Tandem effects in intellectual activity is the consequence of the fact that each participant of tandem considers his partner’s subjectivism as something like “scissors”; they delete the mistakes, caused by subjectivism of them both, from products of tandem activity; and as well they represent hammer for the personality of the partner, while tandem products represent anvil. In the course of such “blacksmith’s working” much “hull” of mistaking subjectivism is peeled from the person. This process is more painful and unpleasant psychologically, for those who more claim to “intellectual property” in respect to tandem activity products and their components, and who consider themselves to be the cleverest in their conceit[107]. When working on the person in the smithy of tandem relations starts, some persons lose so much husk, that few of former loud name rests, and such persons became entirely lost in its own husk. And it’s a fear of such losing the face in such clearing, which is the most important obstacle for overcoming the selfish individualism, and one should overcome it for becoming convinced on practice that “two heads are better than one”.

The more different is life experience of each participant and the more friendly and free are his or her interrelations, the brighter tandem effect is. And, accordingly, tandem effect vanishes in such situations as in the fable by I.A. Krylov “The Cock and the Cuckoo”, when the “Cuckoo” praises the “Cock” because the “Cock” praises the “Cuckoo”. But in the community of individualistically thinking intelligentsia such tandems as I.A. Krylov described in his fable, are can be met more often; and the same “intellectual” can be the participant of several tandems of mutual praising in turn. But if one of participants of mutual praising shifts to tandem principle realizing, he will risk to lose his partner and praiser, who will be displeased and insulted by such “working on” his conceit.

Intellectual activity in tandem goes as direct communication of people, and the exchange of subjective information takes place. The more concentrated is one partner on another, the more effective this exchange is. Such informational exchange can last as much as possible without interruptions; it can be resumed after many breaks, which can interrupt the discussion for many years. The long duration of tandem activity tact and the character of informational exchange between people give people the answer on the question why “the third is superfluous” and why the forth and further heads are all the more superfluous.

The informational exchange between people looks like conversation in its most visible form. One can talk, addressing to the only partner, or to plenty of listeners. But the most part of people is able to follow and analyse the course of thought in the narrative of the only interlocutor. The third one, who tries to become the participant of the conversation, distracts the attention of the listener, and so destroys the tandem process. It doesn’t mean that in any case the third should be took away from the conversational sphere, but it means that, being present at tandem activity of others, he is obliged to make himself transparent for them or to melt into the background. But it’s just one of limitations for the third.

The other circumstance appears another way. Of course, triumvirate, as well as any other more numerous “committee” rights up to Parliament or convention, can work in poly-tandem regime, when the participants form many tandems with each other in turn. But in most cases it will only make the work of the “committee” slower, without much influence on the quality of the decision it makes. The cause is that the most part of tandems, formed by the participants of the “committee” and concentrated on the certain problem, will have the same effectiveness. But some time later several leading, more specialized tandems will be distinguished in the sphere of every certain problem, and it will turn out that one of them can replace all the rest part[108]. Besides, in the numerous “committee” not every combination of participants can quickly form tandem able to work, and so it will lead to faction quarrels, famous to every Parliament, time-wasting and lowing of quality of “committee’s” decision.

Poly-tandem principle is effective when working on some problems, which are so profound and deep, that they are incomprehensible for the possibilities of the only human person. This leads to one more curious peculiarity of tandem principle, which is the most important for poly-tandem version of working on some problem: the participant of tandem process has no right to lie, because his information not always can be checked by others, and his obviously false opinion, mistook for true by other poly-tandem participant, can serve the base of deeply mistaken decision, which can be very damaging and dangerous.

If to regard some thematically determined spectrum of problems, in tandem principle it’s possible to realize one of methods of interrelations between individual psyche (including intellect) and collective psyche (collective intellect), part of which is individual – tandem participant. That’s the reason for those, who can’t act on the base of tandem principle because of their fanatical selfish individualism, to keep silent about collectivism and unity. Until the individual will be ready to act on the base of tandem principle in his relations with other people, he will breed only collective schizophrenia instead of unity in general, including unity in Holy Spirit; spreading obvious lie is one of ways of schizophrenic fragmentation of collective psyche[109]. Mastering of tandem principle, realized in tandem products in practice, – is the first overcome border to opening the unit life of individuals.”

* *

*

Having read the note twice, I was astonished by dense packing of information in it. Materials of the note put the light on the problems of ancient Egypt administration, which I encountered dealing with “picnics”; and it is besides our interrelations with Holmes, which we never discussed with him. But moreover, the note talked about many other problems of western civilization: what is “democratic elections” and why democracy, under the form existing in the society, isn’t effective; special look on the nature of “copyright” and etc. I thought that discussions about this note could bring up new culture of interrelations between people, as well as between person and society. I understood also, that this note was a part of another, larger work, and that it was worth discussing with Holmes. The rest of time before dinner I was reading the file “The Last Gambit”, comparing what I was reading with the last pictures from different issues of “Chas Pick”, “Trud” and “Arguments and Facts”. The most astonishing thing was not even the celebrity of Russian “picnics” all over the world, but the unusual interpretation of events, concerning with them, by different people in different countries. After Holmes’s notes I saw the world huge and diverse, but more united and integrated, than earlier. Also I was amazed by certain synchronous course of our investigations and by feeling something invisible, but undoubtedly existing, predetermining this activity, which was called “matrix” already. New image of Russia appeared, not only as enigmatic and unpredictable country, which we, western people, became used to, but as special civilization, differing from West and East, where the sources of new millennium culture could be found.

Turning on 5 a.m. news, I got to know about the night terrorist act in Madrid, on the October 12. According to Holmes’s notes, yet on the October 3 Paolo Riego and Andrei Verov discussed in El Escorial the possibility of another act of terrorism, analysing that strange map of Spanish capital with wrench on it. I wondered if Holmes knew about the last events. I knocked at the door of his study.