a joyful evening spent at the theatre, the question is the same.

What are the further possibilities? We know that there can be a fleeting release. Could anything be left?

Here the question again comes down to the viewer. Will he want to change the conditions surrounding him?

Will he want something different in himself, in his life, in the life of society? If not, then he does not need the theater to be a test for him, to be a magnifying glass, a spotlight, or a meeting place.

On the other hand, he may need either one thing or all at once. In this case, he not only needs the theater itself - he needs everything that he can get from it.

Thus, we come to a formula, an equation that sounds like this: theater - teaching staff.

In order to decipher these letters, we will have to use an unexpected source. The French language does not have adequate words to translate Shakespeare. But, oddly enough, it is in this language that we find three words used every day, which contain the problems and opportunities of the theater.

Repetition, representation, participation. The words have the same meaning as the English ones, but the French repetition also reflects the mechanical side of the process, unlike the English rehearsal. Week after week, day after day, hour after hour, practice makes perfect. This is day labor, cramming, discipline - a boring activity that gives good results. Every athlete knows that training eventually makes its own adjustments. Repetition is a creative process; there are pop singers who rehearse a song for a year or even more before performing it in public. After that, they will perform it for another fifty years. Lawrems Olivier himself rehearses the dialogue until he brings the muscles of the tongue to a state of absolute submission - this is how he gains complete freedom. For a clown, an acrobat, a dancer, it is quite obvious that only through repetition can certain movements be mastered, and anyone who denies repetition knows that certain means of expression are automatically closed to him. At the same time, repetition is a word without a halo. This is a concept without heat. Direct association from him is always merciless. Repetition is the music lessons that we remember from childhood, this is playing scales. Repetition is a traveling musical troupe, playing automatically with the fifteenth cast, the actions have lost their meaning and flavor. Repetition is what leads to nonsense: a performance that goes on too long and exhausts the soul, the introduction of understudies - in a word, everything that sensitive actors are afraid of. This carbon copy imitation is lifeless. Repetition negates the living. It’s as if the word itself contains the main contradiction of the theater. For an event to develop on stage, it must be prepared in advance, and the process of preparation often involves repeating the same thing. Once completed, it needs to be viewed. It may then entail a legal requirement to be repeated again and again. In such repetition are the seeds of future decay.

How to resolve this contradiction? And here the answer is in the word representation, which in French means representation. Representation is the case when something is presented, something from the past is shown again, something that once existed exists now. A performance is not an imitation, but not a description of an event taken from the past.

Representation denies time. It erases the difference between yesterday and today. It takes yesterday's event and makes it resonate today in all its manifestations, including the immediate. In other words, representation is what it should be - the past arising in the present. It is at this moment on the stage that revival of life occurs, which is impossible in the process of repetitions, but is inherent in both the rehearsal and the performance itself.

The study of these phenomena opens up a wide field of activity. We begin to understand what living action is, what makes up movement in a momentary period of time, what forms falsehood can take, what is partly alive and what is entirely artificial, until the true factors that make the representation itself so difficult begin to reveal themselves to us. And the more we study them, the more clearly we see that in order for a rehearsal to grow into a performance, something else is needed. The event will not happen on its own; help is required. But such help is not always there, and yet without real help, the resurrection of the past will never be accomplished. We wanted to find this missing ingredient, and we began!] watching the rehearsal, observing the hard work of the actors. We realized that in a vacuum their work becomes meaningless. And here we find the key. This immediately brings us to the thought of the public: we see that without the public there is no purpose, no meaning. What is the public? In French, among the numerous designations for those who observe (audience, spectators), one word stands out - assistance. I'm watching the play: J "assiste a une piece.

Participate is a simple word, but it holds the key. The actor is preparing, he is involved in a process that at any moment may turn out to be lifeless. He is preparing to capture something and then bring it to life on stage. At the rehearsal, the living element of participation comes from the director, who is there to help with his audience participation.

But when the actor finds himself in front of the audience, he notices that the magical transformation does not happen as if by magic. If the audience simply watches what is happening, expecting the actor to do his job, then under their indifferent gaze he will suddenly discover that the only thing he can do is repeat the rehearsals. Deeply excited, he will try with all his might to breathe life into his work, but will immediately feel that nothing is working. Then he will explain it as a “bad” hall. In those cases when the performance “goes well”, it will meet with an audience that will react lively and with interest to what is happening on stage - such an audience participates. With her participation, with the participation of her attentive eyes and joyful concentration, the rehearsal turns into a performance. Then the word “performance” will no longer stand between the actor and the spectator, between the hall and the spectacle. It embraces them both: what exists for one, exists for the other. The audience itself has also changed. She came to the theater from outside life, which, in essence, is now repeated on this specially designated stage, where every moment is lived more vividly and with greater impact. The audience empathizes with the actor, and they, in turn, empathize with them from the stage.

Repetition, representation, complicity. These words sum up three elements, each of which is necessary for the event to take place. But the essence is still missing, because any three words are static; any formula is an inevitable attempt to establish the truth and always. The truth in the theater is always in motion. Now, when you read this book, it is already outdated. For me, this is an exercise frozen on paper. But theater has one feature that distinguishes it from books. There is always the possibility of starting over. In life, this is unrealistic: we will never be able to go back. We can't turn back the clock; we won't get a second chance. In the theater, everything can be considered not happening.

In everyday life, “if only” is a fiction, in the theater it is an experiment. In everyday life, “if only” is an evasion; in the theater, “if only” is the truth.

When I manage to convince you of this truth, then theater and life are one whole. This is a lofty goal. But it's hard work.

It takes a lot of work to play. But when we consider work as play, then it is no longer work.

EMPTY SPACE

Our idea of ​​the world is often associated with the image of limitless empty space with individual grains of material inclusions. The material worlds are like ships sailing in the vast expanses of the ocean.

All elements in space are interconnected, interacting, in certain relationships, connected to each other like radio amateurs on the air. Modern physics proceeds from the fact that all processes occurring in the micro- and macrocosm are generated by certain forces (energies). Currently, four types of fundamental forces (energies) are distinguished: 1) electromagnetic; 2) strong nuclear; 3) weak nuclear; 4) gravitational.

But by what means do bodies influence each other? For example, why do forces appear on the charges when electric charges interact, and how are they transferred from one charge to another?

In the process of development of physics, there were two opposing approaches to answering the question posed. In one of them, it was assumed that bodies have the inherent property of acting on other bodies at a distance, without the participation of intermediate bodies or the environment, that is, it was assumed that forces can be transmitted from one body to another through emptiness and, moreover, instantly (the theory of long-range action). From this point of view, if there is only one charge, no changes occur in the surrounding space.

According to the second view, force interactions between disconnected bodies can be transmitted only in the presence of any medium surrounding these bodies, sequentially from one part of this medium to another and with a finite speed (short-range theory).

Most modern physicists adhere to the second point of view. By the way, M.V. Lomonosov also denied the interaction of bodies at a distance without the participation of an intermediate material environment (in modern language we would say “fields”).

Modern physics proceeds from the fact that in order to understand the origin and transmission of forces acting between charges at rest, it is necessary to assume the presence of some physical agent between the charges that carries out this interaction. This agent is the electric field. When an electric charge appears in any place, an electric field arises around it. The main property of an electric field is that any other charge placed in this field experiences a force.

Thus, material bodies and particles are sources of fields - electromagnetic, gravitational, etc.

The theory of physical fields and interactions of bodies has been sufficiently studied. But in last years In physical science, there has been a tendency to radically revise some fundamental concepts. It is suggested that the carriers of fields are not objects, but space itself. Thus, the magnetic field does not belong to a permanent magnet, but simply a magnet is the structure that accumulates the magnetic component of the vacuum, or more precisely, the superfield.

It is known that A. Einstein intuitively felt that all the fundamental physical fields of our three-dimensional world are only components of something single, a whole, which he called a superfield. He tried to create a unified field theory, but could not solve this problem.

For example, the presence of biofields is poorly understood and unexplained. It is clear that it is not possible to explain the functioning of the biofields of plants and living organisms using fields known to physics (for example, electromagnetic fields). An attempt to construct a unified field theory is the research of Academician I. I. Yuzvishin. In his opinion, the entire Universe is a single information space of resonant - cellular, frequency - quantum and wave states of various fields, vacuums, elementary particles and massive macrostructures. Existence information interaction in the Universe of all macroscopic and microscopic particles and bodies without exception is the root cause (foundation) of the emission, absorption and interaction of information. Information is a unit of elementary relationship. This is an elementary generalization quantum of relations between micro- and macrodynamic processes and phenomena of the Universe.

Inside and near materialized objects, as we have already noted, there is always an information field that always has a code structure of material particles or (outside the materialized body) an information-cellular structure of various kinds of field forms of matter and their traces created both by the body itself and its external environment. Information fields (as forms of materialized and dematerialized information) penetrate all material structures, strengthening their internal relationships and external connections with other structures. Relationships reflect the code structure of any subject, object, matter, as well as the physical vacuum of the Universe.

The space inside the nucleus and the vacuum spaces that exist in the Universe function according to the laws of relations between nuclear and electronic elements, their spaces, fields, traces and processes. Such relationships are informational.

I. I. Yuzvishin believes that the cellular structure of the information field allows information, due to the wave nature of the field, to transmit information at any speed (smaller, equal or greater than the speed of light). But according to A. Einstein's special theory of relativity, we know that the speed of light is the maximum speed of interaction transmission.

The idea of ​​space-time is replaced by I. I. Yuzvishin with the idea of ​​absolute essence - information, which includes both space and time. Space and time are forms of existence of information.

What is movement at infinite speed? From a philosophical position, this means that the body is everywhere at once, in all possible places through which it can only pass. The movement of an infinitely fast moving body is equivalent to rest, for there is no place in which it would not fit, and there is no place where it could still move. The faster a body moves, the more it covers the places it traverses and the less time it uses to pass through them, that is, the more it is at rest. This idea of ​​the cosmic manifestation of moving peace was developed by ancient Greek philosophers. But this idea is also characteristic of the modern doctrine of electron motion.

Now we just have to figure out the question: what is outer space, vacuum? Physical theory says that at every point in space the most complex material processes continuously occur: matter is spontaneously born and disappears, the curvature of space changes in a whimsical way, the pace of time is distorted, etc. Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences Baranshekov rightly notes that all the material content of the world, all fields and particles are a manifestation of various properties of an empty, but complexly curved, twisted space-vacuum. So, on the one hand, a vacuum is a complex material structure, and on the other hand, on the contrary, it turns out that the substance itself is a “curved” void.

A.V. Martynov goes further. He believes that the vacuum, and therefore the physical world associated with it, is split into separate separate states. And this means, he emphasizes, that our world is not the only possible one: there may be other worlds with a different “zero level” of vacuum.

But even if we admit the presence of many worlds in our space, we should still admit that these worlds are interconnected information relations.

From the book Building a Space of Love author Nekrasov Anatoly Alexandrovich

SPACE OF LOVE Space of Love! What a wonderful phrase! It resonated deeply in people’s hearts, because it carries the truth. I thank Anastasia for rediscovering the sound of these words to people. Let's continue the idea expressed in the introduction. It is necessary

From the book Secrets of Chinese Meditation. by Yu Liu Guan

Fundamentals of Chan Practice (from “Xu Yun (Empty Cloud)”) Master Xu Yun (Empty Cloud), (1839-1959) Trans. from China Venerable Go Gu Bhikkhu, trans. from English Constant Illumination, with the participation of Antonio Hsieh and

From the book Hyakujo: Everest of Zen author Rajneesh Bhagwan Shri

From the book Diagnosis of Karma. Book 2 author Lazarev Sergey Nikolaevich

From the book Geopsychology in Shamanism, Physics and Taoism author Mindell Arnold

From the book Time Spiral, or The Future That Already Was author Khodakovsky Nikolai Ivanovich

SPACE First, you need to understand that outer space is not three-dimensional, as we are accustomed to perceiving our earthly space, but multidimensional. We measure space in three quantities - length, width and height. Space is three-dimensional for us. Mathematics and

From the book Secrets of Bioenergy. A pointer to wealth and success in life. author Ratner Sergey

SPACE OF OPTIONS Our next lesson is devoted to changing those events and situations that we do not need. There are situations that we no longer need, they have been worked out long ago, but the person says: “Well, what can I do, I have such a problem.” Now we will learn that

From the book Numerology of Success. Start the Wheel of Fortune author Korovina Elena Anatolyevna

Space of harmony So, let's choose a harmonious space for the soul. Have you chosen? But how to create comfort there, based on the principles

From the book Exit to the Astral Plane by Phillips Osborne

12 Time and space Travel to the astral past Connection with the past Establish contact with the feeling of the past Feel the influence of the material link Squeeze out everything Psychic barriers Astral sequence of the past Discover your power

From the book Philosophy of a Magician author Pokhabov Alexey

From the book Secrets of Ancient Civilizations. Volume 1 [Collection of articles] author Team of authors

Another space According to the Neoplatonists, there are two Eros in the human soul, two types of aspirations: one leads to the removal of the soul from the Good and immersion in the material world, the other elevates it to the Good and cleanses it of everything transitory. Accordingly, space-time

From the book Judaism. The world's oldest religion author Lange Nicholas de

Jewish home: space The life of a Jewish family takes place in the home. Home and family are inseparable: it is the family that gives the Jewish home its special character. However, there are even external signs by which a Jewish home can be distinguished. The most obvious of them is the mezuzah. This

From the book Fashionable Witch. Witch Tarot author Nevsky Dmitry

8 Broomstick. An empty business Two witches in red and orange hats are busy moving a huge boulder. Their brooms lie nearby, crossed in the manner of fencing swords. Key words Futile activity, bad news, criticism, negative judgment, unfavorable

From the book 21 glasses. Stories of Yogesh recorded by Anro author Rogach (Anro) Andrey

Space I spent the night in a small one-story ashram on the banks of the Ganges. It had about fifteen rooms. On two sides of the temple there is a wall, on the third there are buildings, Pal Baba’s samadhi is underground, and on the fourth there is a cliff overlooking the river. When Ramdas and I first went there, I

From the book Magic for Every Day from A to Z. A detailed and inspiring guide to the world of natural magic by Blake Deborah

Sacred Space In its simplest terms, sacred space is any place where you practice magick. Most often, when using this term, we mean not only a place, but also an action. Before performing each ritual, we create a sacred space,

From the book The ABC of Happiness. Book I. “The Main Thing About Man” author Lada-Rus (Peunova) Svetlana

We and space Life teaches us patience and humility through our family. You have to come to terms with them, you have to love them, because the world gave them to you. Find harmony with them, merge your auras with them, as with Space. Imagine your loved one, who you are

PART IV

SPACE, TIME, CIVILIZATIONS

We have identified three main views on the history of world civilizations.

1. The position adopted by official historiography with a well-known chronology of history, which begins approximately from the end of the 4th millennium.

2. Supporters of “long history”. Representatives of this concept believe that civilizations with advanced technology superior to modern ones existed much earlier than the Ancient World known to us. It was a pre-civilization, traces of which have survived to this day.

Who is right? Do “historical ghosts” exist? What is time? Are parallel worlds possible?

We will try to answer these questions in this chapter.

SPACE

First, you need to understand that outer space is not three-dimensional, as we are accustomed to perceiving our earthly space, but multidimensional. We measure space in three quantities - length, width and height. Space is three-dimensional for us. Mathematicians and physicists, as a rule, operate with the concept of four-dimensional space, adding a time characteristic.

Four-dimensional space consists of three geometric coordinates - length, width, height, and a fourth - time. “When a non-mathematician hears about four-dimensional space, he is seized by a mystical feeling, similar to the feeling excited by theatrical ghosts,” Einstein said on this occasion. And yet, in his opinion, there is no more banal statement than the message about the four-dimensionality of the world around us.

The multidimensionality of space can be imagined without the time characteristic. Three dimensions of space differ from four, just as two dimensions differ from three. A two-dimensional dimension is like a flat piece of paper. A sheet of paper has length and width, but no depth. A box has length, width and depth (three dimensions).

Now let’s imagine that we exist in a world of two dimensions of space. Then our world can be roughly represented in the form of drawings on a sheet of paper. All things in such a space can be described by length and width, but there will be no concept of height and depth. Representatives of this world will be able to move in any direction on a flat surface, but it will be impossible for them to rise or fall beyond this surface.

Suppose that in this imaginary world of two dimensions a square is drawn around an object. In this case, a two-dimensional resident will not be able to get out of the square, unless, of course, there is a hole in the latter. Movement above and below the square will be impossible.

If our sheet of paper is bent, say, rolled into a ring, then the inhabitants of two-dimensional space will not notice the curvature. The world for them is flat, two-dimensional.

Now let's return to our world of three dimensions. If you draw a square around a three-dimensional inhabitant, it costs him nothing to step over the square. Now imagine that an inhabitant of a three-dimensional world is placed inside a cube, for example in a room with a ceiling, a floor and four solid walls. He will not be able to get out of the room unless, of course, there is a hole in the ceiling, floor or one of the walls.

Now let's imagine that there is a world of four or more dimensions. An inhabitant of such a world will freely leave a room with a ceiling, a floor and four solid walls, just as an inhabitant of a world of three dimensions would overcome a square drawn around him, stepping over it. It is extremely difficult, almost impossible, for us, residents of three-dimensional space, to imagine how it is possible to leave a closed room. All things around us are explained from the point of view of the three-dimensional world. The existence of a fourth dimension of space, which is inaccessible under normal circumstances, is assumed in the explanation of paranormal phenomena. From time to time, objects in the four-dimensional world can move in and out of their world into our three-dimensional world.

One of the earliest works exploring the concept of the fourth dimension, Transcendental Physics, was written by Johann Karl-Friedrich Zellner in 1881.

Here is what he wrote about this: “Among the evidence, there is nothing more significant and convincing than the transfer of material bodies from a closed space. Although our three-dimensional intuition cannot allow an immaterial exit to open in a closed space, four-dimensional space provides such a possibility. Thus, transferring the body in this direction can be accomplished without affecting the three-dimensional material walls. Since we, three-dimensional beings, do not have the so-called intuition of four-dimensional space, we can only form its concept by analogy from the lower region of space. Imagine a two-dimensional figure on a surface: a line is drawn on each side, and a moving object inside. By moving only along the surface, an object will not be able to get out of this two-dimensional closed space, unless there is a break in the line.”

In public, Zellner explains that an object can only pass through solid matter through four-dimensional motion. Such movement, he said, is the most convincing evidence of the existence of the fourth dimension.

But if space is multidimensional, then other worlds can exist in other spaces. Why, then, not allow representatives of these worlds to appear among us, and we take them for ghosts? Let's imagine for a moment that we are sitting in front of an illuminated white screen, on which the shadows of people moving behind the screen are visible. Two people behind the screen walk towards each other, greet each other and move on in different sides. But on the screen, where only their shadows are visible, we will see how two silhouettes came closer, then merged into one shadow, froze, and then split into two again and floated in different directions. The people behind the screen walked nearby, and their shadows on the screen merged. Let's imagine the world of people behind the screen and the world of shadows on the screen in different ways.

According to V.I. Vernadsky, living matter, living space is a fundamentally non-Euclidean space.

Naturally, it is difficult for us to imagine a space greater than three dimensions. Just as it is impossible to imagine a line at a point, just as it is impossible to imagine a surface in a line, just as it is impossible to imagine a body in a surface, so in our space it is impossible to imagine a body that has more than three dimensions.

MATTER

Even solid things, objects that we touch with our hands, are nothing more than emptiness. It's hard to imagine, but it's true.

In public and private banks, where huge capital is concentrated, heavy-duty steel doors with highly complex locks and alarm systems are installed to protect premises. These doors give the impression of an impenetrable monolith. It seems that nothing and no one can penetrate them.

But if you look at these doors through the eyes of a microphysicist, you will be amazed that this door is a continuous sieve, consisting of tiny atoms in an almost continuous free space between them. The fact is that the distance between the elements that make up an atom significantly exceeds the size of these elements themselves. This also applies to molecules that are formed from atoms. All this can be compared to the starry sky that we see at night - small points of stars and a huge black space between them.

This is how the microworld works. An atom consists of a nucleus and electrons orbiting the nucleus. The size of atoms is about 10 -8 cm, nuclei are tens of thousands of times smaller, and the size of electrons is 10 -6 cm. As is known, the entire mass of an atom is concentrated in a very small volume - the atomic nucleus, the diameter of which is 10,000 times less than diameter atom.

The dimensions of atoms are hundreds of millions of times larger than the smallest elementary particles.

Atoms are connected into molecules by a certain bond. We can say that the microcosm is elementary particles connected to each other by certain connections, but separated from each other by huge spaces (naturally, in comparison with their volumes).

This is how the macroworld works. The Sun, together with its planetary system, is just one of the stars in our galaxy. Our star system consists of approximately 2 × 10 11 (10 to the 11th power) stars. The world of galaxies in the Universe is quite diverse. There are approximately 80% of galaxies like ours (spiral). In addition to them, there are also galaxies of other types. Dwarf galaxies have approximately 10 9 (10 to the 9th power) stars, giant galaxies have up to 10 14 (10 to the 14th power) stars.

Stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters, superclusters are elements of a cellular structure (cell sizes are hundreds of megaparsecs (1 parsec = 3 × 10 18 cm = 3.2 light years = 206,265 AU), the thickness of their walls is about 2–4 megaparsec. Large clusters are located in the nodes of cells. Superclusters are elements of this cellular structure.).

Thus, all matter is a honeycomb structure in empty space.

Or maybe empty space is not emptiness at all, but space filled with another “subtle” matter unknown to us? Maybe this subtle matter is the basis of life for other civilizations unknown to us?

EMPTY SPACE

Our idea of ​​the world is often associated with the image of limitless empty space with individual grains of material inclusions. The material worlds are like ships sailing in the vast expanses of the ocean.

All elements in space are interconnected, interacting, in certain relationships, connected to each other like radio amateurs on the air. Modern physics proceeds from the fact that all processes occurring in the micro- and macrocosm are generated by certain forces (energies). Currently, four types of fundamental forces (energies) are distinguished: 1) electromagnetic; 2) strong nuclear; 3) weak nuclear; 4) gravitational.

But by what means do bodies influence each other? For example, why do forces appear on the charges when electric charges interact, and how are they transferred from one charge to another?

In the process of development of physics, there were two opposing approaches to answering the question posed. In one of them, it was assumed that bodies have the inherent property of acting on other bodies at a distance, without the participation of intermediate bodies or the environment, that is, it was assumed that forces can be transmitted from one body to another through emptiness and, moreover, instantly (the theory of long-range action). From this point of view, if there is only one charge, no changes occur in the surrounding space.

According to the second view, force interactions between disconnected bodies can be transmitted only in the presence of any medium surrounding these bodies, sequentially from one part of this medium to another and with a finite speed (short-range theory).

Most modern physicists adhere to the second point of view. By the way, M.V. Lomonosov also denied the interaction of bodies at a distance without the participation of an intermediate material environment (in modern language we would say “fields”).

Modern physics proceeds from the fact that in order to understand the origin and transmission of forces acting between charges at rest, it is necessary to assume the presence of some physical agent between the charges that carries out this interaction. This agent is the electric field. When an electric charge appears in any place, an electric field arises around it. The main property of an electric field is that any other charge placed in this field experiences a force.

Thus, material bodies and particles are sources of fields - electromagnetic, gravitational, etc.

The theory of physical fields and interactions of bodies has been sufficiently studied. But in recent years, there has been a tendency in physical science to radically revise some fundamental concepts. It is suggested that the carriers of fields are not objects, but space itself. Thus, the magnetic field does not belong to a permanent magnet, but simply a magnet is the structure that accumulates the magnetic component of the vacuum, or more precisely, the superfield.

It is known that A. Einstein intuitively felt that all the fundamental physical fields of our three-dimensional world are only components of something single, a whole, which he called a superfield. He tried to create a unified field theory, but could not solve this problem.

For example, the presence of biofields is poorly understood and unexplained. It is clear that it is not possible to explain the functioning of the biofields of plants and living organisms using fields known to physics (for example, electromagnetic fields). An attempt to construct a unified field theory is the research of Academician I. I. Yuzvishin. In his opinion, the entire Universe is a single information space of resonant - cellular, frequency - quantum and wave states of various fields, vacuums, elementary particles and massive macrostructures. The existence of information interaction in the Universe of all macroscopic and microscopic particles and bodies without exception is the root cause (foundation) of the emission, absorption and interaction of information. Information is a unit of elementary relationship. This is an elementary generalization quantum of relations between micro- and macrodynamic processes and phenomena of the Universe.

Inside and near materialized objects, as we have already noted, there is always an information field that always has a code structure of material particles or (outside the materialized body) an information-cellular structure of various kinds of field forms of matter and their traces created both by the body itself and its external environment. Information fields (as forms of materialized and dematerialized information) penetrate all material structures, strengthening their internal relationships and external connections with other structures. Relationships reflect the code structure of any subject, object, matter, as well as the physical vacuum of the Universe.

The space inside the nucleus and the vacuum spaces that exist in the Universe function according to the laws of relations between nuclear and electronic elements, their spaces, fields, traces and processes. Such relationships are informational.

I. I. Yuzvishin believes that the cellular structure of the information field allows information, due to the wave nature of the field, to transmit information at any speed (smaller, equal or greater than the speed of light). But according to A. Einstein's special theory of relativity, we know that the speed of light is the maximum speed of interaction transmission.

The idea of ​​space-time is replaced by I. I. Yuzvishin with the idea of ​​absolute essence - information, which includes both space and time. Space and time are forms of existence of information.

What is movement at infinite speed? From a philosophical position, this means that the body is everywhere at once, in all possible places through which it can only pass. The movement of an infinitely fast moving body is equivalent to rest, for there is no place in which it would not fit, and there is no place where it could still move. The faster a body moves, the more it covers the places it traverses and the less time it uses to pass through them, that is, the more it is at rest. This idea of ​​the cosmic manifestation of moving peace was developed by ancient Greek philosophers. But this idea is also characteristic of the modern doctrine of electron motion.

Now we just have to figure out the question: what is outer space, vacuum? Physical theory says that at every point in space the most complex material processes continuously occur: matter is spontaneously born and disappears, the curvature of space changes in a whimsical way, the pace of time is distorted, etc. Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences Baranshekov rightly notes that all the material content of the world, all fields and particles are a manifestation of various properties of an empty, but complexly curved, twisted space-vacuum. So, on the one hand, a vacuum is a complex material structure, and on the other hand, on the contrary, it turns out that the substance itself is a “curved” void.

A.V. Martynov goes further. He believes that the vacuum, and therefore the physical world associated with it, is split into separate separate states. And this means, he emphasizes, that our world is not the only possible one: there may be other worlds with a different “zero level” of vacuum.

But even if we admit the presence of many worlds in our space, we should still recognize that these worlds are interconnected by information relations.

TIME AND SPACE

We must clearly understand that the nature of time is not as simple as it seems. By “time”, as a rule, we mean, on the one hand, some space, and on the other, movement through this space.

We are used to measuring time by the period of revolution of the Earth around the Sun - this is a year. The time the Earth rotates around its axis is a day. There are 24 hours in a day. There are 60 minutes in an hour. There are 60 seconds in a minute.

Each planet has different time metrics. If for a reference unit of time information processes and technologies on Earth take an Earth hour, then the corresponding time of similar processes and technologies on the planets of the Solar System, based on masses, densities, free fall accelerations, etc., will be completely different: on the Moon - 0.165 hours; on Jupiter - 2.65 hours; Mars - 38 hours, etc. Taking into account the corresponding local time scale, the following parameters can be determined for any planet or cosmic formation: the presence of day and night, their duration, the presence of summer, spring, autumn, winter and their duration, the presence and the duration of a particular form of life, etc.

In 1967, the World Conference on Weights and Measures adopted the atomic second as a unit of time, defining it as 9 × 10 9 (10 to the 9th power) periods of electronic oscillations corresponding to the quantum transition of a certain cesium isotope.

Professor of the Pulkovo Observatory N.A. Kozyrev, who made a huge contribution to the study of the nature of time, argued that time is a necessary component of all processes in the Universe, and therefore on our planet, and the main “driving force” of everything that happens, since everything processes in nature occur either with the release or absorption of time. His idea is consonant with the idea of ​​I. I. Yuzvishin, only he uses the concept of “time”, and Yuzvishin uses the concept of “information”. N.A. Kozyrev believed that, using the properties of time, it is possible to obtain instant information from any point in the Universe or transmit it to any point.

Based on the theory of N. A. Kozyrev about the existence in nature of a timeless channel for the transmission of cause-and-effect information, A. V. Martynov emphasizes that such information represents a deformation of the space-time continuum, or rather, causes its vibration. These microgravity vibrations fill the entire space of the Universe and in our real world they have the character of a hologram.

All processes in nature occur either with the release or absorption of time. Time is not simply the duration from one event to another, measured in hours. Time can be measured with scales. Time exerts physical pressure and carries energy. Thus, N.A. Kozyrev discovered that the Earth is pumping up its natural satellite, the Moon, with time. Based on this, he suggested that volcanic activity is possible on the Moon. But the Moon is a dead body that has completed its evolution! There should be no volcanic eruptions there! N.A. Kozyrev’s assumption was so paradoxical that he was mocked for many years. But on November 3, 1958, he managed to detect a volcanic eruption through a telescope on the lunar crater Alphonse. And at the heart of this volcanism were the flows of time! N.A. Kozyrev’s discovery was not accepted immediately. Only in 1969 was he given a diploma on the discovery of lunar volcanism; in 1970, the International Astronomical Academy awarded him a personalized gold medal with a diamond image of the constellation Ursa Major.

N.A. Kozyrev experimentally proved that stars emit a colossal amount of time, that is, in essence, they serve as generators of some substance.

Characterizing the materiality of time, N. A. Kozyrev wrote that moments of time itself, like material threads, connect the center of action with objects that perceive this action. Time carries with it an organization, structure, or negetropy that can be transferred to another sensor substance.

In Newtonian mechanics, time does not depend on space. The geometry linking space and time into a four-dimensional manifold was developed by Breslau professor G. Menkowski in accordance with the Lorentz transformation and other consequences of the special theory of relativity. From the point of view of the reality of such a world, everything that can happen already exists in the future and continues to exist in the past. Moving along the time axis, we only encounter events in our present.

It is known that we see stars not where they are currently, but where they were tens and hundreds of thousands of years ago: this is exactly how long it takes light to reach us from a star. But over time, things happen differently. It does not spread throughout the Universe like light, but appears in it immediately, its effect on processes and material bodies occurs instantly.

But still, does time move or not? If it moves, where and how does it move?

“Imagine for a moment,” writes N. Nepomniachtchi, “that you are watching a film about a game of billiards. The game has just started. The cue hits the ball, the ball breaks other balls. Some balls roll into corner or side pockets, others simply roll across the table and stop in different places.

Now imagine the movie being replayed. Several balls quickly pop out of the pockets and roll into the center of the table. The first ball rolls back and stops at the tip of the cue. All other balls are collected in the shape of a triangle.

Our experience tells us that there can be no real movement back. Although it looks fun, we instinctively feel that it is not feasible.

Let's say that you are asked to explain why it is impossible to move backwards. What physical laws does it violate, if indeed it does? At first it may seem that the law of gravity is being violated if the balls jump out of the corner and side pockets. Now suppose that the molecules that received the shock and heat at the bottom of the pockets will compress and return momentum to the balls, pushing them back to the surface of the table.

Similar questions have troubled physicists for many years. In reality, reversing the entire course of events during a billiards session will not violate any basic laws of physics, although the laws of probability will, of course, be ignored. The chance of this happening is almost zero. Until recently, the laws of probability were considered the main reason why time cannot be turned back.”

One of the most eloquent defenders of probability theory was Arthur Eddington (1882–1944), a prominent British astronomer and physicist. In his book The Nature of the Physical World, he comments on the inevitable march of time forward, which he calls the “arrow of time”: “The great thing about time is that it moves forward. But it is precisely this aspect of time that physicists most often neglect.” Describing a method for determining the direction of the arrow of time, he notes: “If, while tracking the arrow, we discover more and more more elements accidents in the state of things, then the arrow is directed to the future; if the presence of the element of chance becomes less and less, the arrow is directed into the past.”

On a smaller scale, this rule is quite applicable to the billiards example. As soon as the first ball hits the other balls, the neat triangle scatters in all directions. The element of chance is increased, the arrow is directed into the future. Conversely, if the scattered balls return to their places in the triangle, the element of chance is reduced and the arrow points into the past. In one case time moves forward, in the other - backward.

Judging by recent discoveries, it seems that besides probability there are other reasons that determine the direction of the arrow of time.

At the atomic and subatomic levels, some weak interactions between particles of matter are apparently irreversible in time. In other words, these interactions always occur in one direction and cannot be reversed.

According to a concept proposed by Richard Feeman, some subatomic particles of matter, called antiparticles, appear to be particles that move backwards in time within an instant. In other words, an antiproton is a proton moving backward in time, and by extension a positron is just an electron moving backward in time.

However, it now seems clear that at a level beyond the reach of the microscope, the arrow of time must point forward at certain points. If Richard Feeman is right, time travel itself is a common phenomenon at the submicroscopic level.

But there is one more question, very important for understanding the nature of “doubles”, “ghosts” in the history of civilizations: is it possible to reverse the passage of time? In his treatise, The Republic, the ancient Greek philosopher Plato mentions a strange phenomenon where the world turns back and moves back in time.

Plato proposed a description of the reversal of time to interpret a myth that interested him greatly. In this myth, the god Zeus was angered by an unjust king who took the throne from his predecessor. Zeus simply went ahead and stopped ruling the world, causing time to go backwards, thus restoring the deposed king to the throne. Plato believed that the gods either rule the world, or the world itself moves. Each cycle continues for many centuries. When the gods rule the world time is running forward. When they stop controlling the world, it moves backwards.

This is how Plato describes the actions of Zeus: “There is an era when God himself helps the movement and circulation of the world. There is also an era when he stops helping. He does this when the world's cycles reach their limit, determined for them. As a result of this, he begins to spin backwards from his own impulse, for he is a living being, and he was given reason by those who blinded him at the very beginning.

Platoy goes on to describe the consequences of the strange reversal of time: “At first, every living creature will freeze at the stage of life that it has reached. All mortal beings will stop aging and will begin to grow back, that is, to become younger, and will gradually turn into babies. The gray hair of the elders will begin to turn black, the beards of the husbands will thin and their cheeks will become smooth, restoring to each the long-gone bloom of youth. The bodies of the young will lose the marks of gender, shrinking day and night until they return to infancy, becoming infants in body and mind. Then they will wither completely and disappear completely.”

In the example given, the mythical world first moved forward in time, and then completely reversed its course and moved back. Probably, the inhabitants of that world did not realize that time was flowing backwards, although Zeus understood this perfectly well.

Therefore, on Mount Olympus, the legendary abode of the Greek gods, time continued to move forward, otherwise Zeus and the other gods would also move backward in time.

This example from the myth, notes N. Nepomnyashchy, raises important questions: does time simply move back and forth, or can its direction be observed from the outside? Can time move forward from one viewpoint back to another?

The great physicist Albert Einstein, who created the theory of relativity, tried to answer these questions. This theory fully justifies the assumption that time travel is quite feasible for bodies moving at tremendous speed. The fact is that time flows slower on a device moving at enormous speed than on earth. The higher the speed, the more noticeable this difference in time. But, according to the theory of relativity, a body cannot move faster than the speed of light, because its mass will become infinite, at the same time its length will decrease to infinity.

Firstly, this is unattainable, according to our current knowledge. Secondly, Einstein’s theory of relativity is also “relatively fair.” N.A. Morozov, about whom we spoke a lot above in connection with the new chronology, was one of the first to give meaningful and constructive criticism of the theory of relativity. Back in 1919, he made a report on this problem at the Astronomical Society, and a year later he published it in an expanded form. N.A. Morozov noted the main distinguishing feature of Einstein’s theory: the place of the old overthrown absolutes was taken by new - albeit unusual and extravagant, but from a methodological point of view exactly the same - absolutes (and first of all - the “absolute constancy of wave speed”).

N. A. Morozov was always concerned with the issues of time reversal. He was, perhaps, the first to give an impartial and complete natural-scientific picture of the inevitable physical, chemical, biological and astronomical processes that must occur if time suddenly flows backwards. The galaxy, as we know, is constantly expanding, stars are flying away in different directions, but the expansion of the Universe will be followed by a process of its compression. This process will be the beginning of the reversal of time.

N. A. Morozov’s concept of “time travel” was based on ideas about the wave-like nature of time. He drew an analogy between the waves of time and a man sailing in a boat. “From this point of view, the past days, years and centuries of the existence of the Universe did not turn into oblivion,” he said in a report at the First Congress of the Russian Society for World Studies, “but only left our field of vision, just as pictures of nature leave the field of view of passengers, rushing in a train along the railway track. In this case, indeed, time completely overlaps space, and all the modifications of landscapes we see remain for us not only behind us, but also in the past. But they do not disappear there, and, having returned back, we can again travel the same path by rail and see all the details of the adjacent areas in the same sequence.”

His concept of the relationship between past, present and future is interesting. The scientist believed that only the past and the future really exist, but the present does not exist, it is pure fiction, a “gap in eternity” between the past and the future. This is how time is understood in mathematics today.

In conversations with the Russian cosmist A.L. Chizhevsky, N.A. Morozov said: “Cosmic magnetic lines of force, like a giant web, randomly fill the entire cosmic space. Nature is so much more significant than the human brain portrays it that it undoubtedly possesses such amazing capabilities that man cannot produce in his earthly laboratories.”

TIME SPIRAL, OR THE FUTURE THAT ALREADY HAS BEEN

We have briefly outlined the physical picture of space and time. As it was found out, matter, time and space of the Universe as a whole are of an informational nature. The ideas of space-time are replaced by the idea of ​​the absolute essence of information, which includes both space and time, previously considered (in Euclidean geometry and classical mechanics) as independent philosophical categories. Space and time are functional interdependent factors, correlated with an informational essence.

Thus, our everyday ideas about time and space do not correspond to reality. It is almost impossible to describe time and space in words in the language of concepts known to us. However, this also applies to our idea of ​​the micro- and macrocosm. As the famous English physicist and Nobel Prize laureate Paul Dirac noted, quantum theory is built from such concepts “that cannot be explained using previously known concepts and cannot even be explained adequately in words at all.”

And although it's hard to describe physical representation about space and time, we tried to do that. But the point is not even how we imagine these categories. Something else is important for us. Modern scientific ideas about space and time prove the possibility of the existence of other worlds, other civilizations, the possibility of movement in time, the creation of a time machine. It is therefore possible that the worlds interpenetrate. And this, in turn, explains the possibility of the existence of “doubles” and “ghosts” on Earth. The spiral of time, repetitions in the history of world civilizations and the presence of “ghosts” in history cease to be so mysterious.

The presence of historical duplicates in this case lies not only in distortions of traditional chronology and mistakes of historians, but also in the phenomenon of the revival of human life (reincarnation) and entire civilizations in different historical eras. The laws of karma apply both to individuals and to entire nations and historical civilizations.

There are quite a lot of supporters of the idea of ​​reincarnation, but there are also many opponents. As we know, one of the adherents of reincarnation was Giordano Bruno. Mysticism and philosophy led Bruno to ideas about the countless worlds. Bruno agreed with Copernicus that the Earth cannot be the center of the Universe, but he believed that the Sun cannot be the center of the Universe. He started from the idea of ​​an infinite number of worlds.

They say that Bruno was burned at the stake for his “theological errors.” In fact, as is clear from the remaining investigative reports, the real reason was his belief in infinite worlds and reincarnation. He believed that after death the human soul could return to Earth in a new body and could even go on to live in an infinite variety of worlds beyond the Earth.

The theory of reincarnation has become widespread, but to this day it does not trace the most important, in our opinion, idea of ​​reincarnation, the revival of families, clans, nations, and civilizations in a new life. We often hear that history repeats itself. Isn’t such repetition a consequence of the reincarnation of civilizations? After all, it is not only man who sins and is responsible for the sins of his life, atoning for them in a new incarnation. Whole civilizations can commit nefarious phenomena at certain periods of time. Take slavery in Rome. An entire civilization based on slavery must reincarnate and atone for its sins.

The hypothesis we have considered of the revival of human life (reincarnation) and entire civilizations in various historical eras, and hence the appearance of doubles in history, is in many ways beautiful, esoteric, but too hypothetical and complex.

Reincarnation is rejected by the Orthodox Church, but this is a separate issue, and we will not discuss it now.

It seems appropriate to us to try to find a simpler, more rigorous explanation of the mysterious phenomena in the history of world civilizations. Let's try to rethink in the light of all of the above our ideas about the course of history.

Some ancient philosophers viewed development as forward motion in a straight line. Others saw development as moving in circles. Aristotle combined these two approaches and created the image of a spiral as a model for the development of nature and civilizations.

In one of his early works, F. Engels compared the development of social life with a free, hand-drawn spiral: “Slowly history begins its run from an invisible point, sluggishly making its revolutions around it, but its circles grow faster and faster and the flight becomes more lively...”

This statement, which is obvious at first glance, turns out to be erroneous. We know early civilizations that had superbly developed technology, amazing knowledge of astronomy, and then these civilizations disappeared, and in their place came primitive societies that imagined the Earth as a disk standing on the backs of whales or elephants, etc.

The idea of ​​an ascending nature of development, the idea of ​​a development model in the form of an “expanding upward” spiral, ultimately turns out to be erroneous.

A new interesting model of the development spiral was developed by the President of the Department of Philosophy of Information Civilization of the Moscow Aviation Institute R. F. Abdeev. He developed and substantiated the converging (nonlinear) spiral of development.

Other ideas about the development spiral are also possible. And our ancestors seemed to understand this well. The spiral as a symbol has been widely used since ancient times. Labyrinths and spirals or their images have been recorded on all continents: Africa, Asia, America, Australia, Russia...

In the Andes, for example, a huge hewn 20,000-ton stone block (the size of a 4-story house), completely covered with spirals, was discovered. To date, no one can explain its origin and purpose.

The spiral pattern was widespread in Russian traditional embroidery. Spiral-shaped signs and symbols are imprinted on objects of Slavic-Russian life. Spiral codes were passed on from generation to generation, from people to people, from worldview to worldview, from religion to religion. The spiral is one of the deepest symbols of the Universe. Apparently, the ancients wanted to show that everything moves and develops in a spiral, but the forms of spirals can be very different, just as the forms of development of civilizations are different.

We said in previous chapters that numerous studies prove the existence of a highly developed civilization even before the Biblical flood. On Earth, according to E. Blavatsky, there were 5 races of people, our race is the fifth. Each race arose from the previous one (the first race of people, which was called “self-born,” arose on Earth in the form of ethereal beings by densifying the subtle world, that is, the world of psychic energy. These were angelic people who could freely pass through any solid objects. They looked like luminous, ethereal forms of moonlight and up to 40–50 meters tall, they did not have a language; they communicated using “thought transfer.”

The second race of people, called “later born” or “boneless”. These people were also ghost-like, but denser than the first race. Their size was a little smaller. They were golden yellow in color.

The third race of people, called the “Lemurians,” already consisted of a dense body and had bones. The early Lemurians were golden in color. The late Lemurians, or Lemur-Atlanteans, were the most highly developed people on Earth, with the highest level of technology. It is believed that their achievements include the construction of the Egyptian Sphinx, the huge ruins of Solusbury (Great Britain), some monuments in South America, etc. Their height reached 7–8 meters.

The fourth race of people was called the Atlanteans. They had two physical eyes at the front, and the "third eye" was hidden deep inside the skull, but functioned well. They had two hands. Height - 3–4 meters.

They gained knowledge by connecting to the Universal Information Field, mastered remote hypnosis, transmitted thoughts at a distance, could influence gravity, had their own flying machines (vimana), built stone idols on Easter Island, Egyptian pyramids and many other mysterious elements of antiquity.

The fifth race is modern man. It arose during the late Atlanteans. The function of the “third eye” has almost completely disappeared, the constant connection with the Universal information field has been interrupted.). The reconstruction of these races, including the appearance of people of previous civilizations, was carried out by Doctor of Medical Sciences E.R. Muldashev based on the methodology he developed and data from the Himalayan expedition.

Proto-civilization left us practically no written traces. We can judge its existence only by strange finds in soil layers that do not correspond to the time of the appearance of these objects. A mystery for archaeologists to this day is the “California” automobile spark plug, which has lain on the ocean floor for millions of years; giant cave paintings of Ancient America; maps of undiscovered continents that belonged to the ancient Greeks, Alexander the Great, and Turkish admiral Piri Reis; the most accurate maps of the Earth handed down by old sailors for thousands of years; a knight found on Easter Island on horseback and in ammunition, with things and coins belonging to the period several centuries before the discovery of the island; a crystal skull, perfect star maps and other items that are technologically difficult to make even today. There are other interesting facts. For example, a strange metal bolt (according to another version - a coil), discovered by D. Kurkov and L. Kuleshova in the Kaluga region (Kosmopoisk expedition, May 1997). The age of the find is 300–320 million years! In the press, this find was called “Adam’s bolt.” Another amazing find is a conductor made using technology that began to be used only at the end of the 20th century for the production of aerospace aircraft. Found by members of the 25th Medveditskaya expedition (August 1997). The age of the find is 2.5 thousand years. How did all this end up in past centuries? Why are there no written sources left from the ancient civilization?

It can be assumed that the ancients communicated with each other not using language, words, or writing, but telepathically. Thoughts were transmitted in time and space over vast distances. But is such communication possible? From the perspective of information science, it is not only possible, but also optimal.

Everyone knows the telepathic capabilities of people. A striking example is the telepathic connection between mother and child. The mother instantly senses the child's distress at any distance. We are also well aware of cases of super-telepathic abilities of individual people. Perhaps this is a manifestation of atavism of the once natural connection between people. Please note that the brain modern man only works 10%. Why is nature so wasteful and 90% of the brain rests? Probably, at one time the brain used 100% of its capabilities to carry out telepathic communication.

Moreover, a person perceived and processed information not only and not so much with the brain, but with the whole body. Today the mechanism of this process is quite clear. Heraclitus also expressed the idea that the power of thinking is outside the body. The philosopher A.K. Minaev noted that such a subsystem of the body as blood, no less than the brain, is necessary for the implementation of all physiological, biological and mental functions, although it is not considered the organs of thought. Professor V.V. Nalimov noted that a person, in some deep sense, thinks with his whole body.

A. M. Martynov, noting this brilliant thought in depth, notes that blood - this liquid crystalline medium - has, like other biological fluids, unique information properties, like ordinary water. In his opinion, water is not only an energy stimulant, but also an information stimulant (Based on the fact that our body is 70–80% water, he notes that human bioenergy is largely determined by structural changes in cellular water. Individual water molecules are capable of combine into molecular aggregates consisting of 25–81 molecules; such a molecular aggregate can acquire the properties of a biologically active polymer with a molecular weight of up to 1400. Modern science has proven that the so-called aggregate (structural) water has a liquid crystal structure in water under the influence of various physical factors. factors - such as a magnetic field, temperature changes, the degree of oxygen saturation, microgravitational influence of informational or topological properties of space - microphase changes continuously occur, as a result of which its crystal lattice changes, and this, in turn, is expressed in the form of a change in the secondary spectrum gravitational radiation.). The discovery of the so-called “memory” of water became important (the discovery was made by G. M. Shangin-Berezovsky and J. Benvist). For example, if some biologically active substance is dissolved in water, then even after very thorough cleaning it still “remembers” the biological effect of that substance.

The fact that water has the ability to accumulate, store and transfer information, as noted by researcher E. Panov, was noticed long ago. She is a transfer agent. Perhaps it is precisely the material agent that materializes thought. Then the true meaning of the water cycle in nature is not that it evaporates, accumulates in clouds, rains, and this cycle repeats endlessly. It's about something else. Water is found in the blood that washes the human brain, in the brain cells. She absorbs thoughts, ideas, information. No thought, good or bad, disappears without a trace, because water is present everywhere.

But why do we think that water has the ability to accumulate, store and transfer information? Firstly, this has been noticed by people for a long time. Secondly, this is confirmed by modern science and, in particular, information science.

Professor E.R. Muldashev also believes that a very deep principle operates in the process of transferring information by water.

There is a law of information science, formulated by academician I. I. Yuzvishin, which can be briefly defined as follows - like interacts with like (The law reads as follows: “Homogeneous or isotropic bio- and cosmic objects, bodies, particles, fields and thoughts give birth to (produce) gene-symmetric themselves, and also interact with genetically symmetrical ones.” For any biofield, the biofield of water is genetically symmetrical. This comes from the fact that water is genetically symmetrical to any cosmic nature. Water and humans are similar objects (According to Yuzvishin - homogeneous and isotropic biological objects.).

Humanity has literally and figuratively come out of the water.

The development of the embryo, and then the fetus, as is known, occurs in an aquatic environment (The embryo, with the help of a special embryonic membrane - the amnion - creates its own “pond” in which it floats until 35 weeks of its development. This liquid environment is most favorable for development.

at 6 weeks - 97.5%;

at 4 months - 90%;

at 7 months - 73.5%;

by the time of birth - 71%

Consequently, man and water interact regardless of the distances separating them. The water in human cells (cellular water) constantly interacts with earthly and world waters.

However, there are other theories to explain the telepathic capabilities of people. It is important for us not to reveal the cause of telepathy, but to show that it exists.

During pre-civilization, people not only had telepathic abilities, but also had an excellent knowledge of mathematics, astronomy, medicine, and chemistry. They understood the nature of the influence of stars and space in general on humans. Astrology flourished. Here you should pay attention to one nuance. We were taught to think that astrology first appeared, which was not yet a science, but rather mysticism. Then, with the development of society, astronomy appeared. In fact, it was the other way around. First came astronomy. As a result of its development, people not only comprehended the secrets of the cosmic structure, but also realized the influence of the stars on the destinies of people.

Astrology is higher, deeper than astronomy. The same thing happened with the development of chemistry. People first reached the heights of chemical knowledge, and only then began to develop alchemy as “higher chemistry.”

It is possible that what we call esotericism is deep knowledge inaccessible modern science. There is a close connection between magic, esotericism and scientific and technical thought, which we have not yet realized. Here is an eloquent example. It is known that surface hardening of steel was achieved in the Middle East by immersing a red-hot blade into the body of a prisoner. This is a typically magical practice of transferring an opponent's martial prowess to the blade. This practice became known in the West from the Crusaders, who became convinced that Damascus steel was indeed harder than the steel of Europe. Experiments were carried out: steel began to be dipped into water in which animal skins floated. The same result was obtained. In the 19th century it was noticed that this result was caused by organic nitrogen. In the 20th century, when they learned to liquefy gases, this method was improved by dipping steel in a liquid nitrogen at low temperature. In this form, nitrogen treatment forms part of our technology today.

Galileo and Newton clearly acknowledged that they owed their achievements to ancient science. And Copernicus, in the preface to his works, wrote that he “came to his discoveries by reading the ancients.”

Does the dear reader know that the manuscript of the German poem “Solomon and Malroff”, written in 1190 and stored in the Stuttgart library, contains a drawing of a submarine. It mentions a submarine made of copper and capable of withstanding the onslaught of a storm.

People of the most ancient civilization led a semi-underwater lifestyle. As E.R. Muldashev established, a distinctive feature of representatives of proto-civilization is the presence of membranes between the fingers and toes. In place of the nose they had a spiral curl. This curl served as a valve-shaped breathing hole. Dolphins and whales have a similar valve-shaped anatomy of the respiratory opening. This helps, unlike a normal nose, to reliably block the access of water to the respiratory tract while under water. The curl also performed a sound-reproducing function. Representatives of the proto-civilization also had gill elements. But, perhaps, the most important thing is that they have a “third eye” (Now, in modern people, it has remained in the form of a rudiment - the pineal gland (epiphysis), hidden deep in the depths of the brain.). It served as an organ of human bioenergy (telepathy, etc.). E.R. Muldashev received this information during the Tibetan expedition. Representatives of pre-civilization, of course, mastered the secrets of genetics, genetic engineering, and cloning.

Not only animals or people were cloned, but mixed types. For example, centaurs (human - horse), sphinxes (lion with a human head). There was a prisk of the optimal form of a living intelligent being. Entire families and births were cloned. Hence the appearance of “doubles” or “ghosts”.

Representatives of pre-civilization could enter the state of samadhi described by E. R. Muldashev in the book “From Who Did We Come?”

Interesting, in our opinion, is his concept of the desire of representatives of pre-civilization to create the gene pool of the Earth.

The question arises: why did the pre-civilization perish? The answers to this question in most cases are as follows: various natural disasters, rotation of the earth's axis, sudden glaciation, etc.

Such explanations are acceptable, but the main reason, in our opinion, lies elsewhere.

Having reached the highest level of technical development, proto-civilization destroyed nature and degenerated morally. Transmitting thoughts over a distance required effort, and people always strive to make their lives easier and more comfortable. Various symbolic information exchange systems are emerging. Signs were used to designate things, phenomena, properties, and relationships. Each sign had one or more meanings. Something like electronic means of collecting, storing and exchanging information began to appear. Networks developed, similar to the modern Internet.

People have learned to create robots from “flesh and blood”, that is, to clone living beings similar to themselves, endowing them with the ability of sign communication, but practically depriving them of telepathic capabilities. Limited telepathic abilities remained, but the robots were incomparably lower than those of their creators. But these telepathic abilities were lost over time, remaining only among a select few who became pharaohs, priests, and magicians.

What we call today a secular way of life developed - idleness, lack of spirituality, debauchery. Having mastered time and space, creating time machines, people began to carry out intergalactic flights. Naturally, not on devices like our space rockets. They are too primitive. Colonization was carried out in a way that I. I. Yuzvishin called information-ideal. Its essence is as follows. The level of information technology was increased from 106 to 10,100, which made it possible to ensure the regeneration and relaxation process of materialization and dematerialization of a living organism, as well as informationlets with antimaterial engines that provide light or superluminal speed of interplanetary flights. Our distant ancestors left the Earth...

The possibility of such flights is not fantasy. Doctor of Technical Sciences, Professor, Head. Department of the Moscow State Technical University of Radio Electronics and Automation (MIREA) I. I. Yuzvishin scientifically substantiates this in a number of his works.

If we agree that there was an ancient pre-civilization with a highly developed technology that exceeds our modern technological achievements, and numerous facts testify to this, then we must admit that this pre-civilization came to a decline towards the end of the 4th millennium BC. e. It was from this moment that information appeared about the birth of a new civilization, which in modern historiography is called the Ancient World.

At this time, cities appeared in Egypt and Mesopotamia. About this new civilization, despite the development of Egyptology, Sumerology, etc., very little is known and information about it is confused. It should be said that Egypt or the Sumerians are not the youth of modern civilization, but rather the agony of the old proto-civilization. Although the moral decay of the representatives of pre-civilization had reached its limit, there were still carriers of ancient knowledge. Flesh and blood robots increasingly lost the ability to communicate telepathically. Language and writing became their means of communication.

This new civilization was not as adapted to life as the previous one. Like a child, she was just learning to walk and talk. Millennia passed, but she remained a child. By failing to grow up, she doomed herself to death. They never sufficiently mastered telepathic capabilities, and language and speech, that is, sign communication systems, were not developed. The knowledge of the previous civilization continued to be preserved by priests, initiates, but they gradually ceased to understand the wisdom of their ancestors, and their telepathic ability to communicate was also lost.

We see what happened to pre-civilization from the history of Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, China, etc. True, this story has come to us in an extremely confused, distorted form and even largely fictitious. The reasons for this distortion were well guessed by N. A. Morozov.

The third stage in the development of civilizations is the appearance by the 10th century AD. e. on the territory of present-day Egypt, an ancient kingdom called the Byzantine Empire, and then on its basis the Great Russian Empire, which is included in modern historiography under the name of the Mongol Empire. The course of development of this civilization up to the 18th century is extremely distorted. This is set out in sufficient detail in the works of Academician A. T. Fomenko and his school. Naturally, not all hypothetical constructions of the course of this story are described by them correctly, but the essence is guessed accurately.

This third civilization developed. Scientific and technological progress grew, more and more advanced technologies appeared. Society mastered atomic energy and began building spaceships. This is our modern society.

Information technologies developed with particular speed. Print, radio, television, modern means of communication, computer networks generate huge information flows. Back in the middle of the 20th century, scientists determined that the growth of information volumes is not uniform, but exponential.

(Uniform growth of information )

(Information is growing exponentially )

The exponential growth of information means that over a certain period of time the volume of information doubles, and the closer to modern times, the period of time during which the doubling of information occurs decreases.

That is, if earlier the volume of information doubled over hundreds of years, then by the beginning of the 20th century, the doubling of information took place over tens of years; by the middle of the 20th century, information doubled in 5–8 years. Now the doubling of information volumes can be measured in months, and soon the doubling of information volumes will occur in weeks, days...

Now humanity, in our opinion, is at a new stage in the development of civilization - the information stage.

A distinctive feature of this period is that people lose contact with nature, and direct contacts between people cease.

We do not travel, but watch television programs “Cinema Travel Club”. We do not look at the starry sky, but read about the secrets of space. People stop playing chess among themselves, and play with the computer. Billiards, cards - on the computer. Even football, volleyball, and basketball are being replaced by computer games. People stop communicating. The mobile phone replaces one-on-one conversations.

Scientific knowledge turns into a means of information processing. Laboratory experiments and experiments are becoming a thing of the past.

Real life replaced by a ghostly information fog. We are becoming no less ghostly than the ghosts created by modern information technology.

They say that the media is the fourth estate. This means that they shape our consciousness, influence our worldview, determine our tastes, interests... Whoever owns the media owns the world. It's right. But that’s not even the point. The fact is that we did not notice how the information itself got out of the control of even those who own information resources. Information began to live its own life, independent of people. It, if you like, materialized, but not into the forms of existence of living matter that are familiar to us - protein bodies, but into special forms called information by Academician I. I. Yuzvishin.

The earth is enveloped in radio waves, networks of electrical wires, radiation from television station antennas, and computer networks. But not only electromagnetic radiation has a massive effect on people. Nowadays there is more and more talk about the formation of a single cosmic information space or a cosmic information bank.

It is believed that information fields are the most powerful sources radiation, which propagates without transfer of mass and energy, has high penetrating power and superluminal speed, and unprecedentedly high intensities, penetrating power and speed exceeding the speed of light. The Universe has increasingly come to be understood as a single information-cellular field, an infinitely large brain in which endless processes of materialization and dematerialization of information occur. We can also talk about the information space of the Earth, which turned out to be shrouded in an information web. The cellular structure of information fields allows information fields, due to the wave nature of the field, to transmit information at any speed. It is now known that information fields influence the emergence of matter from vacuum. Consequently, I. I. Yuzvishin believes, information is primary, matter is secondary. That is, information fields, information fields can materialize.

It has long been known that our thoughts represent enormous power. They can turn from a dematerialized, ideal form of information into material things, objects, structures. In accordance with the law of information-gene symmetrization, notes I. I. Yuzvishin, the thoughts of each person attract similar ones. The beautiful thoughts of one person synchronize and interfere with the same thoughts of another person. Bad thoughts are attracted to bad thoughts, good thoughts to good ones, etc. Information-thought waves of one person have the amazing property of attracting (accepting) under appropriate conditions other information-thought waves of another person, of approximately the same lengths, frequencies, energies and codes .

They say that after death the soul remains alive. From the point of view of information science, the soul is a flow of information entering the information space of the cosmos after the death of a person.

Some scientists argue that everything is biased if it is not based on empirical knowledge, that is, on experiment. They also deny when mystics, clairvoyants, ufologists, astrologers, palmists, theologians, demonologists, telepaths and other spiritual scientists base their evidence on subjective sensations. This position of scientists, writes academician I. I. Yuzvishin, is unjustified, unambiguous and inadequate to individual historical phenomena and processes, which have been repeatedly confirmed by the prophetic and even mystical predictions of some religious and spiritual representatives. So, for example, individual people can mentally imagine themselves in the past tense in the person of their former 10th 11th degree ancestor, or see in the distant past certain phenomena and processes that took place hundreds, thousands or millions of years ago. Memory (information) of long-past phenomena can be genetically transmitted from generation to generation and at any stage of human development manifest itself in the form of predictions, knowledge or discoveries of what happened a long time ago.

But, in our opinion, it’s not just about genetic memory. Streams of information of deceased people stored in the information space of space can be connected with information of like-minded living people, as if returning to Earth again. Ideas that take possession of groups of people, nations, can be connected through information with related ideas of past generations. Then there is, as it were, a revival of entire groups and peoples. The life of such groups becomes, as it were, a mirror reflection of the life of bygone civilizations.

Now we can return to the beginning of the book and confidently say that life is not only a way of existence of protein bodies. There may be other forms of life. Life and intelligence can arise or be reborn from the information around us. It is quite possible that ghosts are representatives of an information civilization that was born, lives and develops.

Ghosts are no less real than people. It’s just that not everyone can feel this reality. Only in the information world do thoughts and desires become reality. Really, what do we know about the real world? Maybe he is an illusion that we take for reality. And there is no present, no future, no past here. One illusion. We earthly people are very strange. We see and don't believe our eyes. Maybe we really live in the past, present and future at the same time. We lived, live and will always live. There is no past, present and future. Time is divisible only on Earth. Or maybe time is unchanging, it doesn’t flow as we think. It is eternal, infinite and instantaneous. Centuries - one moment. One moment - millennia. We believe in the future, even without knowing the past. And our knowledge is a muddy drop in the clear sea of ​​history. We know nothing about life and death. And only in the informational, timeless space we learn the truth.

The world around us is inextricably linked with us. Every thing we come into contact with absorbs our emotions, thoughts, our joys and sufferings. And these feelings are transferred to other people. Everything that has ever been created carries within it a magnetic influence. Thought attached to things is a life force called vibrational force. In the mystic concept, it is believed that vibrations can have three aspects: audibility, visibility and tangibility. Man fills any object he creates with life.

Man has given birth to various forms social information, and this information, once materialized, can serve for the benefit, or it can destroy humanity. She's like a genie out of the bottle.

This is a new, fourth stage in the development of civilization generated by man. Now this civilization has begun to live and develop on its own, independently of us. She is still in her infancy. We gave birth to her, fed her, and we are obliged to monitor her development. What this civilization will grow and become, what path it will take, depends on us.