1.1. SISTEM OF HUMAN COGNITION
1.
The Most General Scheme of the World
A problem arises whenever
more than one different correctly obtained answers are found to a live question.
As far as the correctness of the obtaining of every answer may be comparatively
easily ensured, the great difficulty about the one-valued solving of every
problem is reduced to the analysis and the synthesis of premises to which
the obtaining of different answers is based. When the premises are independent
of the answers, the principle solving of the problem is the easiest one. Considerably
more difficult for solving are the problems, at which explicitly or implicitly
the answers participate in the premises as well. For example the problem about
the truth of the affirmation I am lying, the problem about the
set of all sets, the problem about determining
of the notion determine etc.
Because the vicious circle in formulating of these problems can not be removed
without giving a new meaning to their own formulation, which is connected
with introducing new still more abstract notions. Somehow or other, in solving
every more or less concrete problem we always have reason to accept as a reason
some separate knowledge as a starting point. In this way we reach to the problem
about knowledge itself, which is formulated utmost broadly as a problem about
human cognition.
The short analysis
and synthesis of the problem about the problems shows, that from among the
problems, which a man can put to himself for solving, the problem about human
cognition is undoubtedly the most difficult one. Because at this problem of
the problems we already have no reason to accept as a reason whatever separate
knowledge as a starting point, as we have reason to do at formulating, reformulating
and solving of every one of the rest not so comprisive problems. That is why,
at any moment of the development of our civilization we can have the problem
about human cognition correctly solved only if we have simultaneously supported
on all knowledge received by civilization till this moment. At that, the analysis
and the synthesis of the above mentioned enormous material may be done most
consistently only by tracing out and exposing from the corresponding to the
moment point of view the evolution of the world, of which we are a natural
product. In other words, after gathering all human knowledge in a pot, this
knowledge must be boiled in its own sauce, and, from the obtained, the picture
of the world at the moment in consideration again
be crystallized out. If we want to get withstanding of our place and
role in our world, in this fundamental way we must periodically keep on giving
a new meaning to our basic notions and on this base adequately to get answering
to the cardinal for us questions: where we are coming from, where we are going
to, and what our relation is to the cosmic tendencies.
The fundamental analysis
and synthesis of human knowledge shows that three kinds of directed changes
concern, in one way or another, all the Universe and because of that they
form three mutually connected cosmic tendencies. On the one hand, the evolution
of material nature totally increases chaos. This unrepeatable changing of
our Universe we shall call simpoevolution
(from sumpan
THE MOST GENERAL SCHEME OF THE WORLD
2. The Most General Scheme of Human
Essence
By itself, matter
is only an immediately existing actuality. But still in the act of the most
elementary self-reproduction of a zonse it increases its organization and
thus faces self-increasing chaos of matter. To this opposition, the immediately
existing actuality divides into a subjective reality of the zonse and an objective
reality of its surroundings. However, the zonse can accomplish its opposition
to the surroundings only if it cognizes these surroundings. In this way cognition
mediates the existence of the zonse and because of that the zonse becomes
a mediately existing actuality, called organism.
Cognition arises as
a means for carrying out the zonsic tendency and in general represents mediating
of actuality. For the zonses without a nervous system mediating is exhausted
by perceiving the immediate relation between the zonse and its surroundings,
which is the first form of cognition. In this simplest case, the image being
created in the zonse influences its organization in such a manner, that the
reaction of the zonse towards the surroundings becomes an adequate reaction
- to call it for the sake of brevity activeness. A plant is an example of a perceptive zonse (from the
word perception), remaining within
the frames of the primary perceptions, which, when appropriate conditions
are available, only develops the zonsotype set in the germ of the organism.
(The word zonsotype means both the
genotypical and the remaining inherited factors in the zonsic germ.) In contrast
to a plant, the zonse with a nervous system (a specialized organ of cognition
- to call it gnoseorgan) is a conceptive
zonse (from the word conception)
usually called an animal. Much more perfect and general for the zonse immediate
images are created in its gnoseorgan than in the remaining part of its already
too complicated organism. Along with this, the gnoseorgan spontaneously transforms
these secondary perceptions into independently existing and also general for
the zonse conceptions. Transforming perception into conception is the second
form of cognition. Whereas by perception the zonse can reflect only transitory
relation, conception enables it to come off from the impressions of the moment.
Then the zonse begins to conceive also the course of evolution, and this cognition
converts its activeness into activity.
The unity of perceptions
and conceptions in an animal's gnoseorgan represents its soul, where the body
of the animal is reflected as well. At this stage of bioevolution cognition
at a soul level increasingly sets itself apart in the gnoseorgan of the zonse,
and as far as cognition does not oppose to it, their interrelation leads only
to increasing chaos through organization. But the development of the opposition
between the zonsic and the material tendencies stimulates the conceptive zonse
to begin reflecting the images in its soul as well. In this self-mediating
the soul faces itself by means of being conscious of itself. From the point
of view of this self-opposing, actuality is divided into an ideal reality
of consciousness and non-ideal reality of the rest of the world. In general,
reality is a correlatively given actuality, and self-opposing in consciousness
represents thinking, which is the third form of cognition. The notive zonse
(from the word notion) mediates
the images in its consciousness, thus mediating also every reality until the
symbol is created, with which it signifies the essence of the phenomenon caught
in a notion. Fertilized by this road of the thought, the activity of the notive
zonse becomes labour and the subject
rises to a person.
Providing that cognition,
in general, is mediating of actuality, then logic, generally, is the way of
mediating, and we call human knowledge the result of thinking. Since thinking
reflects the unown objective and subjective realities, as well as its own
ideal reality, it creates generality of knowledge, which represents truth
in general. Science is that cognitive human activity, in which the knowledge
itself is mediated. Here cognition goes deeply into knowledge by abstracting
itself from the covered stages, as a result of which a new and more effective
knowledge than the initial one is received. When cognition, in such a manner,
makes itself its own topic, it attains knowledge, by which it finds itself
in its own generality. That is why this own cognition, or Cognition, represents
a becoming of cognition into the own itself. Then the own science, or Science,
represents the objective side of Cognition, where cognition has as a topic
matter itself unlike the subjective side of Cognition, where in its own logic,
or Logic, becoming has as a topic matter itself. It is interesting to note
that the main notions of the so outlined human essence are connected in a
scheme, which corresponds to the scheme of five elements (earth, water, air,
fire, ether) used by the ancient Greeks for explaining the world - see the
most general scheme of human essence, which together with the most general
scheme of the world leads to a fundamental system of human cognition.
.
THE MOST GENERAL SCHEME OF HUMAN ESSENCE
.
.
.
M A N
I S S P I R I T,
S
P I R I T I S T R I U N I T Y,
W
E A R E M O R T A L G
O D S !
3. Fundamental System of Human Cognition
Man is a triple knot
of the material, of the living and of the consciousizing nature in our three-way
determined world.
Because of that human
essence finds its actual dimensions not so much in the objective manifestations
and not completely in the subjective expressions but only in the bosom of
spirit, where a measure of the greatness is the degree of own overcoming.
These dimensions represent human freedom in general.
Because of that the
freedom of every man is realized in three qualitative different spheres:
a) factual
freedom, which is determined by the benefits
at his disposal
b) formal
freedom, which is measured by his rights in
society
c) full freedom,
which is valued by riseness of his
spirit.
In its turn his factual freedom has three mutually complementing
sides:
a) his personal qualities - bodily, soully and
mental,
of which he disposes by using himself
b) his recognized property - material, living
and ideal
things,
of which he legally disposes
d) his hierarchical
situation - of which he disposes as
a material object, as a living being and as
a person
[1].
Because of that human
activity forms a system, whose utmost general structure is found by combining
the three qualitative different forms of cognition with the three irreducible
one to another realities. Thus, depending on its reason, human activity initially
is divided into perceptive, conceptive and notive spheres. And its directedness
to the objective, to the subjective or to the ideal realities leads to a next
triadicness in its subdividing. For generality of knowledge, however, the
obtained unown human activity of nine kinds is united in Science. Thereby
the triadicness is laid also at the very becoming of human cognition, which
reaches its utmost unity only when it passes through the entire road to its
own reality, and removes in Logic the differences among its forms as a knowledge
about the way of its own becoming. In this way Cognition is set apart as an
own human activity, which comprises all human activity in a Triadic Universal
Decimal Classification (TUDC) - see the most general scheme of human activity.
THE MOST GENERAL SCHEME OF HUMAN ACTIVITY
Every man represents
a local triunity. On that account we comprehend actuality in the guise of
finite images, which are objectively determined in the perceptive sphere,
subjectively determined in the conceptive sphere and ideally determined in
the notive sphere. To these three kinds of images correspond objects, topics
and ideas respectively, jointly called things. If now we group the most general
kinds of human activity as three most general kinds of labour, the human activity
is divided into:
1. objective labour - incarnatings of spirit:
.1 making objects - technique
.2 forming topics - language
.3 realizing ideas - governage
2. subjective labour - experiences of spirit:
.1 objective creation -
arts
.2 subjective creation
- beliefs
.3 ideal creation - descriptions
3. ideal labour - awarings of spirit:
.1 in the objective reality
- physics
.2 in the subjective reality
- formalics
.3 in the ideal reality
- philosophy
.4 in its own reality -
Cognition
The quintessence Cognition
immediately unites physics, formalics and philosophy, which are the human
activities nearest to it. Because of that in cognition generally there are
three fundamental scientific disciplines:
a) physics
- directed to the empirical, the external,
the primary -
seeking for factual truth
b) formalics
- directed to the regular, the internal,
the secondary -
seeking for formal truth
c) philosophy
- directed to the entire, the united, the
synthesic -
seeking for full truth.
To the three fundamental scientific disciplines correspond three
principally different ways of thinking in:
a) penetrating in the objective reality - factual
logic,
where thought finds itself as a primary actuality
or
element
b) extracting the subjective reality - formal
logic,
where thought finds itself as a secondary
actuality
or law
c) catching the ideal reality - full logic,
where thought finds itself as a synthesic
actuality
or symbol.
Conceived in this way, physics is a universal
discipline, comprising all human knowledge
from
its objective side, whereas the universal discipline formalics comprises all
human knowledge from its subjective side, and the universal discipline philosophy
comprises the same knowledge from its ideal side - see Fig. 1. Mutually complementing 
fundamental
scientific disciplines physics, formalics and philosophy unlike the rest of
scientific disciplines are determined not by a given topic but by the utmost
wide directedness of its on principle different investigations. The next possibly
most wide scientific disciplines are determined by the remaining most general
kinds of human activity, which every one of them have for its topic of investigation.
That is why after the universal disciplines physics, formalics and philosophy,
as possibly most wide the disciplines technics, linguistics, governistics
(study of governage), artistics (study of arts), beliefistics (study of beliefs),
descriptics and gnoseology (called also "epistemology") are lined
up. At that technics, linguistics and governistics form a group of the most
wide objective disciplines, called also "exact disciplines" or "sciences",
to which irrelevantly are added the universal disciplines physics and formalics
as well. And artistics, beliefistics and descriptics form a group of the most
wide subjective disciplines, called also "humanities" or "arts",
to which irrelevantly is added the universal discipline philosophy as well.
The proper discipline gnoseology, which has for its topic the own human activity,
unites both the most wide objective and subjective as well and the universal
scientific disciplines in a fundamental system of human cognition.
4.
A Concretizing of the Fundamental System
If we want to determine
the place of some more narrow scientific disciplines in the so outlined fundamental
system of human cognition, we are to consider more concretely the most general
structure of the universal discipline of physics. According to the fundamental
analysis and synthesis the universal discipline of physics is divided most
generally into one synthesic direction measurement and also in nine more specialized
directions, which are grouped in this way:
1. physics
.0 measurement
.1 corpuscular mechanics
- corpuscular approach
.2 field mechanics - field
approach
.3 system mechanics - system
approach
.4 microworld - downward
from the atoms
.5 mesoworld - of the human
sizes
.6 megaworld - upward from
the galaxies
.7 sympology - for material
nature
.8 biology - for living
nature
.9 pneuolohy - for consciousizing
nature
In the widest sense of the word measurement means correlating in
the objective reality, directed to our penetrating in it, which undoubtedly
lies in the basis of the entire physics. The specialized directions of physics
in the first triad are formed by our different approaches to actuality, the
directions in the second triad are determined by our place as objects in actuality,
and the directions in the third triad are set apart by the kinds of mutually
irreducible actualities. (There is an exposition of the fundamental analysis
and synthesis in the paper [2], which I presented in the First General Conference
of the Balkan Physical Union. Unfortunately in the proceedings of the Conference
only the schemes and a small part of the obtained results were printed.)
The contents of the
presently learned discipline of "physics" in the school, college
and university education is only part of the contents of the so utmost widely
determinate discipline of sympology,
which comprises also all remaining disciplines about material nature such
as chemistry and astronomy for example. Before the fundamental analysis and
synthesis of knowledge had been done, an idea about such a scientific discipline
about all material nature there was only in ancient Greeks. An exemplary syllabus
of a contemporary course in sympology is submitted in the paper [3]. In contrast
to sympology biology long ago was
set apart as a scientific discipline about all living nature. But because
of great specificity and the obvious irreducibility of laws of living nature
to the laws of material nature, without the idea of physics as a universal
scientific discipline nobody would dare to consider biology as one of the
directions of physics [4]. However, the top of this radical giving a new meaning
to the system of concrete scientific disciplines is the setting apart of the
utmost wide scientific discipline about all consciousizing nature as well,
which discipline ought to be the last most complicated direction of physics,
called pneuology.
The specialized sympological
scientific disciplines have as their topic the study of different kinds of
material objects, which exist only immediately. In contrast to the material
objects the zonsic objects have both immediate and mediated by the cognition
existence. And cognition is inevitably connected with organization and with
its zonsic inheriting and development. Because of that the system of biological
scientific disciplines is incomparably more complicated than the system of
sympological scientific disciplines. If now we want to determine the correlation
of the system of pneuological scientific disciplines to the system of biological
scientific disciplines we must note that in this case the very qualitative
leap from biology to pneuology is incomparably bigger than the qualitative
leap from sympology to biology. Because in the self-mediating consciousnessic
objects the consciousnessic inheriting and development in man and in human
society plays a determinative role as well.
We know two mutually
related but essentially different kinds of consciousizing nature: man as a
consciously acting subject, called also person and human society as a union of persons, called also socium. Because of that the specialized
pneuological scientific disciplines may be divided most generally in personology
and in sociology. For its exceptional complexity,
penetrating each other and mutually causing, up to now these two kinds of
consciousnessic objects are not delimited as topics of two separate scientific
disciplines. As late as at the 19-th century of them had set apart only sociology,
where more and more widely and profoundly the human person is investigated
as well, however not taken alone but only with a view to its role in the socium.
The interesting and important object, the human person, is a topic of investigation
to many other scientific disciplines as well, beginning from philosophy and
coming to psychology. Out of all them, however, only the contemporary genealogy
can make its topic the human person taken alone and so in its capacity of
personology to unite all investigations
about the person. Because the investigations of one of them (such as philosophy)
goes beyond the scope of the topic of personology, the investigations of other
of them (such as sociology) have another topic, and the investigations of
the rest of them (such as psychology) refer only to part of the topic of personology.
In its turn genealogy always has shown interest in as wide as possible investigation
of human person, elementally using the essential connection between zonsic
and consciousnessic inheriting in analyzing the person. But because of the
unusual abstractiveness and difficultness of the problem of human person only
now genealogy can take up with its entire solving and already as personology
to become a partner tantamount to sociology in creating of pneuology - see
the paper [5], where the topic of genealogy is determined. From the point
of view so exposed a concrete analysis of contemporary socium is done in the
paper [6], where the notions people,
nation, state, ethnic group and national
minority are correctly determined.
5. Fundamental Thinking and our Civilization
No doubt, that irrespective
of the numerous interesting results, obtained both in the most abstract and
in some quite concrete spheres of the system of human cognition, the method
of fundamental analysis and synthesis confuse almost every reader with its
utmost scaling. Because just the scaling in our graspings and understandings
and from there in our activity is that, which at most lacks to the present
stage of the development of our civilization, that is pragmatical to blindness.
The paper Consciousness of Dr Susan Blackmore in the book [7] may be as an
example of how far the present-day scientific thinking is from its necessary
scaling.
Indeed, in the Bulgarian
language the great mass of the words connected by meaning with the word съзнание
[sÙznanie]- consciousness as for example зная
[znaja]-
know, знание [znanie]- knowledge, познавам [poznavam]- cognize, познание
[poznanie]- cognition, съзнавам [sÙznavam]- realize, осъзнавам
[osÙznavam]- become aware of, самосъзнание
[samosÙznanie]- self-awareness etc, contain the root зна
[zna],
which is its root as well. Because of that in Bulgarian the vicious circle
in formulating the problem about consciousness immediately is seen. In the
English language no one of the corresponding words or combinations of words
know, knowledge, cognize, cognition, realize,
become aware of and self-awareness
contains the root of the word consciousness.
[In this treatment the exceptions are the new words consciousize (be conscious of) and consciousizing (the verbal adverb of this verb), introduced for using
the polysignificant English word realize
only in the customary for Bulgarian language meaning of put into being, make real, as well as the word consciousnessic, introduced for designating the lacking in English
language notion of the respective adjective.] In the case, only a more careful
analysis of their meaning, shown in the one-language dictionaries, can reveal
the above-mentioned vicious circle. However, in the paper Consciousness only
the first sentence "Consciousness is a problem" may be accepted
as a call to a contemporary analysis of this problem. Immediately after that
comes the truism "We all think we know what it is", then eclectically
are listed palled on every one viewpoints of "the materialists",
of "the idealists", of "the dualists" and of "the
functionalists" in order to arrive at the disconsolately conclusion that
"none of these basic approaches seems to reveal just what consciousness
is or why we have it". In its further survey the author has touched almost
the whole range of primitive nowadays trials of partial analyses and prognoses
in the investigations of consciousness, at which is missing whatever becoming
aware of the vicious circle in the so formulated problem, meeting at every
step. Let that pass, the problem about consciousness is only part of the problem
about human cognition, which can not be reasonably solved without a fundamental
giving a new meaning to all human knowledge.
In conclusion I must
note that only the fundamental thinking can balance the surveylessness of
the overgrown system of human cognition. Every mind, not feeling as a burden
this surveylessness, is afraid of the great freedom of the fundamental thinking,
seeing in it only some arbitrariness. And vice versa, every mind that can
not bear this surveylessness accepts the risks of fundamental thinking in
order to overcome it, and in the far going results of the new more surveying
and more orderly system of human cognition sees the reason of its enterprise.
REFERENCE:
1. Manev H.S.,
How Much we Are Civilized, newspaper
"Republica", Sofia, 1990-10-05.
2. Manev H.S.,
Human Essence and the Discipline of
Physics, In:
Proc.
of the 1-th GC of the BPU,
Thessaloniki, 1991, V.1, p.80.
3. Manev H.S.,
The Basic Course in Physics, In: Proc.
of the 1-th GC of the
BPU, Thessaloniki, 1991, V.1,
p.83.
4. Planck
M., Unity of Physical Picture of the World,
Moscow, 1966, p.183.
5. Manev H.S.,
Terminological Problems of Genealogy,
Genealogy,
Sofia,
1993, No 3, p.5.
6. Manev H.S.,
Nationalism and Cosmopolitism, newspaper
"Zora", Sofia, 1994-06-28.
7. Blackmore
S., Consciousness, On the book: "On the
Frontiers of Science; How Scientists See our
Future", New York, 1989, p.179.
2000-07-14, 1.
DISCUSSION OF 1.1.