In other words, though the head-hierarchs, leading the tens of superior zhretses, were nor sillier than our contemporary democratizators and could guess, that inability of making one distinct decision in the case of equal number of “for” votes and “against” votes could be easily evaded by simple casting lots, they understood moreover: it would be better not to do that. And what the naïve supporters of “voting machines” don’t understand is that the solution of the problem shouldn’t be left for incomprehensible chance, and in some cases even for the majority of votes[95]; and neither do the supporters of monarchy, concerned with automatically inevitable accepting the decision by the advantage of only one vote, where the number of voting “committee” participants is odd.

This particular feature of zhretses’ working structure “” means that, in the case of disagreement between two equal head-hierarchs, they both should become the participants of some other process of making and accepting the decision, which excluded intentionally the incomprehensible chance of lot, and equally – the only decisive voice. This is the only reasonable explanation for such expressed-in-system disgust of Egyptian superior zhretses to accepting the decision on the base of incomprehensibility of chance lot, and equally on the base of incomprehensibility of chance one-vote-advantage.

And if the working structure “” did existed during centuries without quarrels between two head-hierarchs of its branches and hadn’t been replaced by structure based on the principle of odd numbers, it means that the head-hierarchs indeed were able to provide the work of system on the base of principle: “two heads are better than one”[96], and to choose one decision from two contrary ones or to make the third, better than both two incompatible.

In the other words, they were skilfully realizing the tandem principle in their intellectual and entire psychical activity, which were inherited[97] by rabbis of Great Synagogue in ancient times, whose adherence to pairs without any homosexual reasons (the Freudists could probably give that explanation) was rather astonishing and lacking for understanding for A. Reville.

But in the society of almost general literacy, lacking of desire and skills to think, where we, the readers of this piece, live, it’s one of the most easy doings – to write, as well as to read, the words “intellectual activity on the base of tandem principle”. Their practical understanding, and all the more – realizing their true meaning in one’s own life is much harder, than writing or reading the words.

The first image one can have in his head is the remembrance of tandem – the bicycle, where the pedals are to be moved by two bicycle-riders, and co-ordinately. For those, who not only saw the tandem, but rode on it not alone, it can be easy to remember the lightness of flight comparing with the ordinary bicycle, which appears because of the fact that the resistance of tandem is little more than ordinary bicycle has, but the energy of “motor” is twice. Also you can remember, that if your partner on the tandem is hardly moving his legs for only not losing the tempo with which you yourself rolls the pedals as swiftly as possible, you would feel much less comfortable, than having a travelling companion on the ordinary bicycle.

Like in cycling, the matter is the same in the sphere of intellectual activity: if two have found the way for providing the combination[98] of their individual possibilities, then the effectiveness of tandem exceeds the possibilities of each of the partners, and the advantages of tandem principle “two heads are better than one” are obvious and incontestable for those who managed to realize it; but if two, trying to make a tandem, can’t combine, it would be the task of the one with more developed individual spiritual culture to draw on his back through the “strip of life obstacles” both his companion and all the tandem products, and it may appear too hard for him in some cases, even if his individual capacities allow him to go easily enough through the “obstacle strip” by his own.

However, the tandem principle of intellectual activity has one peculiar feature: unlike in cycling, where the tandem, on which one can sit and ride, passing all the ordinary bicycles, is obviously visible and touchable, in the case of intellectual activity all good tandem effects appear and influence only by the condition of combination of the partners. It can arise from the very beginning, and then the tandem is combined “by itself”, without any purposeful efforts from their side, and for that reason it can stay invisible for their consciousness, which is concerned with other problems, and dwell in the sphere of subconscious psychical activity. But if there isn’t a “primordial” combination, and people don’t even guess about the possibility of reaching the tandem effect in their activity, they never undertake any intentional efforts for changing themselves and people around them such way, that the combination in tandem became possible.

These are two reasons by which the tandem principle “two heads are better than one” remained unobserved by different types of psychological schools: if it was realized, nothing can be said about it, because it’s not the aim, but the means for reaching some other aims; and if its realization was unsuccessful, there’s nothing to talk about, for the subject is absent. But we pay much attention to it, because it’s the first goal, which realization represents the way for realizing some other, more significant, goals.

Though Egyptian zhretses were basing on the tandem principle in their activity, the methods of teaching the intellectual activity in the system of initiation in ancient Egypt were either hidden (and it’s more probable, according to our understanding of principles of saving and distributing information in the society[99]); or open methods were destined only for the most superior esotericists (this is less probable, to our opinion, because in that case someone would have left some indications on it, direct or allegorical, but we have no things like that).

In favour of what was said in the previous paragraph there say the historical circumstances of the times, when Egypt was no Egypt any more, and pass from the historical stage “by itself”. It happened, when the structure of Egyptian zhrechestvo “”, standing above the Pharaoh and state power during centuries, conceptually powerful structure, left Egypt in Moses epoch together with Amen priests, who installed into the Jewish surroundings during the time of Egyptian captivity. After that the Egypt of Pharaohs began to decline, and it’s widely known, though the historians don’t connect this declining process with disappearing of zhretses administrative structure “”[100].

I.Katznelson in the postscript to the novel of B.Pruss “Pharaoh”[101] notices, that in ancient Egypt there was real historical Amen’s superior zhrets in Thebes, Kherikhor, who sat on the throne of Egypt, having removed Ramses XII, the real historical last Pharaoh of XX dynasty (and that was the real base for the subject of Pruss’s novel). During this period Egypt split up into two parts, and furthermore became the loot of foreigners, as arbitrariness and ignorance of the “elite” and the zhretses, deteriorating to the level of desiring and greedy znakharstvo, lead to progressing lowering of administrative qualities, which ended few centuries later, under Cleopatra, with entire collapse.

I.Katznelson, like many other people, doesn’t pay much attention to the fact, that the real events of XX dynasty collapse and ruling of a superior quack had their place AFTER JEWISH GOING OFF from Egypt, which is known from the bible. It means, that it happened, when Egypt had yet accepted the doctrine of slave owning on the base of usurious tyranny of Jewish clans, ruled by the heirs of Egyptian Amen hierarchy.