CC BY
8PHYLOSOPHY, SOCIAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCES, JURISPRUDENCE
THE MAIN HEURISTIC QUESTION OF SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY
Abstract
The theses represent a formulation of society beginnings and existence problem as a creative act that has its own recursive part, and its transformation into a practically solved inventive task. The article is partly a response to the question of how to simplify the algorithm of inventive problem solving, while making it more efficient by identifying additional parameters in the relation between opposites, the interaction of which is not reduced to a two-dimensional plane of unity and struggle.
Keywords
autopoiesis of social relations system, theoretical insolubility of society cohesion
problem,
practically solved social inventive problem AUTHOR
Grigoriev Alexandr
Candidate of Philosophical Sciences, Associate Professor, Philosophy and Social Sciences Chair, Institute for social engineering, Siberian State
University
of Science and Technology named after academician M. F. Reshetnev, Krasnoyarsk, Russia. E-mail: [email protected]
In response to what question will society itself meet a questioner as an unexpected discovery?
Should not philosophy, starting with surprise, overcome the apparent self-evidence of experience and remove the logical form of general knowledge? Does not society exist and develop by means of its ignorant thinking about itself - by questioning? Will we not be forced by the progress of modern knowledge about the causes of the Universe beginnings and by analogy with it to assume the interaction of two "parent" to society domains - the domain of conscience, which prescribes an equal right to be for everyone, and the domain of justice, recognizing the right to depend on the essential abilities to create new?
Let us use the "sociological imagination" (Mills, 1998) in order to put the question, that is a text model of conscience and justice interaction, the opposition of which was so convincingly described by Plato (Plato, 1968) and a group of authors with the telling nickname "Platonov" (Platonov, 1990).
Would not a growing divergence of radical equality (in good conscience), and justice (according to the results of creative freedom) to the existential-conjunctive occasionality of -
- first, the ordinary and the imaginary comprehension of that, what calls itself initially telling about itself "word", giving freedom to a person, which secret identity preserves itself in the impossibility of its own name and in the name of solitary human presence in the world;
-and secondly, events of self-fulfilling forecast of historical events that happen as catastrophe "folds" of social relations due to the fact that consciousness is continually shifting their voltage vector with its fantastically utopian ideas of self-legitimate historical event, which is described in the book of human being, so that it is impossible to solve, whether it is necessary at the end of this book-metaphorical Leviathan to even put quoted and as if stammering question mark '?'?"...?"
Why is not a question mark itself but only its quoted and never-ending recurring symbol set at the end of previous terribly verbose "syntactic monster"? Is it only for the irony of this uncertain meaningful statement helped to overcome the usual obscurity of society and the public axiom of its commonplaceness?
The question, which begins the opening of society in its sudden newness and unknown mystery, should be brief, unlike preparing it asking speculation. " How is imperfect and at the same time free creature possible?", - this question is quite simple to continue it in the form of the human being dialectical contradiction. Freedom, after all, is the opportunity to be creative cause of oneself, but only something infinite, including everything in oneself, leaves nothing that could limit and define one as external reason - perfect and infinitely powerful being would have no conflict with his own freedom. Similarly, there may be no conflict of an animal with its imperfections - an animal is determined by external circumstances as by its own reasons (adjusting to them). However, in his labor a man is obviously the creating reason of himself and his external circumstances: he doesn't adapt to nature, but he converts it in non-natural way, adapting it to himself. Meanwhile, a man is born not just imperfect but helpless - with completely blocked part of innate program which could regulate the activities and behavior, that was the result of anthropogenesis (Roginsky, 1977) and was prepared by aromorphic (progressive) trend of natural evolution (Zawadzki & Kolchinsky, 1977).
A man is born helpless without any innate program of behavior and appropriate activities, so he has to create this program himself, but he cannot do it alone. Cooperation and co- creativity is a vital necessity, given by conditions of imperfect being freedom.
M. K. Mamardashvili, thinking about protosociality (not loneliness, but still not the society itself as a system), described the situation of a human, in which there is no original predestination of distinguishing between the possibility and impossibility of oneself, as valid evidence of one's impossibility self-overcoming - "the experience of physical metaphysics" (Mamardashvili, 2006). This fact manifests itself in the paradoxical nature of human history and society beginning. At the very beginning of their history, people, on the one hand, did not possess an innate program of appropriate activities, and on the other hand, could not adopt a program of animal behavior by means of imitation, as the psychophysical structure of a human body excludes the possibility of its adaptation to natural circumstances.
"How could happen the very first in human history action that generated an ordered artificial program of appropriate actions and behavior? How could be historically the first
in general? How does a human body generate a personality, controlling oneself and this body? How is free and at the same time imperfect being existence possible?", - many alternative questions about the same. Any hypothesis, by Ch. Pierce's remark (Pierce, 2005), first is put forward inquiringly, and many alternative hypotheses is a necessary condition of knowledge that makes it possible to use the formulas of a priori and posteriori evaluation of the statements' truth degree in the hypothetical-inductive methods system (Svetlov, 2008). But how can we evaluate the truth degree of questions if they can be either meaningful or meaningless, but in no way can be true or false, since the question models the initial cognitive uncertainty and objective uncertainty of any system occurrence. The meaning is the most unstable and uncertain part of the value which is expressed by a question, that allows from the outset to shape the ontological setting for an investigation of the subject domain, but not the language of its description. The apparent inconvenience of the hypothesis truth degree question is removed by the inductive interpretation of truth degrees as probabilities of hypothesis before the experiment and after it.
T. Bayes' formula, connecting the a priori and posterior probabilities of hypotheses, is the most realistic and flexible model of cognition, but at the same time Pearce is also right: the real question has meaning regardless of whether the response obtained, otherwise it would be impossible to discover new knowledge that cannot and should not be formal-logical consequence of the former one. However, previous knowledge is sufficient for putting this heuristic question, the answer to which is a discovery (for example, General relativity was a response to a question about why the constant of gravitational interactions has this particular numerical value). But here a difficulty arises that seems insurmountable and giving rise to mathematical criticism of Bayes' cognition models, because allegedly it is impossible to rationally allocate the numerical values of a priori probabilities among many alternative hypotheses, and to prefer on a reasonable basis only one of them for checking it up. Meanwhile, the symmetry of equally possible events is violated in practice and in the material systems in accordance with the proportion of the Golden section. Subjectively preferred hypothesis is assigned a 62% a priori probability, and the remaining 38% are distributed in accordance with the same proportion and intuition of the researcher among the remaining baseline alternatives. Among many original alternative hypotheses, the most simple and expressive one has an advantage, for example, in our case this will be the question of independent (free) and, at the same time, imperfect being possibility.
Some clues to this problem solution come from the phenomenon of self-adjustment, which was discovered in programming in the second half of 50-ies, namely that starting from a certain number of different operations, connected in certain block structures, a program completes the missing combinations of operations on a recursive principle. Similar phenomena exist in humans at the age of three years, when it turns out that a child uses words and rules of their combination for the development and learning of language, himself and surrounding world. Language is a system, which encodes the ability to recognize oneself as a man and provides all the opportunities for free creative possession of oneself (poetry and fiction). N. Luhmann thoroughly investigated the role of recursive, self- triggered and embedded in each other communicative functions in continuous society self-creation - its "autopoiesis" (Luhmann, 2011). If you define the most significant for creativity recursive part of a language, then it will be the rhetorical system of seven basic techniques of the usual words meaning reconsidering- "tropes of meaning"
(Gasparov, 2000), giving infinitely expressive creative possibilities to language and human communication.
Built in a certain sequence (important for the practice of creative thinking), rhetorical techniques of reconsidering form a recursive axis of creative thinking and creative methods of pedagogical system by M. Zinovkina (Zinovkina, 2008). But first, we must explain the discovery logic through the phenomenological self-description of her very simple choice - guess, as "existentiallity of commonplaceness", showing itself so often that it ceased to be noticed. "Guess" is the word that preserves the transparency of its ordinary use in communication, and does not need special explanation. We describe a guess as a simple, further indivisible action of creative thinking, revealing new knowledge, and provide the opportunity for intuition to describe itself. So - a guess on its own possibility: a guess occurs as a heuristic issue, escalating to the point of contradiction, which is resolved in new synthesis of opposites, which indicates a problem within its framework, that is not solvable in this framework.
As for the sequence of reconsidering rhetorical techniques, here you must use a self-referencing description, when statements are an illustrative example of what they report about. In a sequence of tropes on the creative thinking rhetorical line axis the first, actually, is the irony: the transfer of meaning to itself as an opposition of itself - self-irony, breaking up into many adjacent to each other, additional to each other and maximally different particulars of metonymy - transfer of meaning by adjacency (that will combine any most remote oppositions, as it is always possible to choose such a large class that all of them will be adjacent in it). Metonymy does not correspond to just pair antinomy (thesis - antithesis), but to multipolar "polynomial folder" by D. B. Silbermann (Silbermann, 1998). Such uncertain situation of the neighbors growing number and "poles of equal strength" is solved by the interpretation of adjacency and neighborhood as a partial intersection, growing to the scale of the whole - metaphor, which, in its turn, intersects with synecdoche as the meaning of the whole transfer to its own part, but only in order to help it carrying out unbearable for it function by a system of interrelated periphrasis words replacing the meaning of the word that is released from the statements for a well-deserved rest. And finally, with its complicated and detailed expression of the sense, periphrasis, exaggerating to giant hyperbole, is in danger of collapse and destroy this sense in a situation when the more detailed and thorough explanation is, the less listeners and readers understand what they understood before that explanation. Then comes the legitimate turn of meaning compression through its contraction - emphasis. As you can see, on each of the trope, you can reflect all the others, but this methodological special case represents precisely the thinking world of rhetoric, fully displayed in every slightest detail, able to work independently as a "technical system" of yet uncertain possibility of meaning production. Now imagine that to this still one-dimensional and only potentially thinking world, one adds dialectical dimension in the form of sequentially-following elements of creative thinking (question - contradiction - solution - insolubility), and the result would be a table of rhetorical (recursive) parameters of creative thinking correspondence to the degrees of its categorical forms development freedom (elements of the first universal competence - culture of creative thinking and self-creating intercourse circle, autopoiesis of society).
As society is a self-creating artificial system, one can identify its main production function. The main production function of society is to create such security conditions in
which a person simply cannot end up with violent or accidental death, but not the progress of "material productive forces" at the cost of the required human victims.
Technical contradiction of society consists in the fact that the increase of social protection guarantees of human life by the usual traditional methods of "egalitarianism" leads to a decrease in efficiency and extinction of creative people working with full dedication. And focusing only on the working conditions of gifted and effective members of the middle (the most productive) age, we come to rapid extinction of the older generation, who are carriers of wisdom ("old age - the fee for wisdom"), and the impossibility of a sufficient number of children birth for continuation and development of the human world in future (because children can reduce not only economic efficiency). The contradiction resolution between social protection and economic efficiency consists in the introduction of pedagogical system of creative thinking continuous formation and in the development of the algorithm for solving inventive creative tasks. Only in the world of childhood, this best of all possible worlds, it is possible first to start the human history on a free, intelligent and creative basis of "everybody with everybody" voluntary agreement worthy of a human. But is the problem of society unity the problem of society itself, and not of society theory? What is the purpose of this artificial metatechnical super system? What is it for? - Obviously, to provide possible and actual life of a free and imperfect being. Commonalty of such beings is a priority condition for their very ability to exist, therefore, the principle of mutual harmlessness is not the subject and not the result of their joint activities, but it is a necessary prerequisite that acts by itself as a recursive function, allowing the opportunity to present itself as "algebra of conscience" (Lefebvre, 2003). It is necessary to connect elements of the creative intuitions with recursive functions of the usual words meanings reconsidering as this occurs in regular fellowship intercourse, thus receiving a table of rhetorical parameters of creative thinking correspondence to the degrees of its categorical forms development freedom, and use it to invent new ways of invention, and to teach invention in the system of continuous development of creative thinking with the active use of inventive problem solving theory by M. M. Zinovkina.
Elements Heuristic question Dialectical contradiction Contradiction resolution and answer Insolubility
Parameters
Irony How the question itself is possible? Negativity Self-negativity paradox solution in multi-meaning logic How to solve self-addressed negativity paradox within only two-meanings logic
Metonymy What question coexists with all the others? Complementarity Universality of complementarity principle in comprehensive opposites Impossibility of measure determining within multiplication of complementarity poles.
Metaphor What question is its own answer at the same time? Removing System produces the conditions of unlimited activity for its individual prerequisites Order problem beyond system of seniority but without crisis at the same time
Synecdoche What does this very "what?" mean? Supposing Specifically-isolated prerequisites during their random interactions themselves lead to emergence of naturally reproducing itself system Unique accidental circumstances of any appropriateness emergence.
Periphrasis Question about what mutually related words replace question mark Before supposing All necessary prerequisites of the system are produced by it as its results in rotation(cycle) The cycle cannot be completely closed.
Hyperbole What is less than Nothing itself? Beyond supposing Unique character of individuality Always incomplete and irretrievable integrity of any unique individuality
Emphasis How is an interrogator himself possible? Insolubility of individuality Development law development Anti-emphasis as the meaning of uncallability
REFERENCES
Gasparov, M. L. (2000). About ancient poetry. Saint Petersburg: Publishing House "ABC". Zawadzki, K. M. & Kolchinsky, E.I. (1977) Evolution of evolution. Leningrad: Publishing House "Nauka". Zilberman, D. B. (1988/1998). Genesis of meaning in Hindu philosophy (E. Gurko, TRANS.). Moscow: Publishing house "Editorial URSS".
Zinovkina M. M. (2008). Creative education of XXI century: Theory and practice. Moscow: Publishing house of Moscow state industrial University.
Lefebvre, V. A. (2001/2003). Algebra of conscience (V. Lefebvre & E. Yudin, TRANS.). Moscow: Publishing House "Kogito-Centre".
Luhmann, N. (1997/2011). Society of society. Vol.4, 5. (A. Antonovsky, B. Skuratov & K. Timofeeva, TRANS.). Moscow: Publishing House "Logos".
Mamardashvili, M. K. (2006). The experience of physical metaphysics: Vilnius lectures on social philosophy.
Moscow: Publishing House "Progress-Tradition"; The Foundation of Merab Mamardashvili.
Mills, C. R. (1959/1998). Sociological imagination (O. A. Oberemko, TRANS.). Moscow: Publishing house
"Strategy".
Pierce, C. S. (1992/2005) Reasoning and the logic of things (D. G. Lahuti, M. D. Lahuti & S. O. Kuznetsov, TRANS.). Moscow: Publishing center of the RSUH.
Plato (1952/1968). Gorgias V. Collected Works in three volumes. Volume 1 (S. S. 255-365). (C. P. Marques, TRANS.). Moscow: Institute of philosophy, USSR Academy of Sciences; Socio-economic literature publishing house "Mysl".
Platonov, S. (1990). After communism. Moscow: Publishing house "Molodaya Gvardia".
Roginsky, J. J. (1977). The problems of anthropogenesis. Moscow: Publishing house "Visshaya Shkola".
Svetlov, V. A. (2008) History of scientific method. Moscow, Yekaterinburg: Academic project; Business book.
