How do you think, Watson, who could have written it and to whom he could address?

According to the title of the magazine it was Pushkin, and he addressed to one of his contemporaries and poets.

Yes, Watson, you’re right; it is an extract from Pushkin’s letter of 1834 to Russian poet Nikolai Mikhailovich Yazykov, with a request to take part in the work of “Sovremennik” magazine. What is the most important for us here is Pushkin’s assessment of his poems and his creative work in whole – “dead water”. Why? The answer is – because Pushkin assembled in “Sovremennik” all creative potential of Russia. And notice the sequence: dousing with dead water goes first, and only after that the effect of live water is suggested. And I’ve got to know, that in Russian fairy-tales it’s frequent situation: single live water can’t be used, only after the effect of dead water. But single dead water can be used – for some evil spirits, for making them weaker and destroying at last.

It seems like the Conception of Social Securitytoo assembles the creative potential of peoples for leading not only Russia but also even global civilization in whole out of the crisis. Therefore the epic name of the conception – “Dead Water” – was predetermined long time before Pushkin has wrote it, and, consequently, the “faro” game was lost by biblical znakharstvo before they had started playing it on the matrix level with Internal Predictor of the USSR in the “Historical Picnic”. Even the appeal to the authority of their “alma mater” – ancient Egypt – hasn’t helped them. They tried to break the matrix of alternative conception in the “Post Historical Picnic” using the same authority.

Do you mean, Holmes, the figure of UgOMON above the Pisa Tower in the third “picnic”?

Yes, Watson, this figure of sitting Pharaoh symbolizes the matrix links between the first and the third “picnics”, but to the right and above all these pictures there’s Eros or Cupid, in any case – the symbol of god of Love. But true God is Love indeed; and that’s why on the level of the third “picnic” symbols the representatives of biblical znakharstvo assumed (involuntary or not), that in mutual enclosing of all matrixes there is the matrix of God’s Predetermination, and that everything will happen according to it, sooner or later. And nevertheless, if to try to translate the message of Global Predictor to Internal Predictor of the USSR from the language of symbols into the language of definite lexicon, it will mean approximately the following: “What are you trying to do? Don’t you understand that you’re trying to withstand the authority of the conception, which serves the base of stable managing of the global civilization for more than 4000 years? We have Sufism, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Masonry and countless number of different open and secret order structures – and everything in one bottle. And what can you oppose to that? The Sufficiently Universal Theory of Ruling?”

Excuse me, Holmes, for interrupting you, but I’ve heard about the Sufficiently Universal Theory of Ruling from Galba in the bar of “Woldorf”. He spoke about it in rather irritable tone, and I didn’t ask him questions about its content. It seems to me, that you have known something very important from the conversations with Mr. Verov, which wasn’t reflected in your recordings. You’ve posed it as main argument against symbolic challenge of Global Predictor, haven’t you?

I’ve never read, Watson, the Sufficiently Universal Theory of Ruling, but indeed I’ve learnt several things about it from Mr. Verov. In Russian it’s called by abbreviation DOTU.

To their opinion, it appears as an answer to new informational state of society after the change of social behaviour logic. The split of the society has global character today. There’s no understanding between representatives of science and religion, and even between representatives of different applied and fundamental sciences. Russians asked themselves: why could it happen? – And they came to very simple conclusion, which seemed to lie on the surface: there’s no conceptual and terminological system uniting all separate branches of knowledge. If there were such a system, then experts in different branches of knowledge would understand each other easily. And they tried to comprehend the characteristic features of people’s behaviour when they encounter any processes touching their living in their practical activity. And these common features are – the possibility to describe any process as a process of managing and people’s striving for managing the processes important for their living and living of the mankind.

That’s why they considered conceptual and terminological system of the Sufficiently Universal Theory of Ruling to be the most acceptable for solving any problems of the mankind: religious, social, technical and technological, biological, military, economic, personal and psychological and others.

Thus, for example, from their point of view all western economy scientific elite is a collection of idiots and swindlers, because they know nothing about the essential metrological expression of mistakes in ruling macro-economical systems, and what should be in the list of guaranteed essential goals of ruling macro-economy, being achieved metrologically. Do you agree, that every objective science starts with measurements, and all its concepts and terms accord to them? If there’s no such beginning, this is not science, but charlatanism and primordial “bewitching of elements”. And in our days it’s more often the swindling, hidden by the schools of “economy thought”.

But, excuse me, Holmes, there’s nothing new in it, I’ve read many articles on this theme in different special editions.

It’s true, Watson, but the question is not in theories of ruling since they are truly numerous and applied to different spheres of human activity, including economy. The matter is in the Sufficiently Universal Theory of Ruling itself – in rendering its content such way, that nobody in any case could turn it into a dead and dreadful dogma. This task isn’t as easy as it seems for the first look, Watson, isn’t it? In other words, it was necessary to create such conceptual and terminological system in the framework of this theory, with the help of which the expert in related science could go in for any fundamental and applied science, and which could unit science and religion, if they have the same mission – to serve for the good of mankind.

And how do you think, Holmes, have Russians succeeded in it?

I suppose, Watson, they have, if even you and I are occupied with this theory today. And it has one important idea referred to the vector of aims and the vector of deviation of ruling reversibility and to the re-evaluation of a negative feedback to a positive one and vice versa according to the chosen vector of aims. From the worldview positions of DOTU one can understand the following. Any contradictions and conflicts in society, which are insolvable within some historically formed limited conception of the social self-ruling, are seen in another way and can be solved without conflicts within the enclosing conception of ruling that is wider and fuller.

Some possibilities of conflicts solving and overcoming are connected with the property of mutual reversing in the pair of vector of aims – vector of deviation[114]. That what is the vector of aims within one conception becomes the vector of deviation within another one, though the vector of state remains unchanged; and vice versa. And now let’s return to the third “picnic”.

Yes, Holmes, it seems to me that we will seriously need to occupy ourselves with the questions of the Sufficiently Universal Theory of Ruling. But now I have some questions concerning the third picnic.

Yes, Watson, please.

Firstly, I can’t understand the meaning of this “duckling with the guitar” to the right of Pisa tower.