Where from and to non-standard ways lead
(History, Politics, Crises management, Human resources).

-Ok, let me introduce you to one of the heads of CSIN-fund, author of the most exclusive ideas for the present moment.

-Unfortunately, it is more of a disadvantage for the Fund, than an advantage for me. And we are talking about managing this fund in a rather relative context, because we are not an organizational structure in its common sense.

-But still, is there an organization?

-Yes it was founded as a result of 20-year development of interests, plus an evidence of working realization for the moment.

-Then before we go into discussing contemporary ways of solving vital issues with non-standard methods, tell us a little about yourself. How have you personally come across non-standard, untraditional and how has it revealed?

-I've been practicing psychology from the school age. I will talk about it in general; otherwise we will get stuck in a pile of details. At first I was into things close to mysticism, esoteric practice, parapsychology. This is dating back to Brezhnev's times.

-Where did you get the literature back then?

-It started without any books, except for encyclopedias, which were rather accessible in those times. I must admit we had very few information and a very serious interest along with all different feelings about it all. Afterwards we had Xerox copies of the literature passed on from hands to hands. People could be easily put in jail for that, I even witnessed my friend was once grabbed by KGB in metro, they confiscated all kinds of literature. Some of them like a famous Para-psychologist Eduard Naumov were put to prison. It was 1980-81s. But I have realized very soon that mysticism wasn't quite my style. Surely I learned to make some tricks and could reasonably perceive "auras", do diagnosis, "set up" "protection screens". But for some reason I didn't wish to develop this practice, even though at some point I used to assist a lot of famous people. These people were the patriarchs in these fields. But my interest drifting away from mysticism was more and more captured by science. By "perestroika" the following situation had appeared... I don't think I should describe it in details... There was this social laboratory which was working with metaphysics and different border fields of science under the auspices of several academic institutions. We were directly functioning under the protection of one of the institutions of the Academy of Sciences. We were constantly called for a City Committee and Central Committee of the VLKSM (Communist party of Youth). So we were an unofficial organization of the "ideological creams". We were doing a number of border researches that were rather doubtful at the level of soviet methodology based on Marxism Leninism.

-And did you have any specific functions?

- At first nothing specific. For two or three years, in fact, before "perestroika" we were doing just some theoretic research. We were young experts from different spheres: psychologists, physicists, pedagogues, biologists and so on.

- And have you graduated from some higher institution by then?

-No, I have never graduated from any higher institution. I realized very soon that standard education is not for me and got fundamentally involved into a self-educational process. I mean self-education on a very good level. I even made a living by writing diplomas and thesis's. I was offered to graduate Moscow State University impromptu. If I got that little material evidence of my education I would have been "sold" ten times then. I was offered a position of a science associate in those institutes specializing in different spheres. So it worked out this way that maybe for me at that time it was misery, but without those documents I was moving along more and more. In the long run it led to where I am with all the benefits. Though other guys from our first team whom all had higher degrees sort of settled down.

Then "perestroika" started. First we were given a chance to probate our research. The concrete fields were psychology and management. At those times the notion of "management" didn't exist. We were at its roots. We were working on methods of managing any social situations, connected with people... But this is a separate major topic; these spheres aren't like anything else. It is rather difficult to explain it in non-scientific language, because people these days are quite educated, notions get twisted around and people mean something else. In short I could add that we were seriously involved in Synergetics. Synergetics, in particular, as methods connected with biochemistry, chemistry, physics and applied sociology. It is actively applied in business and social processes, but not to the extent that we were using it back then. This was 15 years ago. Actually I've just given a little hint about the Synergetics and we have built our system, our theory. There are quite a few theories of global generalization of the world creation, and at those times it all went through... I still have some documents from the city of the Communist party committee on the shelf, references from institutes etc-it was all semi-legalized, I had even to include some quotations from Lenin's work, but anyways it was not fitting in the frames of that ideology completely, regardless of the fact that we were granted “green light”. Up until the moment when I gave an interview to one of the leading American newspaper at the end of 1987, that had some connection with political scandals, the Americans decided that I worked for KGB. And they wrapped it up back. I still have some records of this interview.

-What other applied fields did you use for your research?

-From March 1986 we were given an opportunity to test our ideas and research work in the state educational system. We worked in a couple of schools just to see the results and test the system. Afterwards, when we started to enjoy the process and I held seminars in one of the regions for the contingent of teachers without any diploma or certificate and I worked as a Methodist in the regional department of the national education. It was all very interesting, the whole "restructuring process" -we have done it all. When I had to perform in public, the audience was almost in a state of shock, hardly anyone could comprehend what I was talking about, there were scandals - but several months later in different places very similar, almost literally close ideas and suggestions appeared. There were also direct results: we had a couple of graduate classes in schools and I was working with students from 2d grade to 10th. We were testing to what extent we could develop juvenile thinking and possible self- management with such non standard methods. Once, one of the principles of the schools was so much against our work that we had to use all our possible connections to keep the work going. And we had a real effect do that even the institutes of psychology appreciated our work and admitted that we had so fast and effective results. If we compare, standard methods, gave 20-25 % of changes for the several years in an academic field 20-25, and with non-standard methods we had an 80 percent result in the matter of several months.

-Did you have any specific methods of your own?

-That was the whole “catch” that we were using the things that couldn't be explained with standard scientific methods. I mean we explained them excellently, but...

-You probably didn't have the right to use them?

-No. We had rights at that time. It was "perestroika" in a way, variable though modest innovations. We didn't have any of these famous "extra senses" back then like Kashpirovsky or Chumak. This was all fresh and easy for perception. And people in general after all this ideology up to the level of high officers perceived everything very energetically. People have been opening doors for us. "So you've tried it out, ok now you can come here" – we used to get something like this all the time. From the pedagogical field we have gone almost all over the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. And then for the first time I have seen what we had everywhere happening... We can write about it without emotions now, back then it was 10 times worse than what we have now. All these people in scientific spheres with all their privileges… We were young aged 20-25 experts and they were the patriarchs - of course they wouldn't let us through on an ethical level. All these references were good but they still wouldn't let us through. We decided to step aside from the Academy. We started to get involved into the fields bordering economics and management but on a large social scale. Even during Chernenko's governance I was trying to gain access to the higher circles although we never had any connections of this kind back, then luckily or unfortunately. We had a real project. It was autumn of 1984, Chernenko was ruling the country - we asked to give us a chance to work in a Siberian town and we would make up a system, an organization of production and so on that this would be up and running very soon.

-A “state within a state”, I remembered - have read something like that out of a science fiction.

-Yes we read a lot too. Even brothers Strugatsky's wrote about this. But we had everything for real. They wouldn't even suspect about Chinese enclaves. Unfortunately this project didn't survive. After 1984 a lot changed even in the structure of the whole theory. And in 1987 it appeared in a totally different form and "perestroika" was under way and we didn't have anything to hide that all we were busy with how to get up top. We wanted to gain access to the political Bureau, possibly Gorbachev, Ligachev.

-Was there any particular purpose?

-So that we could offer more principle methods. The best we could do was to attract the attention of one of the biggest member in the Council of Ministers (I wouldn't mention any names here). This was the person who in Brezhnev's years was in charge of the country's economy. Those who know something about this would figure. This person was very intelligent. I recall once I came to his “dacha” (summer house”) and he told me that he was working on some law blueprint for the state meeting and his team was searching for the ways to circumvent it. So this was the level we were working on.

-Were they actually going to come up with the law?

- No they had already finished working on it and his team was digging their ways around it.

-For them personally or?

-Yes. For the Council of Ministers of those days, for all soviet economy that functioned this particular way - there was one legislation with laws and a different reality. But back then conflict of Gorbachev-Ligachev was already under way leading to this sort of separation. Now we can talk about it easily - were even attempted to play this out. We didn't care who was going to accept us. The idea was that even when I gave my interview to the American press I tried to use it to my advantage. And the correspondent was trying to prove that our conservatives in the face of Ligachev didn’t want anything at all, that they just wanted to keep the Soviet Union as it is and so on. In general he was right - but we tried to play on disadvantages of the Soviet Union, turn them inside out and there were a lot of major but not vital methodological catches. We tried to carry out a new line but unfortunately it didn't work out and we didn't reach that particular level.

-You probably lacked a couple of connections and references?

-Yes connections and in general it was a utopia and I was aware of it. But I was also aware of the fact that the combination of circumstances works... because in China it worked and we even didn't take into account their mistakes! The thing is that we worked out a whole system of improving the economy and ideology on a totalitarian ground. Not on a democratic basis as our whole policy is made. We put a task to strengthen economy with the help of totalitarian mechanisms. And in all cases our approach was based on what we had to work with in realty. I always say: new, non-standard, new, non-standard. But you can't foolishly base work on something that we don't have. Just like in present situation now we have our interesting ways... - but I just know that in today's society nobody would do it this way. We didn't say: ok let’s turn everything upside down and inside out and start to build the world from scratch. But in the Soviet Union it was realistic. And this was before China came out of totalitarian crises; everybody knows what it used to get out of it and why it developed. We had it a few levels higher taking into consideration the russian reality of those days soviet psychology and so all this was taken care of. Even jokes. Just like it was in those days- everybody says so: projects, projects and nowadays they say - economic estimates and so on. Back then, they didn't have this new thing, they were using something else. We even had projects in writing lists of orders on behalf of the political bureau even on what guideline the regional and party committees would follow, what they had to do. I am mentioning this all to demonstrate how we had to spread all our projects on all these party mechanisms and make something that we needed to start working work. We worked taking into an account this ideology, changes and affecting this ideology. Now it looks ridiculous. It was a utopia back then too but try to bring it into life and it would start to get distorted and twisted around anyways but we have considered all the distortions. It was all accounted and that was our particular interest. What we just wanted to play out in a few regional schools was going exactly the way we planned. Usually people plan something and everything should be done exactly this way in all details. We have already predicted in advance that here we will come across aberration and there they would react this way. Here they would this, there they would take bribes and somewhere else they would do a completely opposite thing. All disadvantages were taken into a thorough consideration and they were working for us.

-But have you completed your task?

-No we didn't go through it back then. The only thing that we could accomplish - was gaining access to the Council of Ministers and a couple of influential persons. We proposed and showed them our projects and I know for sure that these projects were taken into attention and somehow these people fed off our information. And then something that was supposed to happen happened. The first Congress of the Soviets was held and democratization went under way. The party elite started to lose power and make wrong movements.. I already knew in advance because we have already counted all this in earlier that this would happen if democratic elections took place ... my candidacy from some social organization was proposed for the position of deputy on the First congress of the Soviets.

-So were you a foreteller as well?

-Yes in some scientific sense. I refused from running my candidacy for the elections of the deputies and I said right away that for these 10 years the situation would be uncontrolled and unmanageable. As soon as this congress started to get elected I quit everything and left politics. If before this I used to say what would be here and what would be there then in this situation I refused to make forecasts for 10 years. By the way, look it happened exactly this way. Democracy or not democracy, but this wasn't the relevant way for Russia. The situation was unpredictable. Those who know physics or synergetics and so called "points of bifurcations" and so on - this is for the specialists- would understand that it means that the situation was getting unpredictable and unexplainable. We rapped all our projects up. Our last attempt was exactly when the democratic process started and we tried to create a so called "Fund of Social and Ideological Initiatives". There were a lot of famous people in there. Actually this was the attempt to create a party of a year two years before all parties were allowed to exist and began to multiply. The people I knew from the governmental circles then said that Gorbachev could support the idea of a second party.

-What do you mean by creating a second party?

-We had only one party in the Soviet Union. And the idea of creating a bipartisan system was not ours, we had some suggestions from trade unions to create such a party. We started to gather this Fund to unite these forces - democratic and then for the first time I saw what we see 10 years later. As soon as we gathered this company and the first meeting...

- This "CSIN-Fund"?

-No, the Fund already existed at that time. It was summer of 1988. As soon as we gathered the event all these democrats that we had at that time, our future inter regionalists... They started a cutthroat fight right at the meeting. There wouldn't stop!

-So what was happening and why?

-Nothing in particular, they started to fight for power. Right away! There wasn't anything yet, no Fund, no members of the Council, no inter-regionalists. Sakharov had just returned from his exile pulling his health together and nobody knew if he was going to be involved in politics or not. I was convincing everybody that our country needed professional politicians. And then this line that “we need professional politicians” was repeated everywhere. For God's sake I always tried to stay at the backstage so that this could be carried out publicly and officially. To put it short when the congress started - a very “polite” cutthroat fight began and I could see what hides behind all this and what would happen afterwards. It turned out that those there hadn't agreed, others had differences in science, third party had something that didn't work out when they used to be in the party, someone stole something, others didn't insist on their views. We were 25- year-olds who organized all this - and here we see some serious adults that started the dispute in Mr. Zherenovsky's fashion though in a very polite way. And we had secured ourselves in advance on all party institutions and we had already been granted a permission to have our own first non-state publishing body - if the Fund existed.

-What did you start to publish back then?

-No we didn't start anything, we were granted this right for the Holders’ Congress. It was held on one hand but on the other it wasn't. Because of the fight the meeting was rescheduled to autumn - but it was very important to hold it in summer so that we could organize a very tight organizational structure while everyone else was on vacations and so all the bureaucrats would never clue in. This was taken into account once more but...

I remember just like now when we came out of this meeting, these were hot days of late July. This is just a lyrical embellishment to the story. We were walking down the streets and I said (there were about 5 of us) that in autumn we would have this "piece of cake" shared out and bureaucrats would spend some time on it. We also tried to get a loophole in a Central Committee of the Youth Union and there everyone had already called everyone and found their "feeding cells". I mean they had divided everything instantly even something that wasn't finished for some two or three weeks - and ambitious democrats supported all this. I would like to mention a couple of names but I wouldn't: some of them had passed away and some had gained what they wanted "up top". It was a good little rehearsal for the bureaucrats; they were practicing on how to divide "democratic achievements" afterwards. The politics had come to an end with all this. We could put a certain date underneath our activity. It was the end of summer of 1988. After this I stopped doing this. Some of our partners stayed there and made a career in science and so on.

-And how did it all end?

-It led to two or three different initiatives just like this Center of Social Research. This was the tendency created by us. When later on there was some business going on in the government in Yeltsin's office everything was digested. The guys that were older than us, who wanted to work in economic field had organized their own business; someone had left abroad right away. First financial companies started to appear. There were no private banks there yet. Everybody started to look for their own niche. So our last attempt to get this Fund together completely failed. I came back to psychology, science, and creative fields. Before that I did a little bit of staging and theater. This was a combining part of my psychological research. It is just that for few years I was deeply involved into politics and economy. I started to develop some contacts. One of my contacts was just from this political circle - later he either left abroad or was killed - he was the first victim of our business. He had an appropriate organization. He offered me a position of the head of the human research department. I took out my old research. At that time all different astrologists, parapsychologists, psychoanalysts started to appear. It was 1989. We had already Kashpirovsky and Chumak shows. I remember my first clients were the victims of Kashpirovsky. The famous “extra sense” incidentally worked out this opportunity for me. So I began working with practical psychology with using all my previous experience that I had worked up before. With such a strong inclination to the politics and economy I had vast and psychological load of research material. I could even remove an "evil eye" and make forecasts in the most scientific way unexplainable to a regular scientific mechanism. A lot of similar things like that. I was using an instrument that was applied in social spheres, I took these applied spheres out because I was at the source of everything. And I began to work on it personally. For 5 years in a row I've worked as a psychotherapist, practical psychologist. And I was developing this quality. It was 1990s. This help to people, solving their problems and critical situations and things like that had grown into further research. I was interested in science back then, how everything worked and why it worked this way.

-Parapsychology?

-No, not quite. To perform "focuses-pocuses" in public to show off wasn't worth it. I could understand and explain it in my own way. I had a completely different system of my own. On the other hand now we have a totally different situation. In the times before or after "perestroika" there was nothing similar to this kind of things and even if it was it went underground and our research was recognized even on the Communist Party level. And now they have all sorts of theories and some of them are quite so to say "schizophrenic". In the early nineties we had loads of this literature. The idea of building a common metaphysical theory had already lost its power. We didn't need to prove to anyone that we had been working on it for more than 10 years. This idea had lost social ground. It was clear that there was no sense to carry out some sort of propaganda, advertisement, a show. It would be instantly twisted around. Now it would be perceived quite differently. If before academic institutions were writing reviews and the biggest problem for them was if the research is in accordance with Marxism Leninism, in each article there were supposed to be two or three quotations from the works of Marx and Lenin – that was the only problem back then. And all scientists were very serious about it in those years. And now we have so much excessive "glitter" that all my theories on a common background look not better but even worse because they didn't match an average narrow-minded perception. However, almost any scientist beyond his or her field of specialization perceives as an average person. If I pay attention to my every choice of words, because each little detail is crucial - they can write anything vivid that comes to their mind. There is no sense to compete with it. When I came back to science we... When I say "we" this means our third team. The first one was the public lab. Then there was a circle of applied psychology, art and so on. And from mid 90s a new circle started to appear. We began to make computer programs and completely different concrete projects.

-What knowledge did you use to do this all.

-We used the material and our experience developed at a new stage. So we didn't write a theory but we made computer programs that could forecast and estimate and calculate anything possible. This program could look like astrology from the outside - but it is far from being astrology. It contains a vast basis, algorithms.

-In what sphere?

- This is an over physical sphere. To be precise it is a complex of rarely applied mathematical methods, theories of non-equilibrium systems, self-organization. You could enter any data. That's what I am working with presently in practice. I apply this in crises management. I am invited to the companies that have been half rampaged, half criminal with everyone being set up, companies on the verge of bankruptcy with their bank accounts "frozen" and "scape goats" blamed and arrested even though they were not guilty. I think for many this situation looks familiar. And so I get all I need from these computer programs by entering all necessary data in.

-Do you make a forecast of some sort?

- No, I manage. If there are any resources left, they agree to do it. In general everyone agrees because there is nothing left to lose. I advise them what to do and in a month they get new orders, their bank accounts get reopen accusations get lifted. It is very difficult to explain. This is not only the computer program but my qualification as well. To make it easier to understand I will tell you a little about the program, what it is. We take a substantial range of rhythms, i.e. all cycles of the planets and space bodies are being processed.

-So you are working with astrology as well, aren’t you?

-Not astrology but astronomy. Just pure astronomy. No astrological approach nothing like that.

-You didn't happen to use any charts?

-In astrology they use all sorts of charts. And we initially use all formulas even taking into consideration hundreds of asteroids. And then this way all parameters of an earth row are getting processed i.e. where the person is born, what diseases he has, what problems, what relatives and what hobbies. The same goes with a company, transaction or any other subject. The more facts we have in a program, the more accurate the ultimate result will be. It is a very complicated system of algorithms. I used to work with astrology when I needed a horoscope; I used to build it up for 2 or 3 hours manually. Thus some calculations that are used in a program can't be performed manually. In this case even a Pentium-4 takes about few minutes to make some calculations. There is a vast load of data and formulas. And in the end - it is purely professional software. It does not give any advice, interpretations or recommendations or texts in the end.

-It does not come in a form of advice, "yes" or "no" answer, does it?

-No, not this way. It works with a lot of formulas and charts, schemes and so on. It is like a patient at surgery surrounded by a lot of modern and technically advanced equipment. The device that diagnoses a patient, does not give out recommendations on what to do with a patient and what medication should be prescribed. The device shows a range of schemes and figures and the doctor bases his or her judgment on them, carries out diagnosis, treatment and makes a decision. Our program functions in a similar way. We work with a company or on a personal level - on what day it's better to register a vehicle or something like that. I would stress that I don't forecast although I could. I think it is not quite good for me - it's my ethical moment. I say according to the program: if you do this - one thing would happen, if you make this particular decision you would have another and you will have a completely different option if you a make quite an opposite decision. So I in general I think I gave you an idea about this aspect. We were talking about applying the program to the crises-management. If I give and advice on crises management nobody cares what kind of program I am using. The director of a company gives me a list of his employees say 20 to 30 people. I enter them in a program and give out information on each of them - my recommendation on who to rely on and who to fire. It takes about half an hour to process information on 10 people. The boss usually gives his personal opinion on each recommendation like: "Yes I thought so before, my intuition didn't let me down”. But in some cases he disagrees. I already mentioned that some companies on the verge of the bankruptcy in a couple of weeks get out of it by some mystical means. Indeed mystical. I tell them to do this or that. This act has nothing to do with the reopening of their bank account. But I see if they do it this way then their account will be reopen. Sometimes I wouldn't see that particular thing but I would see that this would lead to a substantial improvement of their situation.

-They wouldn't even try to understand why it works this way, would they?

This looks like fortune telling or removing an "evil eye".

-I would stress that there is no mystic context here. These are just very complicated algorithms the same Synergetics I was talking about. I just know on the level of my own idea of the world the whole range of things in a completely different quality. One person sees one thing behind facts like for instance the economist when watching TV sees one thing, a politician sees another thing, and average person sees the third thing - and I see totally different. I can say for sure that it would lead to this or that even without any program or computer. It is not just the life experience. It is more of the nature processes knowledge, knowledge of social Synergetics or you can call it anything else. But it is the reality. It is seeing the reality in a different focus. I mention the mystical aspect just because any sort of a magi would say that he or she sees an "astral body" here or there. I know all these "energy" and "astral bodies" in practice from A to Z, where they are all coming from and what their nature is. I am not sure if this is the "astral body" of Globa and Lazarev or someone else. In my example this is the reality, which is actually real which works and you know that you won't be able to get away from it.

-And is this what you are working with presently?

-Yes I think the historical survey is over. Now I can move on to what I am working with presently. I can do anything from politics to show business, from business issues to some private consulting - but for me it is all the same. I mean I have my very own way of seeing. I see any situation in my way but within a framework of the whole system. For instance the situation with Yeltsin in 1999 when the ex president first assigned Stepashin and then Putin to the post of Prime Minister, all this went underway. So when I watch TV I see and estimate my attitude like any other expert. Say when a financial analyst hears some news from the Central Bank he sees that there are a lot of factors involved in the situation including intrigues, laws, state of the market and he sees what this all leads to in a financial sphere. I see the conduct of Yeltsin or Putin in a similar way, their gestures, the way they walk and talk - I see all that- and even knowing from my type of attention on this I can clearly say: yes this will lead to growth, that will either rise or ultimately fall and this would sit for some time and nothing is going to move on, a complete quality stabilization.

-Are you doing this by getting orders from someone or are you just doing this for yourself?

-For myself I am constantly involved into this and I am into everything. To make it simple I just view the world this way. But if someone wishes to gain some sort of a personal benefit out of this he can use me and I can follow his requests. Our team operates under the Fund that we registered a couple of years ago - CSIN-Fund. We registered it to have an official company not even for me personally but for our program experts that work with different projects.They develop various projects for themselves with my participation, some are interested in computers and math, some in culture and psychology and I add up all the theoretical and practical material that I have and correct all this work.

-How is this material used?

-In different ways. Each one is using it in his or own particular way. So in general I am constantly involved in this and any person who has a personal or business interest in this comes to me and we start to work closely. Say, a few years ago I had a couple of requests for the executives of the Central Bank to work out a more convenient and practical bribery within the framework of our software . In the most direct context they were wondering what would be the best way to arrange a corruption structure: where they'd face greater or less risk.

-You are saying that people in these kinds of circles don't know to whom they should forward their requests?

-Yes they do but they are apprehended. They can't place and ad in an newspaper asking to help them to take bribes in return for their assistance. Although you can find plenty of these sort of coded information in the press. Presently these people don't work there anymore. Some were sentenced to prison and some had succeeded. Just a practical aspect. I can't say that I am offering assistance to the criminality. I have an over ethical aspect here to work with. I explain everything when I say that if the person does this he would be risking to be sentenced to prison and if he doesn't want to risk that way he should do something else. De-facto they find out everything they know themselves deep down but in a very concrete way. So if they do one thing in that particular moment they'd face the threat and if they do another thing I show them their 50 % risk of getting shot. And if you do it this way I would guarantee than in a couple of months "they will come and get you". On one hand it is not a forecast, a number of options but not a forecast. They make a choice themselves. Why did some go to jail and some become high flyers? Because they all listened to me in the same way but each one of them made their own choice. Say when the crises of August 1998 started I didn't know back then that we would have such crises but I knew that our financial system would crash and I knew what things I could do and what I shouldn't do. All my bank clients and former customers offered securities, stocks and bonds. I told them to forget about all these papers but they didn't listen and all of them suffered serious losses. I would say directly: those are bad bankers, not of a high level. And I say they are bad because they didn't listen to me and this means they can't be attentive to any other important things. Literally a week before Dubinin's was taken off I said about this. I saw this, sensed from his state and that of his entourage. I am talking about a synergetical state. At that moment I was in touch with this particular circle, his personal fiends and all of them said "What are you saying? Dubinin will never be taken off. They really need him up there!" But for that moment nothing changed and he was taken off. So this is the level I am working on. I could draw you another example. Zhirinovsky wanted to create a major party like the Communist one. I could have even said what he needed for that if only he came to me. I knew for real what he needed to create such a major power but he didn't have those details - and I used to say to everyone in 1991-92 that Zhirinovsky would become a rather strong link of the right wing. And he slowly but surely was adjusting to an existing reality. Why do I say all this? Sometimes they come to me like in the case with Dubinin and sometimes I don't have anyone at all in such a sphere of interest. Usually I have some minor bankers, middle class businessmen or theater admirers. But this is the view of mine this situation constantly sort of hangs over me to the extent at which I read newspaper or watch TV.

-How do they reach you? Newspapers?

-Rubbish! For a couple of times we really placed some ads in the papers - but we had a 0 result. I wouldn't write something like " Super powerful extra sense will make all your dreams in work and personal life come true!” would I? Moreover even those who'd read the interview would hardly and quite unlikely contact CSIN-Fund and sign up for the mentioned above recommendations.

-Is this a professional provocation?

-Unfortunately no. It is just that we know the psychology too well and level of culture especially business culture too well. One businessman when heard my friend telling him about our possibilities said to him that if it were that serious he would never asked for these kins of services.

They have different motivations. Some don't trust if they don't have a serious guarantee that I wouldn't take advantage of their secrets.Some don't like to be told what to do and what decisions to make - in our country the malady of business ambitions is widespread on a one level higher than in America or Europe. So if I get requests then only after a more personal acquaintance on a trust basis. And here we have a different problem - when a person knows me, he or she assumes that it would be possible to understand how I do all this, the ask why and for what purposes without realizing how serious and complicated this sphere is, especially because it is not connected with a common social system and culture. This is something that I drew the attention to a lot of times.

-Do you think you would be better off in America or Europe?

-I don't think so. They have a different settled system. I had some experience with some businessmen from there. Without any formal education or degrees I just wouldn't be accepted or taken seriously. In the West they need a concrete product. Say our computer program adapted in a way that every user could possibly use it to figure out his or her problems. Or at least we could train the specialists how to work with all this.

-As I understand it is an extremely difficult task...

-Yes, you understand it quite all right. I didn't just carry you all through my history background to show you that this all is formed in non-standard ways. But we solve the very task of an independent product on totally different level.

-What do you mean by that?

- Our approach is simple: if you can't teach a person to use the program to its full extent then we should create programs which would understand the issues and tasks, make decisions and produce for an Account all possible alternatives for his or her own choice.

-But this all sounds like science fiction. You are talking about artificial intelligence if I am not mistaken.

-I would say no from the perspective of contemporary cyber science. We found a principally different non-standard solution, based not on intellectual or behavior tasks but on communication task. I don't crowd my client with all the analysis but I communicate in a qualified way. And this is how I work with my client’s order.

-Amazing! And do you have these sorts of programs?

-Unfortunately we have only principle methods of building up these programs so far. We don't have technical means to create a model: we lack professional programmers as well as investing options in our project.

-But it is an amazing task - is it so difficult to find investors for this project?

-It doesn't surprise me at all. I am not a bad manager and I can say that it is very difficult to finance such a research because it is impossible to estimate a considerable range of preliminary stages not from the aspect of principle difficulty or material expenses and costs or any creative or technical efforts. When working with our programs I often came across the situations where preliminary task, that seemed to be simple and yet to be solved for months by means of inventing new moves. And vice versa some complicated and mysterious problems got solved in a matter of days. So that is why the estimate on applying such a new quality approach vanishes in the thin air right before our eyes and in the most serious way can mean millions of dollars. Yes, don't be shocked - you know that the most concrete research in NASA cost a range higher although their contents are a far cry from the principle “know how” that our projects have.

-Is there any hope out there?

-Why not? We might always meet some people who will understand, see and believe. And those people might have those millions for a long-term investment. Even out of a wish to get closer to something that has no analogues on our planet. I am totally positive about it and I am responsible for my words. Even if we succeed to make a 20th part of it - something we have already figured out on the concept level - we will see new phenomenon in technologies.

-Forgive me for insisting but what is the very "catch" of these "communicating" programs?

-If we talk about it in the framework of our interview - it is a possibility of a computer not only to read fast and make operations that can not be exactly reproduced by human - but to find our way in "unclear" spheres, not necessarily exact but concrete and familiar for people.

To make it clear the first level of these programs - is a model of what I call and "emotional computer". Literally the machine can function in a mode of states very close and similar to those of a human mood. It is not such a difficult task to gradually reach a needed degree of precise estimates and decisions.

-I would reiterate that it sounds like a science fiction. As far as I understand this could produce a humongous commercial result. As we know personal computers appeared on the basis of interest to computer games. So in this context you could suggest some new virtual interlocutor or even "tamagochis" of a new generation. Such "emotional computer" is quite as real as me sitting before you. It has its own character, its commitments and reactions. And although I know many psychologists would argue with me on these sorts of estimates - I would insist on it because in the long run we will get not a human model with its psychology but an independent essence - but with these particular qualities. Though we all think that electrical stove is a far cry from the real fire you can still cook on it not worse but even better. It would be a different quality but not less quality.

-You are saying "will be"...

-Yes I am just being “virtual”. I love to work with these models but my results are only in my head so far. In practice I can follow private practical requests. And CSIN-Fund attracts only enthusiasts and accumulates their non-standard approaches.

-It turns out that you actually exist without a demand for your knowledge and research?

-I wouldn't complain here. This is not our ultimate goal. I remember there were times when I stopped working with psychotherapy - exactly at that time when my research interest started to go down when everything in the visible spheres of psychology became more or less understandable. Although I still like to work on some psychological problematic issues. The rarity of this work keeps my qualification, produces fresh focus and develops a poorly researched area in the whole context of my work.

-I feel you going to drag us once again into technical details.

-Exactly! This is the way it usually happens! To make it simple we have to act and not talk or analyze action, leaving this up to computer, for instance.