Road and Way
Mark Vladimirovich Ratz
Road (“from point A to Point B”) suppose future filled and known. Definiteness of knowledge about future supplied by scientific prognosis, projects and plans. We are free to choose one of the road, leading to the known future, but each of it leads to the purpose known beforehand. Road is chosen for a long time, at least till the next crossroad. (If the communism was the aim of the USSR, then in nowadays Russia "developed" capitalism is suggested as the same aim.)
The way leads to the unknown future (there is no point B here). It will be as we'll manage to build it, and it'll be shown then as the converted way of our moving. Here we need to self define on each step, as the ибо trajectory of such movement can be drawn only "post factum". We can build in our thoughts and to discuss our ideals, but they will remain no more then ideals – deliberately unreachable guiding star.
By choosing one of the road, one desires to be sure in the rightness of the way chosen. But as there are not and can be criteria of rightness, then the road chosen declare as (explicitly or non explicitly) the unique right. There can be any of the reasons for this: true faith, scientific basement, people's historical mission, statement of charismatic leader – everything could be used, also as wholesale as retail.
The way is choosing continuously, or paving continuously: it is another manner of moving in principle. The question doesn't arise here about "the rightness" of the choice of each next step, but there need to think about, if this step would be realized and effective comparing with possible alternatives: does it lead to ideals and orienteer accepted, or, may be, these ideals and orienteer need correction according to the movement and the way made, the results produced and the experience summarized. That way of movement in contrast to the projectile is named programmable, but have nothing in common with the “aimed complex programs” (as they are seen in Russia).
Dilemma the way versus road in comprehension pointed exposed as fundamental to me: as that is the choice between the freedom and some of the way to escape from it [E. Fromm]. It stands before us constantly, and the sense I would like to comment the known expression "to lose one's road" is "to follow the road", i.e. to lose the ability to make constant corrections, to lose the ability to choose, become a captive of the road. And if it is so, then the seeking for social mutual consent should be started from seeking decision of this dilemma: whether we would like to follow the unique right road or the social agreement could be reached during the constant dialog, in the process of self – and mutual consent, on the way? The second question, as we shall see, directly connected with the first, it is the question about our ideals and orienteer (which should be differ from aims): what direction we would like to move to?
Translated by Yuri Skomorovsky