‘spirituality-biodiversity’ versus ‘indifference-engagement’. heritage, contemporary...

www.seipub.org/ijss International Journal of Sociology Study Volume 2, 2014

10

‘Spirituality-Biodiversity’ versus ‘Indifference-Engagement’. Heritage, Contemporary Challenge, Perspective Qvo Vadis Homine_2050_? Creative Partnership Nicolae Bulz

National Defence College, Romania // World Economy Institute / NERI / Romanian Academy // Centre for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia [email protected]

Abstract

It is a first stage address to the potential (e-)readers of the International Journal of Sociology Study (IJSS) in order to invite them to be co-operands within a collective effort to identify the ‘Heritage, Challenge, Perspective’ through their own ‘expectance – awareness - insight – action’ regarding the jointed approach on ‘Spirituality AND Biodiversity’.

Alongside this first stage address, a (minimal) background is proposed for the above pointed construct to be identified by a jointed approach: i.e. an ‘expectance – awareness - insight – action’ flow regarding our ‘indifference AND engagement’.

So, if emulating multiple ‘expectance – awareness - insight – action’ flows addressing the jointed ‘Spirituality AND Biodiversity’ and ‘indifference AND engagement’, then it is to conceptually model the ‘Heritage, Challenge, Perspective’ of the ‘Spirituality AND Biodiversity’ versus ‘indifference AND engagement’.

This paper contains only the proposed (start up) lines referring to our ‘indifference-engagement’ background to elicit a conceptual modelling stance toward a near staged systemic and systematic fulfillment of ‘Spirituality-Biodiversity’ construct.

In this context, an “initial innovative solution” is proposed and detailed: ‘Creative Partnership’. So, let us invite the IJSS (e-)readers to confront themselves with an inquiry as “Why and to whom is 'Spirituality-Biodiversity / Creative Partnership' to be addressed?”.

This inquiry would take part in a set of inquiries, this set would have its background by yet not too evident lines referring to our ‘indifference-engagement’. Also, this paper contains a more elaborated “Invitation” preceded by a proper “Argument”, then, a primal and a dual justification to all these types of attempts, and concluding within an extended area of ideas. Also there is an end-paragraph to acknowledge the 2009-2014 dedication and efforts alongside these types of attempts from a set of personalities.

A large part of the paper is intended as to argument of the

content of the 'Spirituality-Biodiversity - Creative Partnership' construct as to explicitly contain and promote an embedded construct: ‘Generosity versus Creativity and Solidarity’.

The entire paper is intended to outline a possible approach as to be entitled ‘Contemporary World Changes’ and to express the belief and comprehension of any better possible approaches – within a dialogue, or not, compared to this one.

Keywords

Biodiversity; Creative Partnership; Humankind; Indifference-Engagement; Generosity Versus Creativity and Solidarity; Model; Probability-fuzziness-subtleness; Problem; Spirituality; Spirituality- Biodiversity

Introduction

Considering the paper as a start up to fulfil a research proposal (within this first stage addressing to the potential co-applicants for a set of near projects - potential co-applicants, now, as (e-)readers of the International Journal of Sociology Study, and within their expected inter/trans/co/cross-disciplinary attempts), then it is to initially enumerate the following inquiries [beyond their apparently speculative, too large, too metaphysical, “Victorian”, without any “logic” and “evidence” here and now, to a firstly lecturing possible/probable expectance – awareness - insight]:

* Does Humankind matter beyond limitations and paradoxes?

* Why and to whom is 'Spirituality-Biodiversity -Creative Partnership' to be addressed?

* Is their any possible insight to be attained toward 'Spirituality-Biodiversity - Creative Partnership' issue from the contemporary background of our ‘Indifference-Engagement’?

* Does Humankind (conceptually) exist beyond the

International Journal of Sociology Study Volume 2, 2014 www.seipub.org/ijss

11

space-time continuum [i.e. Knowledge Society - the phrase is open to modification]?

* Is it possible to elicit a Contemporary World Changes Charta within a multi-stage approach [i.e. Consciousness Society - the phrase is also open to modification]?

* Does Generosity versus Creativity and Solidarity matter within the possible/probable expectance incoming the Contemporary World Changes [i.e. an inquiry filtered through the above mentioned multi-stage approach - toward a construct as 'Spirituality-Biodiversity - Creative Partnership' versus our contemporary ‘Indifference-Engagement’]?

Argument and Invitation

ARGUMENT: Crisis [again] Is Not an Option

Humankind is confronted with a critical knot of evolution major problems on a general background of NOT TO LEARN from the previous great clashes, and to believe-to understand - to explain almost everything by the “inner power” of economic self-organizing appearance with the usage of a few unsystemic concepts toward an invoked equilibrium state - frequently outside of major holistic attempts.

E.g. 1: “risk” construct - as lexicographic insertion without a minimal search on the probabilistic base over the entity attributing this construct; “threat” construct - as lexicographic insertion without a minimal search on the complexity over and inside the border of the entity attributing this construct; “collateral damage”; ... – all these are staged by an implicit refusal of an explicit systemic inquiry over the entity attributing the above constructs.

E.g. 2: The great difference between the efforts involved and the observable results related to Rio + n10 Sustainable Development Conferences / 1992, 2002, 2012. The low level interest is observed on a critical insight to the difference between the “ideal”, the present stance (in data)/ modelling/ simulation/ emulation and the “(hypothetical) reality/real” of our complex world.

But there is a high possibility that the complexity across the global world to be (conceptually) holistically limited, to attain a kind of systemic “creative simplicity”, and so, as an invariant facing a humankind “positively” summed planetary reservoir, to be difficult or impossible to clash - to diffuse - to enlarge it by “negative” structural reverse-changes.

Which are the barriers in front of this high possibility? Is there a structural gap? Yes, there is a main structural gap inward our contemporary world:

- Between Economy and Society.

Are there methodological gaps? Yes, there are three main and prominent methodological gaps inward the strictly mono-disciplinary sciences of our period of research, education and praxis:

- Between Macroeconomics and Microeconomics;

- Between Economics and Sociology;

- Between the Foresight, Prospective Studies, Forecasting alongside the respective different temporal periods (specific to these future studies efforts) on the “same” problematic entities.

This “Crisis [again] is not an option” argument, is open to some extensions relating to the dynamic expressed interest of the audience, of the IJSS (e-)readers – within and beyond the quasi-separate stages background.

INVITATION: to Be an Active Partner to a Study (Global Application) Acknowledging That “Crisis [again] Is Not an Option”

If the Humankind is confronted with a critical knot of evolution major problems, then it is to receive the invitation to take part – to be an active partner - to a next stage of this paper as a study (global application): ‘Spirituality-Biodiversity’ versus ‘indifference-engagement’ / ‘Creative (e-) Partnership’ inquiring “Qvo Vadis Homine_ 2050_?” // toward a Systemically Moral Market.

From this perspective, at least, there is a possible common Interactive Modelling base among the proponent author, the possible co-authors and the audience of this work.

This study (global application) as an actual option does not explore a middle way between the long term dedication to a political-diplomatic HARMONIZATION within the contemporary humankind and, respectively, the possible genetic/bioengineering/bio and quantum-computing dedication to reveal and implement a new type of RELATION BEYOND THE SYNERGY on the Earth – both these two ways having recursive historian recovery high ideated bases / and possible great chance of success on the current eve.

After a Cold War, with its still visible parts, but also with its fundamental invisibilities, caught in between tiredness and terrorism, between stupidity and terribilism,


12

between hopes and evidence – our world fundamentally oscillates between globalization and regionalization, but within an intellectual and pragmatic tendency toward quasi-unity, that could take place in the extremely remote future.

This “third way” is exposed through the 'SPIRITUALITY-AND-BIODIVERSITY - CREATIVE PARTNERSHIP' construct. It is exposed through the confidence into new types of harmonizing efforts on a side, and new types of human and humankind evolving on an other side, here and now; it is exposed within the emotion related to the interfaces between several great ideas of the worldwide scientists, politicians, culture and mass-media personalities and other ideas from both Western and Eastern European zones, from worldwide also, creating/ eliciting/ adapting a creative dialogue sphere which connects developed, “emergent” and developing (transitional) entities. Therefore, this creative dialogue between great ideas is fuelled by the real (not conjectural) desires for theoretically deeper research and by the practical adaptation of all parties to an existing and expected audience (the future co-researchers and co-workers). There is a search for and an increasingly interactive enlarged audience with: the co-authors (of the study-global application), the proponent author - linked to the real and virtual co-authors of the next stages of this study-global application.

This study-global application as an actual option could pass its too “large” title. Returning to the eve of the 2008 global crisis, then, “evils” [as “bankers’ greediness” and “businessmen’s avarice”] may be challenged understand / explanatory expanded within an assumed complexity and searching for simplifying solutions.

The NOTES I -:- III Related to “Indifference-Engagement”

The following explicative NOTES, as parts of “an actual option”, are open to any modification on the second trimester / 2014:

NOTE I: The actual social and economic phenomena and acute problems which would need the “indifference-engagement” approach:

- Climate Change; - Post Global Crisis; alongside social, economic and political burden of activities; - Micro-biological recent evolution related to the damaged human health;

- Worldwide near stage agro-food evolution(s); - Acculturalisation [trend, sezonality, major aleatoric events/ ”pro” and “cons”educative impact]; - Worldwide Happiness / Alienation ratio; - Conflicts-consensus after the Easter European Communism Collapse and the Cold War end; - Worldwide sustainability – equity – robustness of the societal regulation flows; …

NOTE II: Analytic aspects referring the “indifference-engagement” approach at the general individual level – as a beyond social strata concept; aspects which would claim this or another innovative approach / a first stage:

- Indifference_1: The “narrow” specialist openness toward the surrounding dynamics of the neighborhood (human, institutional, natural site---used and distorted environment, intellectual and spiritual environment) – versus and beyond the recovery after a day/week/…/career long office and/or industry work;

- Indifference_2: The “narrow” specialist’s “past and future” – the connections within the humankind spirituality thesaurus, and the major contemporary projects (within the Macrocosm; Microcosm; Bio-cosmos);

- Indifference_3: Toward a day by day will of “to CHANGE” – and “to PRESERVE YOUR IDENTITY”;

- Indifference_4: Toward the (post-modern) alterity.

NOTE III: Synthetic aspects referring the “indifference-engagement” approach at the general macro-social level – as a beyond social strata concept; aspects which would claim this or another innovative approach / a first stage:

- Macro_Indifference_1: Which is the contemporary prospect for a “day by day” e-Government adaptive and self-learning economic and social feed-back and feed-before?

- Macro_Indifference_2: Which is the contemporary prospect for an increasing transparency of the increasing economic and social complexity of the contemporary Knowledge Society (post Industrial Society)?


13

- Macro_Indifference_3: Which is the contemporary prospect from the Knowledge Society toward the Consciousness Society?

- Macro_Indifference_4: Toward the (classical, modern and post-modern) alternatives/ variances regarding the possible “saturated” too keen professionalized reservoirs – as limited/saturated sources for innovative progress/ discoveries/inventions.

End-note: The “indifference” construct is an important issue within the Econometrics of Utility, Consumption, Political Economy, … . It has not a negative connotation (as into the common language) – it refers the econometric additive preferences of a rational choice human (mainly in front of a quantitative selection from the two sets of products – according to a restricted budget).

Also, there are “indifference” constructs as important issues within the Theology (‘indifferentism’), and Metaphysics (‘doctrine of absolute identity’).

Here and now, the “indifference-engagement” construct and proposed approach could be a subtle identifier towards the actual social and economic phenomena and acute problems.

The Re-proposed Ten Inquiries of This Global Application by a Focal Point and Concerns

The following revised ten inquiries are open, also, to any modification on the second trimester / 2014.

1: Why and to whom is <<‘Spirituality-Biodiversity / Creative Partnership’ __Qvo Vadis Homine_ 2050>> inquiry to be addressed?

2: Understanding/explaining the Contemporary World Changes within a first [probabilistic/statistic] stage.

3: Approaching Humankind as more related to the space-time causal (dis)continuum.

4: Approaching Humankind beyond the space-time continuum / i.e. Knowledge Society (the phrase is open to modification).

5: Understanding/explaining the Contemporary World Changes within a second [fuzzy/statistic] stage.

6: Studying the Contemporary World Changes as an interactive inquiry toward love, apathy and sin / action, hurriedness and laziness/generosity versus creativity and solidarity.

7: A proposed turning point: understanding / explaining the Contemporary World according to a (non)systemic approach and an interactive in/ex-trusion within our subtle world. This is an emulation inquiry (our subtle world being proposed as a possible host for the Contemporary World).

8: Understanding/explaining the Contemporary World Changes within a third [fuzzy and subtle/ statistic] stage.

9: Eliciting a Contemporary World Changes Charta within a fourth [probabilistic, fuzzy and subtle/ statistic] three-stage approach / i.e. Consciousness Society (the phrase is open to modification).

10: Does Generosity versus Creativity and Solidarity Matter within the Contemporary World Changes - an inquiry filtered through the above mentioned three-stage approach – toward 'SPIRITUALITY-BIODIVERSITY / CREATIVE PARTNERSHIP'?

A Focal Point Regarding the Architecture of This ‘Spirituality-Biodiversity Versus ‘Indifference-engagement’ / Creative Partnership’ Study-global Application

Understanding/explaining how Humankind comprises the "Good" and "Evil" limitations and paradoxes, bringing (non)systemic complexity back into the world through:

- transgressing Immanuel Kant's and Adam Smith's turning points - beyond partly observable and partly controllable meta-states in the space-time causal (dis)continuum;

- a critical juncture; Immanuel Kant's and Adam Smith's turning points elicit a critical juncture;

- correlating the above presented possibility of understanding / explaining a (non)systemic approach to the innovative depth of the 'SPIRITUALITY-BIODIVERSITY / CREATIVE PARTNERSHIP' construct.

- to the Generosity versus Creativity and Solidarity construct within the Contemporary World Changes.

- other critical junctures; 'SPIRITUALITY-BIODIVERSITY / CREATIVE PARTNERSHIP' elicit a critical juncture. Also, Generosity versus Creativity and Solidarity construct within the Contemporary World Changes elicit a critical juncture.

The aim of this study (global application) is to describe these critical junctures in more detail and, from the analysis of empirical case studies as well as appropriate theoretical considerations, a cogent form


14

of global research will be developed, which is back grounded and stimulated by humankind dedication to spirituality, biodiversity (hypothetical) realities and inquiries, history and cultural studies, social sciences, technical sciences, informational/ knowledge sciences - last but not least: philosophy.

A Primary Concern - Regarding the Architecture of This ‘Spirituality-Biodiversity / Creative Partnership’ Study (Global Application)

A hypothesis: The existence of the possibility to elicit a 2050_SPIRITUALITY-BIODIVERSITY / CREATIVE PARTNERSHIP construct and interactive praxis - as a contemporary philosophic, juridical, socio-economic and anthropologic meta-experiment.

Within the above hypothesis, then, Humankind matters beyond limitations, paradoxes and (in)dependent causes (time; space) – so, there is a subtle affirmative response addressed to ourselves and to the future political leaders (who are now probationers/trainees and students) interactively, face to face with the ‘Spirituality-Biodiversity/ Creative Partnership’ construct - with the Generosity versus Creativity and Solidarity debate - within the Contemporary World Changes.

1. Toward a 2050_SPIRITUALITY-BIODIVERSITY / Creative_Partnership construct:

To elicit a dynamic level of co-ordination (the best/dominant knowledge level - beyond the "top" or "down" of the co-ordination levels) / comprising the homogeneity level # heterogeneity level (hol#hel). The hol#hel model would be based on a triadic conceptual set of internalized constructs (C):

C1: Natural-Artificial Dualism;

C2: (A)symmetry;

C3: Interactive Modelling.

A possible aggregation of the C1, 2, 3 internalized constructs would elicit the compound construct: ‘Spirituality-Biodiversity / Creative Partnership’.

2. A possible implementation of the C1, 2, 3 internalized constructs would elicit and evolve the frame and thesis within the Generosity_ Creativity_Solidarity corpus.

The above would support the "subtle world based on subtle indicators" construct, resulting in an emulation inquiry, sparking and sparkling by a "will_can_must_do" quaternary elicitation within the Contemporary World Changes.

This is to elicit a Charta - equally addressing the Generosity versus Creativity and Solidarity debate within the Contemporary World Changes paradigm.

The co-applicants' orientations as "mutual direction /method of research", "thesis integration", “cultural exchange” are expected to add/ to provide, at the initial interdisciplinary framework, a trans/co/cross-disciplinary guideline as regards the profile of the contents.

A Secondary Concern - Regarding the Architecture of This SPIRITUALITY-BIODIVERSITY/ CREATIVE PARTNERSHIP' Study (Global Application)

There are subtle affirmative responses regarding the following three questions:

1. Do the two metaphors "Pygmalion and Prometheus" still matter today?

[These metaphors transgress the structural approach within the biological entity and the social entity. These metaphors may be understood as genuine interference entities stimulating the (observable and deep) self-organization; going over the (gradual and adaptive) co-ordination and reaching the conceptual and existential layers, under the forms of: imitations, inventions, survival - over discoveries and evolution.

These metaphors may stay active (beyond their Ancient Greek Mythology temporal frame) with the continuously iterative and interactive implementation of democracy. It is therefore our duty not to repeat the "same" type of mistake beyond the space-time continuum.]

2. Would Generosity versus Creativity and Solidarity within the Contemporary World Changes contribute to increasingly harmonizing the biological and the social entities - trying to "link" somehow some entities, at least, "from" Microcosm, Bios, Macrocosm?

3. Would all above to elicit/prevail another (hypothetic) insight than "strong anthropic principle" and "weak anthropic principle", just versus Knowledge Society (the phrase is open to modification), Consciousness Society (the phrase is open to modification), and "their interregnum"?

The author of this study (global application) believes that this draft could invite/elicit/provide another "link" (related or not to the just above


15

"desired link" between some entities "from" Microcosm, Bios, Macrocosm)

between the twisted scientific and technological vision of the world and the morally balanced religious perspective, in the sense of explaining how the scientific vision was derived from the religious one (the phrase is open to modification) - but how it led humanity astray and away from the much-needed spiritual benefits (the phrase is open to modification). On the other hand, the "re-introduction" of the anthropic principle seems to solve many puzzling equations, even if it contradicts the time-honoured tradition of analytical reasoning.

Evaluation and Dissemination

The focal point regarding the architecture of this ‘Spirituality-Biodiversity - Creative Partnership’ study (global application), is a related point regarding the just the track of the necessary implementation and the following results of the next idea covering this study (global application):

(Non)Systemic risks and incertitude - evaluation and dissemination

So, why and how does Humankind generate and reflect the problems related to our global (post) crisis through imitations, inventions, survival? It would be an inquiry into our world’s subtleness alongside the [probabilistic/ statistic and fuzzy/ statistic] classical approaches on sustainable, equitable and societal feasible solutions toward and through (open and interactive) education dissemination.

The following TABLE 1 presents four cases: the relation between different modelling approaches according to an extended System Theory (related to a (Non)Systemic Theory) – on the background of KNOWLEDGE vs. FRAME concepts.

Within all these four cases (frame vs. knowledge) the author of this study (global application) proposes that you make room for the "same" set of problems, and then comparison:

- the capacity of representation regarding these "same" set of problems,

- the versatility of problem solving supported by assisted decision makers, and

- the incursion/anticipation force of (re)adaptation of the (non) systemic features of the problematic

backgrounds (structure, functionality, organizational nexus).

So, one has first to delimitate the (non)systemic context of the individual/ community/ Humankind, and then the above stated issues should be refined: capacity of representation, versatility of problem solving, incursion/anticipation force of (re)adaptation.

But the next following TABLE 2 and TABLE 3 (within the TABLE 3_1 and TABLE 3_2 extensions) focalises the research on an other approach: the Cognitive Profoundness of Human. It is an other approach except the focalisation on KNOWLEDGE vs. FRAME concepts –and so, through TABLE 1- attaining the presentation of the four cases (frame vs. knowledge)- that analytical addresses on ‘Spirituality-Biodiversity / Creative Partnership’ construct. To repeat that within the Generosity versus Creativity and Solidarity attempt for the implementation of this study (global application) construct (and the Contemporary World Changes ideal pointing the "re-introduction" of the anthropic principle) “a” case 3/ Subtle (No_)Systems is considered – but not definitively.

But, here and now, the author of this study (global application) supposes that at least one of the below contexts (TABLE 1/ four cases) would be sensitive to the above-mentioned type of multiple approaches addressed to the (non)systemic risks and incertitude – as a (hypothetical) reality: ‘Spirituality-Biodiversity - Creative Partnership’ – reality beyond the proposed construct.

The set of the following TABLES constitutes the basic conceptual tool of the ‘Interactive Modelling’

– as an intra explicit multi_pattern of the hol#hel model [which would be based on a triadic conceptual set of internalized constructs (C): C1: Natural-Artificial Dualism; C2: (A)symmetry; C3: Interactive Modelling – per se];

- as a way to obtain subtle affirmative responses regarding the questions related to this paper, and so, to represent and solve the related set of PROBLEMS;

- as an initial and open expected dialogue between the proponent author and the possible co-authors / co-applicants within their "mutual direction/method of research", "thesis integration", “cultural exchange” a trans/co/cross-disciplinary guideline as regards the desired profile.


16

TABLE 1 KNOWLEDGE VS. SOCIETAL FRAME

KNOWLEDGE vs. societal FRAME Symbolic frame Numeric frame

Structured knowledge case 1: Expert Systems case 2: Probabilistic/Statistical and/or Fuzzy Systems No_structured knowledge case 3: Subtle (No_)Systems case 4: Neural Systems (networks)

TABLE 2 HISTORICALLY PROVED COGNITIVE MODES

Cognitive Modes DISCURSIVE INTUITIVE

REFLEXIVE ANALYTIC Descartes HOLISTIC Plato EMPIRIC EXPERIMENTAL Bacon EXPERIENTIAL Bergson

TABLE 3 UPON THE SPACE-TIME, AND INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE, AND ECONOMY AND SOCIETY

SPACE-TIME [Cognitive &] Problem Modes

TEMPORAL (re-)acting as continuous and uniform [DISCURSIVE] Social

BEYOND TIME (re-)acting as discontinuous and impulsion [INTUITIVE] Individual vs. Community

SPACE (re-)acting [REFLEXIVE] Extending

Information Society [ANALYTIC] Networking

Knowledge Economy [HOLISTIC] Collaboration

BEYOND SPACE (re)-acting [EMPIRICAL] Seeking

New Economy [EXPERIMENTAL] Complexifying

Knowledge Society [EXPERIENTIAL] Introspecting

TABLE 3_1 THE EFFECTS OF THE RATIONAL SUBJECT'S VARIETIES OF SYSTEMIC THINKING

Cognitive ▼ Modes

► Varieties (V_ )

of Systemic Thinking

▼

► DISCURSIVE ► INTUITIVE

REFLEXIVE

ANALYTIC V_Spinoza; Russell

m_Eq_Sm as an EXTERN PROBABILISTIC DETERMINISM

HOLISTIC V_Goethe

m_Eq_SM = Eq_SM STRUCTURAL | SELECTIVE

DETERMINISM

▼ EMPIRICAL

DYNAMIC DETERMINISM

V_Leibniz /∃ m_Eq_SM

EXPERIMENTAL

HEURISTICS / MIXT DETERMINISM

V_Cusanus ( Eq_SM ; m_Eq_SM )

EXPERIENTIAL

TABLE 3_2 THE VARIETIES OF SYSTEMIC THINKING HAD FAMOUS FOUNDERS

/LIGHT MAY BE A PROPER SYMBOL.

Spinoza/ Russell

The metaequilibrium of our system is an external matter for us. God's features exist according to all possibilities. We can reveal it logically.

/Water may be a proper symbol. V_Spinoza; Russell

Goethe Our nature (the major system) is simple. “The world could not last if it were not so

simple” Its stability is morphogenetic assured. /Earth may be a proper symbol.

V_Goethe

Leibniz Not all possibilities exist. There is confidence in the local equilibrium, acquired by the

construction induced from the starting locus to an appropriate outside, etc. /Fire may be a proper symbol.

V_Leibniz

Cusanus Any coincidence of previous oppositions may occur inside God. Any couple is to be

preserved through our consciousness. The world is just a ludic act (a game). /Air may be a proper symbol.

V_Cusanus

TABLE 4 THE SOURCE OF CONTEMPORARY THINKING FRAGMENTATION

Mental Focalization / proper research domain Assumed Responsibility Assumed Meta_Responsibility

Analytic Mind GEOMODERNITY vs. Interdisciplinarity

TRANSDICIPLINARITY vs. Transhumanist Manifesto

Algebraic Mind FUZZIFICATION vs. Co-disciplinarity

STRUCTURAL–FENOMENOLOGY vs. Integrative Science


17

A Primal Justification

Notes upon an Information-Knowledge Journey

Do the following dichotomist analysis, through the four Cognitive Modes. It is affirmed that the TABLE 2 has the conceptual roots within this following analysis:

It is evident that the realized dichotomist analysis (according to the original approach sustained by Solomon Marcus, Controverse in stiinta si inginerie, Bucuresti: Editura Tehnica, 1990) (Marcus, 1990), through these four Cognitive Modes, is a heuristic procedure of explanation and understanding onto reality – but the heuristic is used only as a tool, to draw out what is essential within an extraordinary variety of our human thinking and artificial intelligence reasoning (i.e. Cognitive Modes). This tool, in a large, is necessary to identify a basic variety of systemic thinking. Here, and as it follows, it results in that more than one mental construct is necessary for a rational subject, as one thinker to overpass “systemic” boundary, through his/her responsibility within a problematic environment.

There is another correlated question: is it necessary and sufficient for a rational subject that more than one mental construct will support to overpass “systemic” boundary, through his/her responsibility within a problematic environment? It would be another Sisyphus’ attempt within collective neural and linguistic survey on Information and knowledge.

Is this condition “necessary and sufficient for a rational subject” for a correlated threshold to attempt from the background of anthropic symmetric systems to asymmetric systems?

Thus, it is remaining only at the necessary assertion for a rational subject insight, and connected to the proposed information-knowledge journey, to interpret:

(I) Reflexive/empiric dichotomy as an expression of a natural gift of/in/toward/by/with the rational subject. It is “to have” and to place his/her mind in one from the two ways:

*reflexive as radiant re-acting within information-knowledge journey; or

*empiric as absorbent re-acting within information-knowledge journey.

(II) Discursive/intuitive dichotomy as an expression of a personal effort of the evolving rational subject. It is “to be” and to place his/her mind in one from the two

ways:

*discursive as mainly continuous and monotonous acting within information-knowledge journey; or

*intuitive as mainly discontinuous and by variations acting within information-knowledge journey.

{* Here, also it is attempting the defining track that “mind” is “a device for complex representation”, a necessary tool within the information-knowledge journey.

** Rarely, an isolated individual (drawing up an ideal interactive link with his mind), but realistically an entire (historically stated) community may deal with an information-knowledge journey. It is the turning point that a human community is more than its members within an information-knowledge journey. Obviously, it means “to have” and “to be”: thinking – reasoning – minding. All these would be within the collective mind, supporting the entire variety of the community, according to any language: to think, to reason, to mind [to bear in mind as representation] within the information and knowledge of a community.}.

As a consequence, to all the above, it is proposed that a point from Information-Knowledge journey:

(I) to have radiant/absorbent re-action within Information pattern connected with, by, into the rational subject; and

(II) to be continuous/discontinuous acting within Knowledge pattern connected with, by, into the rational subject.

So, only and only in relation to/from the rational subject:

Remark 1. Information draws out itself within a reaction of a problematic environment toward (rarely “from”) the rational subject.

Remark 2. Knowledge draws out itself within an action onto a problematic environment from (rarely “to”) the rational subject.

These two above remarks, as an entity: a set of two flow sentences, support three grammatical subjects: information, knowledge, rational subject. To avoid this case of “three grammatical subjects”, and stating that above is a metaphorical pattern, but according to all above:

(I) Rational subject has Information (rarely “is”; may be as an insider of that piece of information;, e.g. into


18

our inquiry on climate change onto the earthly nature).

(II) Rational subject is Knowledge (rarely “has”; may be as an outsider of that piece of knowledge;, e.g. into a transmitting act of a sacred and/or secret piece of knowledge from a dying predecessor to a successor in front of a risky and an uncertain domain).

To comprehend and to explain according to these relations (based on “To HAVE” and “To BE” axes) is the focalization of this study.

To comprehend, only, and to explain, only, are two other separate Sisyphus’ attempts within collective neural and linguistic survey on Information and Knowledge. This study supports the avoidance of any separate treatment of Information and Knowledge:

“To HAVE” and “To BE” axes, above involved, would refer, mainly:

“To BE”: our world within its complexity, and

“To HAVE”: the complexity of our world representation.

The plane “To HAVE” X “To BE”, resulting from the compound of the elements belonging to both axes, as logical entireness, is consistent but not complete sustained by probability and fuzziness (as scientific and general human elements – “amalgamated” or not, one element with the other. “To BE” upon a probabilistic approach, and “To HAVE” upon a fuzzy approach).

But the contemporary humankind accepts and sustains more and more elements within a complex entireness. Referring to all above, this study (global application) proposes a subtle approach, too – both onto the (hypothetical) existential dimension and onto the representation dimension of our world(s).

Notes upon Responsibility and Meta_responsibility

The old medieval adage solve et coagula may be translated into analysis and synthesis, which means that finer and finer analyses performed by researchers come to be further accomplished by syntheses from others. Each delay and/or incoherence may be catastrophic. All these elicit societal knowledge. There is a virtual societal processor, as "collective author" of the societal knowledge. There are a lot of sub-processors.

Let be the couple of the notions: evolution and security, so, the notion responsibility is elicited. It is a (long-term) projection of an overall goal concerning the entire system connectives with the human and technical resources (both inside and outside the

system (S): Equilibrium, Eq_S. These are its denomination, and symbol. Now and here, the notion responsibility is a holistic result within the evolutionary acquisition of the contemporary efforts of development and computing security. So, a meta_indicator would be proper to denominate this "inter and trans bordering" feature of the responsibility for a system (S): meta-Equilibrium, m_Eq_S. These are to be its denomination, and symbol. The couple (m_Eq_S, Eq_S) is not similarly seen according to: the four Cognitive Modes, the four varieties of the types of thinking, and may be interpreted (as systemic thinking varieties would do). The above TABLE 4 presents all these. The table contains a long term elaborated idea, which is emulated from a string of works – as the attached references, partially, prove.

Each variety (V) of systemic thinking -inside a system- is associated with a systemic approach, or assumption (discursive, intuitive / reflexive, empirical), as it follows : analytic, holistic, experimental, experiential (see TABLE 2 and following).

Also each variety of systemic thinking (associated with a cognitive mode: see TABLE 2, and a kind of determinism: see TABLE 3_1) promotes an understanding upon the Real/Reality (as both Existence and Reflection). But the symbols set points to some affinities, linked with the gaps depicted through TABLE 1 / TABLE 2 – different approach on the proposed construct of this study (global application): ‘Spirituality-Biodiversity - Creative Partnership’.

The terminal results are to associate the holistic cognitive mode with holistic capacity (and, secondary, the other three modes toward eco-consciousness deepness).

There are the associations of the Cognitive Modes, Varieties of Systemic Thinking (see TABLE 3 and 3_1 / 3_2), the Types of Determinism, (meta) Equilibrium status – as attaining the focalizations from the TABLE 4 – as a corollary to all these on the proposed construct of this study (global application): ‘Spirituality-Biodiversity / Creative Partnership’.

Let synthesize the contemporary set of { Mathematical, meta-Mathematical, Linguistic, meta- Linguistic approaches } (which is derived within the intuited, accepted, and adapted spectrum of the contemporary complexity of our world(s): (hypothetical) real world, models as meta-world, beliefs as reflecting some trans-real world(s), pre-real (managerial) world – all of them as a ring -regarding the cycle of the worlds) into a tabular


19

pattern (regarding the approaches): Analytic Mind and, respective, Algebraic Mind. (Calude, 1995) (Morãrescu & Bulz, 2000) (Nicolescu, 1996) (Draganescu and Kafatos, 2001), (Malitza, 1998) (Zadeh, 1965) (Goguen, 1969) Negoita and Ralescu, 1975) (Teodorescu Horia-Nicolai, a.o., 2001)

Responsibility construct refers the systemically cognitive conflict between evolution and security, regarding the same actual space-temporal context. The “meta” prefix is consonant to the "(meta) responsibility" mental construct, and reflects the focusing effort beyond the systemically cognitive conflict between evolution and security.

A Dual Justification

A Proposed Set of PROBLEMS

As a Justification for the requested ‘Spirituality-Biodiversity / Creative Partnership’ co-applicant stance for this study (global application) – the author of this study (global application) presents an issue connected to these four cases from the above TABLE 1. So, a set of PROBLEMS is proposed– i.e. the following set of PROBLEMS – in order to gain the text-interactive answer/ proper to each co-applicant:

PROBLEM_A: systemicity-(generalized) ubiquity (SPACE-TIME/ CAUSALITY) (i.e. case 3)

PROBLEM_B: systemicity-(generalized) love, apathy and sin (i.e. case 3)

PROBLEM_C: on our metaphoric CRUSAIDE(S) (i.e. case 3)

PROBLEM_D: on our meta/macro models (i.e. cases 1, 2, 3, 4)

PROBLEM_E: [on PROBLEMS_A, _B, _C, and _D] sets versus the innate/obtained innovation spark, continuous (re)search on other resources, the genuine generosity of the first Cro-Magnon (and “this” generosity is to be compared to the Neanderthal status -i.e. cases 1, 2, 3, 4)

PROBLEM_F: [on PROBLEMS_A, _B, _C, and _D] sets versus heritage, anterior and contemporary challenge and actual perspective of the advantages and disadvantages within just the heritage, entire challenge and "our" civilization perspective before/after [and beyond] the Roman Empire - and their successor entities - comprising the XX century status (focalizing on the Peace and War interference of the Humankind conflict/consensus marked by the First and the Second WW, the Cold War, and the aftermath of

the Terrorist War - i.e. cases 1, 2, 3, 4)

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF POSSIBLE PROBLEMS (case 3) IN ORDER TO AGREE TO POINT THEM / SO, ABOVE IS ONLY AN INITIAL LIST - AN OPEN ONE.

It is suggested, within the context of this ‘Spirituality-Biodiversity / Creative Partnership’ study (global application), that the efforts should be (initially) related to a few real cases within our contemporary space-time causal (dis)continuum profoundness - as much as possible to cases related to the global (post)crisis issues- confronting the individual and collective worldwide entities.

These efforts within the context of this study (global application) mean: to enlarge the above ten inquiries, to take into consideration the methodological focal point regarding the architecture of this study (global application), to put the primary and secondary concerns into our iterative and interactive praxis, to project the base and the details of the hypothesis regarding a 2050_Creative_Partnership construct by Interactive Modelling. Thus, it is a way to obtain subtle affirmative responses regarding the above two questions - and so, to represent and solve the above set of PROBLEMS.

Last (into this last paragraph “A proposed set of PROBLEMS”) but not least, to invite the IJSS (e-)readers to take some moments of attention at the following Q/A paragraph (the answers are received from Dr. Mihaela Buia - a colleague from our Generosity_Creativity_Solidarity Consortium):

1. Q: Which is the best/ worst element within our World - our e-World?

A: The best element within our World and e-World is the immense Diversity, practically limitless, thanks to which nothing and nobody is irreplaceable. Nor is it useless.

The worst element within our World and e-World is the lack of a permanently updated Code of Responsibilities, somehow complementary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Such a Code may contribute to preventing, alleviating and even solutioning discontentment, troubles, dangers, risks and conflicting contexts.

2. Q: Which is the equilibrium point (if it would exist) regarding the sentence: <<To win / to lose with generosity vs. to be indifferent>>?

A: Real equilibrium points can’t exist in the humankind evolution, but there are equilibrating


20

forces that manage to ultimately keep conflicts under control. These forces need the strength and stamina of a large number of already aware individuals in order to decrease the danger of indifference. Indifference is malefic and destructive, it means disrespect for Creation.

3. Q: Could a contemporary humankind meta-strategy based on generosity to be innovatively involved / to efficiently phrase on the above Question 1 and/or Question 2?

A: A contemporary humankind meta-strategy based on generosity could innovatively and beneficially be involved within the complex process of better organizing diversity. It may also be implied in the attempt to take advantage of the challenges by offering everybody enough chances to create, to innovate, to share.

Conclusions

The “Conclusions” for this paper are embedded into the following two sorts of THANKS:

1. Thank to the IJSS and the reviewers for the opportunity to compose this paper related to the expected study (global application), and cases of the future middle term work to find the necessary coherence and cohesion of the entire final (2014) text.

2. Thank to the prospected (e-)readers of the IJSS for the opportunity to e-interfere with them in order to adapt/re-compose this paper as to be more related to an extended area of ideas, as:

• another type of insight, and/or insight, referring to the “fundamental differentiation between the technological ascension and the quasi-stationary human being”,

• just an another “third way” than “this way (here in this paper)” through the ‘Spirituality-Biodiversity/ Creative Partnership’,

• other inquiries except the presented ten inquiries (which so, or else, are open to any modification),

• another type of architecture and/or an other architecture except the prospected architecture as a consequence of “this way” ‘Spirituality-Biodiversity - Creative Partnership’,

• another prospect then “Contemporary World Changes”,

• another outlook regarding the “Generosity

versus Creativity and Solidarity” within the Contemporary World Changes,

• other model(s) than the proposed hol#hel model,

• another conceptual set than the triadic conceptual set of internalized constructs (C),

• other type of internalized constructs (C),

• other conceptual sets,

• another alternative "desired link" between some entities "from" Microcosm, Bios, Macrocosm,

• other cases (frame vs. knowledge),

• other proposed PROBLEMS addressed to the expected study (global application).

The author of this paper remains confident that a study (application) as Qvo Vadis Homine_2050_? 'Spirituality-Biodiversity’ versus ‘indifference-engagement’- Creative Partnership would receive more and more innovative text interactive answers together with the co-applicants and (e-)audience. It may/might also be a good opportunity to propose a series of studies, debates, collective volumes on this subject.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

These “Acknowledgment lines” are dedicated to the identification of partners and collaborators within the Consortium GENEROSITY-CREATIVITY-SOLIDARITY / at the October 2012 stage.

Here, there is an order only according to the data of replay with a completed Letter of Interest toward the initiator –

*(1) Prof. dr. Nicolae Bulz – Associate Professor at National Defence College, Bucharest, Romania /

Honorary Researcher at World Economy Institute, INCE, Romanian Academy, Bucharest, Romania / [Executive] President of Interdisciplinary Research Group of the structure of the Romanian Academy, Bucharest, Romania / Founder of the Interdisciplinary Laboratory “M. Eminescu - S. Haret - V. Ghika”, 2000 - by:

*(2) Dr. Larry Stapleton - Director of INSYTE: Centre for Information Systems and Technoculture, Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Republic of Ireland;

*(3) Dr. George Ghinea - Reader in Computing, Director of Postgraduate Studies, NITH Programme Manager, School of Information Systems, Computing and Mathematics, Brunel University, London, United


21

Kingdom;

*(4) Dr. Jozef Bohdan Lewoc - Director of BPBiT Leader (Leading designer: the Design, Research and

Translation Agency), Wroclaw, Poland;

*(5) Dr. Dorien DeTombe - Chair of International Research Society on Methodology of Societal Complexity, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;

*(6) Dr. Laszlo Karvalics - Chair of Department of Library and Information Science Faculty of Arts, Szeged University, Hungary;

*(7) Prof.dr. Petre Prisecaru – Senior Researcher at Institute of World Economy, INCE, Romanian Academy, Bucharest, Romania- Prof.dr. Nicolae Secalis- previous Director of Popular University „Ioan Dalles”, Bucharest, Romania, and Ileana Boeru - Projects manager- Dr. Florin Rotaru – General Director of Metropolitan Library, Bucharest, Romania, and Adrina Pana - Manager in chief for the Dimitrie Cantemir branch ML;

*(9) Dr. Cristiana Glavce – Director of Institute of Anthropology “Francisc I. Rainer", Romanian Academy, Bucharest, Romania [in the name of Prof. dr. Constantin Balaceanu-Stolnici, Honorary Member of Romanian Academy, Honorary Director of this Institute of Anthropology];

* (10) Dr. Corina Sas – Computing Department, Lancaster University, United Kingdom.

*(11) Prof.dr. Marcel Stoica, Prof.dr. Ana Bazac, Conf.dr. G.G. Constandache, Conf.dr. Catalin Ionita, Lect.dr. Mihaela Buia, Dr. Dan Farcas, Assist.Prof.dr. Laura Pana, Dr. Lucian Spiridon, Drd. Anca Mihaela Hagiu, Drd. Anda Mihaela Calinescu, Comp.Eng. Corneliu Milos, Phil. Dumitru Mateescu – members of the Interdisciplinary Research Group of the structure of the Romanian Academy, Bucharest, Romania;

*(12) Dr. Karolin Kappler - Director of COBAWU-Institute [COmplexity Balanced World United-Institute], Wuppertal, Germany [also, in the name of Andrés Ginestet Menke - artist and sociologist];

*(13) Dr. Iudith Ipate - Researcher of the Center for Agroforestry Biodiversity Study and Research „Acad. David DAVIDESCU” / NIER - INCE / Romanian Academy, Bucharest [in the name of Prof. dr. Alexandru T. Bogdan, Correspondent Member of Romanian Academy, Director of this Center];

*(14) Professor ssa. Marcella Pompili Pagliari –

Direttrice Laboratorio di Politiche e Strategie di Genere / Dipartimento di Comunicazione e Ricerca Sociale / Sapienza Università di Roma, Roma, Italy;

*(15) Marta Donolo - researcher of Eutropia ONLUS,

Roma, Italy [also, in the name of Professor Carlo Donolo];

*(16) Associate Professor Akbar Javadi, PhD - Head of

Computational Geomechanics Group, College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK;

*(17) Professor dr. Florentin Smarandache – Chief of

Math. and Science Department, University of New Mexico - Gallup, US;

*(18) Michel R. Nilles – Chief Executive Officer of AAA Commercial Broker and Consultancy Inc., Cebu, Philippines [also, in the name of Anna B. Pollok].

The entire Consortium GENEROSITY-CREATIVITY-SOLIDARITY has generous ideals per se.

The partners and collaborators within the Consortium GENEROSITY-CREATIVITY-SOLIDARITY have succeeded to (e-)publish the following recent studies:

◊ Inquiry on the global (post) crisis versus humankind wisdom as a turning point: Does the generosity-creativity-solidarity triad matter? - into the International Research Journal of Police Science,

Criminal Law and Criminology, September 2012;Vol.1,No.1, pp. ): 7-44

http://www.interesjournals.org/IRJPSCLC/Contents/2012%20Content/September.htm

co-authors: Nicolae Bulz, Larry Stapleton Waterford Institute of Technology/ Republic of Ireland, Jozef B. Lewoc BPBiT Leader/ Poland, Laszlo Z. Karvalics University of Szeged/ Hungary, Mihaela Buia, Ecological University of Bucharest / Romania, Ana Bazac Politechnica University Bucharest / Romania

◊ An Extended Presentation of the Inquiry on the Expected Synergy between the Quatro-Construct Reducing Trauma, Enhancing Empathy, Guiding Epigenetics, Governing Complexity and Triad Generosity-Creativity-Solidarity

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2016469

co-authors: Andrés Ginestet Menke, Karolin Eva Kappler, Johannes Gottlieb, Joao Canelas Raposo all these four co-authors are from: COmplexity Balanced World United-Institute (COBAWU-Institute)/Germany,


22

Nicolae Bulz

◊ Integrated Project for the Exergy and Sustainable Development: From the Knowledge Based Eco/Bio-Economy and Digital Business Eco/Bio-Systems Toward the Necessary Synergy According to the Gap(s) Between the Actual Knowledge Society and the 'Next' Consciousness Society By the Generosity – Creativity-Solidarity Triad Versus a Spirit of Integrity, Humility, Patience and Love

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2011353

co-authors: Nicolae Bulz, Alexandru Bogdan, Sorin Chelmu, Amalia Strateanu all these last-three co-authors are from: Center for Agroforestry Biodiversity Study and Research "Academician David Davidescu" Romanian Academy / Romania, Jozef B. Lewoc BPBiT Leader / Poland, Antoni Izworski Wroclaw University of Technology / Poland, Slawomir Skowronski Wroclaw University of Technology - Informatics and Management Faculty / Poland, Antonina Kieleczawa Institute of Power Systems Automation (IASE) / Poland, Andrés Ginestet Menke, Karolin Eva Kappler, Johannes Gottlieb, Joao Canelas Raposo all these last-four co-authors are from: Complexity BAlanced World United-Institute (COBAWU-Institute) / Germany

These (e-)published three studies represent a kind of program of the International Consortium. More, within the structure of the Interdisciplinary Research Group of the structure of the Romanian Academy, Bucharest, Romania [where the author of this paper is the President], there are overseas members dedicated to affirm the program of the Consortium and, so, to be authors of important related studies (e-sent to the Interdisciplinary Research Group, in Romania) and/or to dedicate their scientific insight and good will to the inquiries promoted by this Interdisciplinary Research Group, as from (alphabetical ordered):

Archbishop Chrysostomos Diocese of Etna in California, US,

Richard Amoroso Director, Noetic Institute, US,

David Atkinson, Very Reverend and Professor, Aberdeenshire, UK,

Marianne Beliş Directrice Académique, Ecole Supérieure d'Informatique (Academy of Computer Science), Paris, France,

Mariano L. Bianca Dean, Department of Historical, Social and Philosophical Studies, Arezzo, University of

Siena, Italy,

Bishop Auxentios, Acting Synodal Exarch in America,

+ Soerj L. Bonting Emeritus professor of biochemistry and Anglican theologian, Goor, the Netherlands,

Ronald Cole-Turner Rev. Prof. Dr., H.Parker Sharp Professor Theology and Ethics Pittsburgh Theological Seminary Pittsburgh, US,

Dorien J. DeTombe Chair, International Research Society on Methodology Societal Complexity, Amsterdam, The Netherland,

Carlo Alberto Donolo President Eutropia Onlus; Professor, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy,

Marta Donolo Director, Eutropia Onlus, Italy,

Timi Ećimović Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Chairman for life of the SEM Institute for Climate Change, Slovenia,

Christopher Fynsk Prof. Dr., Director Centre for Modern Thought, School of Language & Literature University Aberdeen, King's College, Aberdeen, UK,

László Z. Karvalics Professor, Szeged University, Hungary,

+ Frederick Kile Past-President SWIIS/ IFAC; Microtrend, Wisconsin, US,

Richard E. Kilgour Very Reverend, Provost of the Saint Andrew Cathedral, Aberdeen, UK,

Dora V. Marinova Professor, Curtin University, Perth, Australia,

Matjaž Mulej; Vojko Potočan; Zdenka Ženko Professors, University of Maribor, Faculty of Economics and Business, Maribor, Slovenia,

Constantin Virgil Negoita Professor, City University of New York, Hunter College, US,

Dana Nicolau Researcher, Technology Transfer – Industrial Parks, Melbourne, Australia,

Philippos Nicolopoulos Professor, University of Crete - University of Indianapolis, Athens, Greece,

Marcella Pompili Pagliari Professor ssa., Sapienza University of Rome, Italy,

Pauline Rudd Reader, University College Dublin, Belfield / Republic of Ireland,

Giacomo Scarascia Mugnozza Direttore del Dipartimento di Scienze Agro-Ambientali e Territoriali dell’Università di Bari - Aldo Moro, Italy, Florentin Smarandache Chief of Math. and Science Department, University of New Mexico - Gallup / US,


23

Teodorescu Horia-Nicolai Prof. Dr., Gheorghe Asachi Technical University of Iasi

Kazimierz Turkiewicz – Domenika B. Turkiewicz Lecturer, Queensland University, Brisbane / Australia,

Robert Vallée President, World Organisation of Systems and Cybernetics, Prof. Émerite Université Paris-Nord / France.

There are important related e-received studies [from the above enumerated overseas members of the Interdisciplinary Research Group of the structure of the Romanian Academy].

(http://ssrn.com/abstract=2132953 2130246 2124098 2043310 2044095) These e-links are/ were parts at the long-term erected intellectual architecture of the entire

Consortium GENEROSITY-CREATIVITY-SOLIDARITY - so, based on generous ideals per se.

There are important related e-received studies [from the above enumerated overseas members of the Interdisciplinary Research Group of the structure of the Romanian Academy]. (http://ssrn.com/abstract= 2132953213024621240982043310 2044095) These e-links are/were parts at the long-term (re-)constructed intellectual architecture of the entire Generosity-Creativity-Solidarity Consortium - so, based on generous ideals per se.

The last stage of applications/III.2013 within our International Consortium was a benefical event as new partners were taken active roles: i.e.

*(19) Prof.dr. Alexander Makarenko, and Dr. Evgeniy Samorodov - Institute for Applied System Analysis at National Technical University of Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine [also, within a later participation: Dr. Zinaida Klestova, Institute for Veterinary Medicine of Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine];

*(20) Prof.dr. Cristin Bigan – Ecological University of Bucharest, Dean of the Faculty of Managerial Engineering”, Bucharest, Romania [also, within Dr. Cristian Tsakiris ‘s participation];

*(21) Prof.dr. Pompiliu Manea – Academia de Stiinte Medicale, Bucharest, Romania;

*(22) Amy Stapleton – Africa Direct, Waterford, Republic of Ireland;

*(23) Dan Costa Baciu - Schweizer Heimatschutz, Zürich, Switzerland;

*(24) Dr. Aurel Florentin Badiu - Academia de Stiinte Agricole si Silvice “Gheorghe Ionescu Sisesti” ,

Bucharest, Romania;

*(25) Drd. Claudiu Bolcu, Drd. Mihaela Mecea - Babes-Bolyai University, Faculty of European Studies, Cluj-Napoca, Romania;

*(26) Dr. Mike Fitzgibbon – Cork University, Cork, Republic of Ireland.

REFERENCES

Albus, F.S. “Outline for a theory of intelligence.” in IEEE

Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Vol. 21

No. 3, 1991.

Amoroso, Richard, and Di Biase, F. (Ed.) A Revolução da

Consciência. Novas Descobertas sobre a Mente no Século

XXI. Rio de Janeiro, Brasil: Editora Vozes, Petrópolis,

(Science and the Primacy of Consciousness, Portuguese

Translation, Rio di Janeiro: Editura Vozes), 2004.

Arrow, Kenneth J. Social Choice and Individual Value. New

York: Wiley, 1963.

Bailey, D. Kenneth. "System and conflict: towards a

symbiotic reconciliation." in Quality & Quantity 31, 425-

442., Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers, l997.

Balaceanu, Constantin., Nicolau, Edmond. Personalitatea

umana O interpretare cibernetica. [The Human

Personality. A Cybernetic Interpretation.] Iasi: Editura

Junimea, 1972.

Beliş, Marianne. & Snow Paul. Comment cerner le hasard.

Paris: Edition Supinfo Press, 2002.

Bergson, Henri. Creative Evolution. New York: Henry Holt,

1911.

Bertalanffy, Ludwig. Von. General System Theory/

Foundation Development Application. Harmondsworth:

Penguin Books, 1968.

Bianca, Mariano L. Rappresentazioni mentali. Milano:

FrancoAngeli, 2005.

Blaga, Lucian. “Kultur und Erkenntnis.” [“Culture and

knowledge.”] Vienna: PhD thesis, University of Vienna,

1920.

Bogdan, Radu J. Our Own Minds: Sociocultural Grounds for

Self-Consciousness. Bradford Books: MIT Press, 2010. Bonting Soerj L. (2001). "Need and Usefulness of a Revised

Creation Theology: Chaos Theology". Paper presented at Science and religion Antagonism or Complementarity? /Science and Spiritual Quest – International Symposium, November 8-11, 2001, Bucharest, Romania/ A


24

programme of the Center for Theology and Natural Sciences, Berkeley.

Bulz, Nicolae. Aspects of Interactive Modeling toward

Society, Nature, Mind within the Progress of Automatic

World of Artifacts. Orinda, CA. & Bucuresti: The Noetic

Press, CA & Editura Aisteda, 2004.

Bulz, Nicolae, et.al. "Inquiry on the global (post) crisis versus

humankind wisdom as a turning point: Does the

generosity-creativity-solidarity triad matter?" in

International Research Journal of Police Science,

Criminal Law and Criminology, September; Vol.1, No.1,

pp. 7-44, 2012.

Bunge, Mario. "Philosophical richness of technology." In

Philosophy and Social Action 2 (Editors: F. Suppe, P.D.

Asquith), 1977.

Calude Cristian Matematici constructive. Bucuresti: Editura

Stiintifica, 1995.

Chomsky, Naom. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1964

Clayton, Philip and Paul Davies. The Re-Emergence of

Emergence. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

DeTombe, Dorien J., van Dijkum, Corr Analyzing Complex

Societal Problems / A Methodological Approach.

Munchen und Mering: Rainer Hampp Verlag, 1996.

Draganescu, Mihai. Stiinta si Civilizatie. [Science and

Civilization]. Bucuresti: Editura Stiintifica si

Enciclopedica, 1984.

Dumitriu, Anton. Paradoxele stiintelor [Science's Paradoxes.]

Bucuresti: Imprimeria Nationala, 1944.

Eco, Umbertto. Semiotica e filosofia del linguaggio. Torino:

Einaudi, 1984.

Flake G.W. The Computational Beauty of Nature/Computer

Explorations of Fractals, Chaos, Complex Systems, and

Adaptation. Cambridge, MA : MTI Press, 2001.

Fuller, Buckminster Richard. Utopia or Oblivion: the

Prospect for Humanity. Toronto New York London :

Bantam Books, 1969.

Gödel, Kurt. "Uber formal unentscheidhare Sätze der

Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I."

Monatshefte für Math. u. Physik. Bd. 38, pp. 173-198,

1931.

Gregersen, Niels Henrik. “Complexity: What is at Stake for

Religious Reflection.” in The Significance of Complexity:

Approaching a Complex World through Science,

Theology, and the Humanities, eds. Kees van Kooten

Niekerk and Hans Buhl, 35-165. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004.

Kauffman, Stuart. The Origins of Order: Self-Organization

and Selection in Evolution. New York: Oxford University

Press, 1993.

Malitza, Mircea. Ten Thousand Cultures, One Single

Civilisation. Toward Geomodernity of the XXI Century,

in International Political Science Review, Vol 21, N.1, Jan.

2000.

Mill, John Stuart. A System of Logic Ratiocinative and

Inductive Being a Connected View of the Principles of

Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation.

London: Longman, 1970.

Marcus, Solomon. "Linguistics as a pilot science". In Current

Trends in Linguistics 12, (ed. Th.A. Sebeok). Hague:

Mouton, 1974. Controverse in stiinta si inginerie.

Bucuresti: Editura Tehnica, 1990.

Morãrescu, Jeana., Bulz, Nicolae. "Pentru abordarea extins-

matematica a paradoxurilor si limitarilor." ["Toward

extended-mathematical approach of the paradoxes and

limitations."] Academica XI 1-2 (121-122), pp.44, 2000.

Morgan, C. Lloyd. Emergent Evolution. N.Y.: Williams and

Nothgate, 1923.

Negoita Constantin Virgil, Ralescu Dan A. Application of

Fuzzy Sets to Systems Analysis. Berlin: Birkhäuser

Verlag, 1975.

Nicolescu, Basarab. La Transdisciplinarité. Manifeste. Paris:

Editions du Rocher, 1996.

Nonaka I. and Takeuchi H. The Knowledge-Creating

Company: How Japanese Companies Create the

Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 1995.

Osmatescu, Petru. “Modelling the knowledge transfer by

means of subtle sets.” Paper presented at the Lausanne:

SIGEF Congress, 2000.

Parra-Luna, Francisco. "The notion of system as conceptual

bridge between the sociology of organizations and

organizational efficiency." In Proceedings of the Xth

International Congress of World Organization of System

and Cybernetics, Vol. 2nd Sociocybernetics, 248-256,

Bucharest : Bren, 1998.

Pãun, Gheorghe. Artificial Life: Grammatical Models.

http://www.interesjournals.org/IRJPSCLC/Contents/2012%20Content/September.htm


25

Bucuresti: Black Sea University Press, 1995.

Pearl, Jean. Heuristique/Strategies de recherche intelligente

pour la resolution de problemes par ordinateur.

Toulouse: Cepadues-Edition, 1990..

Piaget, Jean. The Psychology of Intelligence. Taylor &

Francis Group, 1999: London.

Searle, John. R. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of

Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.

Sahleanu, Victor. De la omul necunoscut la omul cognoscibil.

[From the Unknown Human toward Cognitive-known

Human.] Bucuresti: Editura Ramida, 1996.

Simon, Herbert. A. Administrative Behaviour. New York:

Free Press, 1957.

Sheryl Gay, and Robert Pear. “Wary Centrists Posing

Challenge in Health Care Vote.” New York Times,

February 27, 2012. Accessed February 28, 2012.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/us/politics/28health.

html.

Sveiby, K.E. What is Knowledge Management? Brisbane:

Sveiby Knowledge Associates, 2001.

Teodorescu Horia-Nicolai, Jain L. C. K., Kandel A., Kacprzyk

J. (Eds.) Hardware Implementation of Intelligent Systems.

Berlin: Springer Verlag, 2001.

Tschang, T. “Knowledge creation at sub-economy levels: a

new framework for innovative problem-solving

processes.” In China’s Future in the Knowledge

Economy. Engaging the New World, edited by Grewal,

B., Xue, L., Sheehan, P. and Sun, F. Beijing: Tsinghua

University Press, 2002.

Vallée, Robert. Cognition et Système / Essai d'Epistémo-

Praxéologye. Limonest: L'Interdisciplinaire / Système (s),

1995.

Ward, Geoffrey C., and Ken Burns. The War: An Intimate

History, 1941–1945. New York: Knopf, 2011.

Weinstein, Joshua I. “The Market in Plato’s Republic.”

Classical Philology 104 (2009): 439–58.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Tractatus logico-philosophicus.

London : Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1961.

Zadeh Lotfi A. "Fuzzy sets." Information and Control 8, 338-

353 (I.E.E. Transactions), 1965.

Nicolae Bulz. Bistrita, Romania, June 13, 1950. Doctor in Automatic Systems (Ph.D.)/ man-machine interface domain/ Technical Military Academy, Faculty of Electronics and Computer Science, Bucharest, Romania, 1996. Civil-Military Relations/ Ministry of National Defence, Romania & Naval

Academy Monterrey, CA, USA, 1998. Master Degree on Systemic Pattern Recognition - Engineer– Radio_Electronics/ Technical Military Academy, Faculty of Electronics and Computer Science, Bucuresti, Romania, 1974. The major field of study: Interdisciplinary approach on Society– Technology Interfaces; Systems Theory, Praxis and Logic; Interactive Modelling; Subtleness beyond Probability and Fuzziness Theories .

Nicolae is retired engineer colonel (from 1999), within a 1969-1999 military engineering activity including assistant professorship at the National Military University, Bucharest, Romania, and 1999-2009 Ecological University Bucharest professorship. The current job: Associate Professor – National Defence College, Romania; Honorary Researcher – Institute of World Economy / NERI/ Romanian Academy; Research Associate External - Center for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.

Prof. Bulz is International Sociological Association (ISA) member, International Federation of Automatic Control (IFAC) affiliate member, UK Systems Society (UKSS) member; member of the Romanian Committee for History and Philosophy of Science and Techniques - from Romanian Academy, and, into an autonomous unit: President of the Interdisciplinary Research Group, Vice-president of Social and Economic Cybernetics Commission - from Romanian Academy. He was awarded with the "Virgil Madgearu" prize of Romanian Academy - Dec. 2008 / assigned for the book PARTENERIAT CREATIV DE BUNASTARE [Creative Partnership on Welfare, Editura PARALELA 45, Pitesti, 2006, ISBN 973-697-566-5 - Nicolae Bulz: coordinator and first author of this co-authorship book], and with the “Military Merit” Order Class I, accorded by the Presidential Decree no. 482/21.12.1998, Romania.

‘spirituality-biodiversity’ versus ‘indifference-engagement’. heritage, contemporary...

Documents

biodiversity construct

jointed spirituality

creative partnership

jointed approach

entire paper

contemporary challenge

set of personalities

set of inquiries