INTRODUCTION

In the mid-80s and beginning-90s of the XXth century it became clear that we are living through the epoch of a great turning point in the development of society. The crisis of social life accompanied by negative consequences of theoretical, methodological, ideological, and outlook character leading man’s everyday existence up a blind alley.

The speculations about the future become the urgent duty of phi­losophers and scholars. Pathology in social life likewise in physiolo­gy is a priceless in diagnosing the causes of illness of a social organ­ism without detecting of which any assistance for its recovery is cer­tain to fail. In addition, the modern crisis convincingly proves that it is optimization of human life in planetary magnitude that is a pivot­al problem of the theory of knowledge of the end of the XXth - be­ginning of the XXIst century. National, demographic, military, re­source, energetic, ecological and other global problems as against the global social crisis are interpreted as its consequences.

The process of fundamental rationalization of the social life has been in a progress for a long time, and within it, at least, three stages can be distinguished: the first is connected with substantiating of priority of a man’s role in the history and terrestrial origin of society and state (Renaissance); the second is connected with establishment of Marxist social doctrine, that on the basis of primacy of material things over the spiritual things showed the creative role of people as a subject of social life (the end of the XVIIth - mid. of the XXth cent.); the third one is connected with the search for “philosophical unity” among endless number of relatively independent and incompatible means of explanations of courses of development of social world - theological, materialistic, technocratic, phenomenological, existen- tialistic, and others (from the mid.

There is nothing to be surprised at: poorly developed theoretical thought got beyond such powerful and multidirectional intellectual and physical energy. The reason lies in the fact that practical con­sciousness of people keeps placing great emphasis on adopting the logics of external state of things. People lost their connection with the inner world; they ceased to understand its logic; confusion trig­gered the trap of ecology which reflects the demand to keep the regu­larities of a cosmic character.

In such situation the division of researchers into two big groups - pessimists and optimists - seems quite logic. Pessimists who are prevailing in number (K. Popper, A. Koyre, B. Pascal, and others) demostrate the sceptical comprehension of the social development’s possibilities. Nevertheless, there are optimists who keep working enthusiastically at elucidating a mystery of the mechanism of the social life’s self-evolvement. Among them, in its turn, two groups can be also distinguished. One group takes the course of actualized models of social development construction incorporating for this purpose the tendencies which have been discovered in the process of scientific technological revolution. The other group of researchers- optimists endeavors to conceptualize totality of social life by means of employing the concept of social organism, which has its own des­tiny and centuries-old history. However, its heuristic potential still waits for its cogitation and development.

Scholars repeatedly endeavored to account for organismic devel­opment of the second nature. In the ancient Indian Vedas already the very first notes on social organism as a form of man’s existence are found (about 3,500 BC.). Other record related to the matter, namely that world of people, is a cohesive organism, is found in a different ancient Indian manuscript the Mahabharata (the first half of the 1000 B.C.). One of its episodes tells about unitary spiritual substance which all empirical phenomena go back to.

Later this concept was supported by Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Comte, Spenser, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Durkheim, and many other philosophers. Moreover, within the world sociology a separate trend has emerged; it received the name of Organic School. Among the con­temporary scholars such as M.Moiseyev, A. Ahabehyin, R. Abdeyev, M. Archer, P. Shtompka, V. Andrushchenko, V. Volovyc, V. Voronk­ova, M. Mykhalchenko, M. Moklyak, V. Pylypenko, V. Piddubnyi, I. Chernenko, V. Shapovalov, and many others are the proponents of this school.

At the present moment we are not able to distinguish consciously between the notions of “social organism”, “public organism”, “spiri­tual organism”, “ethnic and social organism”, “logic organism”, “sobornal (conciliar) organism”, “church organism”, “state organism”, “national - state organism”, “institutional organism”, “culturologi­cal organism”, cultural and historical organism”, “collective organism”, “ethnic organism”, “formational organism”, and other analogical notions.

Our standpoint in this research is that organic totality of social world does exist and we recognize its immanent ties with the first na­ture and Cosmos. Moreover, we claim that it is in the process of over­coming of the present planetary crisis, that human thought discovers qualitatively different means of conceptual explanation of its further development. In our opinion answers to all questions which challenged philosophical and scientific consciousness of the world commonwealth at the end of the XXth century should be searched for within such phenomenon as noocosmogenesis, more precisely noosociogenesis. Spontaneous self-transformation of social world is caused, to our mind, by aggravation of need of Cosmos in effectively functioning planetary mind called to compensate its structural instability.

To speak in another way, we do support M. Moiseyev’s standpoint, that there is a rigid tendency of formation of peculiar automatic pi­lot that secures supersystem of planetary mind and its fragments from spontaneous devastation in a “synergetic machine”, the world pro­cess of self-organization of the universum appears to be.

It follows from our analysis that it is for reflection of a specific planetary phenomenon in a logical form that the concept of social organism has emerged, namely: self - evolvement of social life or in­telligent living substance co-existing along with common protein­nuclein life or simple living substance. It is deduced from practice, that from the very beginning the material aspect of the Universe in a form of a family of physical organisms has been exhibited before us, however, at present the image of its spiritual constituent in the form of a family of social organisms is being revealed.

This accounts for consisting desire of researchers to employ the means of analogues to pattern living kind of planetary substance af­ter living rational substance. From this it can be inferred why the history of self - evolvement, apparently, is closely interwoven with the notion “physical” organism. Stated connection can be presented in a following way: it is a metaphor for Plato, an analogue - for Aris­totle, parallelism - for Spenser, absolute identity - for Lilienfeld. At present we do determine this connection as a special object of, first of all, philosophical analysis, and then of scientific analysis.

Practically the essence of the matter is to turn this idea into philo­sophical conception of self-evolvement of social reality as relatively independent geological process. Genetically social reality comes into being out of biosphere development. It has independent being within noosphere, and then naturally transcends into electromagnitosphere as an element of cosmic environment. This mode of the phenomenon of noocosmogenesis is developing by comprising of three levels: the Prelife, the Life and the Super life.

Nowadays it is erroneous to begin the investigation of the prob­lem without undertaking the analysis of the reasons of global crisis that has been unceasingly raged.

The deep and systemic crisis of social development enveloped the whole world. It occurs in such truculent form that some researchers speak even about anthropological catastrophe. From scientific stand­point it is apparently fallacious thing to consider the present social collapse to be exclusively in character of the former USSR, Czecho­slovakia, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Poland, and other countries of East­ern Europe. Turning events are in progress in China and Mongolia. In a peculiar way the crisis takes place in France, Italy, and Spain. These first, remote underground shocks of social turmoil contribut­ed in many aspects to replacing of the political leaders of the USA, Great Britain, and Germany. It is only in Sweden that social element might be still under control at expense of relatively more even distri­bution of profits meticulously put to balance by governing social- democratic party.

Establishment of Ukraine as an independent state raises the is­sue of theoretical study of its development. Having taken an inde­pendent course Ukraine only in a very general way has delineated di­rection where to go, and even less, the methods to use. Up to the present day we lack a conceptual vision of self-evolvement of social organism of state; outlook foundation of social development has not been constructed yet.

Analysis proves that explication of bifurcational nature of mod­ern social processes should be sought for in the Universe changes of modes of which are objective reason causing gigantic collapses of cul­tural and historical world. Geological process is such total reality within which both above mentioned tendencies of social process have been removed; through it the very motive of the second nature is be­ing reconstructed. The humanity begins its own development at its very own foundation. So, the task of philosophy is to conceptualize the nature of changes, which have been taking place at present, to be able to elaborate an adequate to them mode of thinking and be­havior of a subject of historical efficiency, perspective for the third millennium.

Nowadays we are not simply witnesses of qualitative move in the developing of the Universe, but are immediate participants of that process; of how the universum is curving its qualitatively different way of development which is going to return to us in a new type of civilization. In addition, we are the witnesses and the participants of a process of a unique megasystem’s planetary organism origin which is not familiar for us property type. Its formation is directly connected with noospheric explosion that is predicted by many investigations. We should get ready to it, not to be caught unexpectedly, as it has been taking place at present. It is from a strategic side.

From the operative side, all variety of notional forms in which idea of organismic structure of social world is being revealed should be aggregated to unity. From the tactical side, it is important to examine the nature and content of two contrary tendencies of modern stage of development of planetary humanity. One of them is connect­ed with activisation of the processes of particular countries estab­lishment as the independent subjects of the world social process. Other tendency consists in obvious process of establishment of planetary humanity as the totality. Integration of world commonwealth has been already gaining its form in a way of specific intercontinental and con­tinental structures of such type as the Organization of American States, Organization of African Unity, All-European House, Euro­Asian Commonwealth, The North - American Free Trade Zone and others. It is the reason that cause increasing role of collective organs of self-regulation of all aspects of life of the world commonwealth - United Nations Organization, United Nations Educational, Scientif­ic and Cultural Organization, United Nations International Chil­dren’s Emergency Fund, Security Council, European Economic Com­munity, Roman Club, European Parliament and others.

Creation of the seventh continent - the Internet, European and other specialized informational System (GII, EII, NII, B-ISDN, ATM, SDN, “UTYP”, BSFOOS), TV (WRON), telex-telegraph and mobile phone nets (DEST, SDMA), all-European currency unit - euro, also specific flow and many others - is a positive proof of enhancing of establishment of continental, intercontinental and planetary forms of everyday people’s activities organization.

In order to be able to determine the degree of complexity of se­lected for analysis problem, we should know the degree of its elabo­ration in philosophical and scientific thought. The survey of exist­ing scientific-philosophic literature exhibits that the problem of so­cial organism, at least, in the soviet and national publications, has not received purposeful elaboration. It was kept under secret taboo. The same status was given to its study as to the problem of perpet- uum mobile in mechanics. At the same time the concept of social or­ganism keeps exciting the minds of people, and saturating, in the di­rect sense of this word, our life.

From the examined publications it is deduced that this concept has changed several modes of its historical existence. Initially it has existed in morphological mode for rather a long period of time, even nowadays its echo can be experienced. To prove this, suffice it to give an example of descriptions encountered in available literature. Here it is how A. Gramsci describes it in his Prison Notebooks, that it is somewhere beyond dependency of individuals that something phantasmagoric exists; there is abstraction of collective organism, autonomous deity, which without a particular head but does think, which doesn’t move with the aid of human legs, but still moves and etc [62, 257-258].

Then the morphological concept of world totality was naturally replaced by the theological one. In Paul’s teaching it is said that “so­ciety is one in the body of Christ”. However, principles of submission to authority, according to Paul and Apostle’s teaching, cannot be in­corporated to domain of belief; they declare the right of resistance, but the only way is the passive one, and only through martyrdom. The principle of equality, brotherhood, human solidarity, which the philosophy of the epoch has already attained, transcends different teaching, and by doing this descends from philosophic heights to peo­ple’s beliefs. Seneca Lutsiy Anney (near 4 B.C. - 65 A.D) - a Roman philosopher, educator, emperor Nero’s councilor - conceptualizes the world as indivisible intellectual-divine totality all parts of which are organically tied to each other [200, 441].

Theological form suffered from knock-down blow on the part of Aristotle, that surprising or not, but had passed by unnoticed by phi­losophers, though its religious configuration still had been filling with the content back during Hegel’s epoch. Thus, for instance, H. Hreyef writes: “His (Aristotle. - V.B.) thought goes far beyond Greek state order: he studies and compares a hundred and fifty variable political forms. He does not study society as artifact made up by gods and people any more, but rather as natural organism. Thus, the most prominent forerunner of scientific sociology makes tremendous rev­olution in the domain of social teaching. It surprises, however, that that pivotal idea was given the less attention in thousands volumes of commentaries dedicated to Aristotle; nevertheless, this signifi­cant standpoint connects Greek world with the most leading contem­porary thoughts” [62, 39].

From Aristotle organismic vision of society procedes to Hobbes, Hegel, Pyer Leru, and others philosophers favoring theological stand­point. Krause’s theology as well is saturated by theology. But it is its nobility and scope of its social desires that favorably distinguish it from philosophies of Hegel, Scheling, and Shlegel. Moreover, it is one of the first systems studying society in general as organism with certain functions and organs.

The most complete description of historical aspect of development of social organism we encounter in sociological literature of the be­ginning of the XXth century. Sometime later it is marginalized by the materialistic directive. Thus, for example, M. Kovalevsky in his work Sociology emphasizes, “as it is known that Spenser, then later Sheffle, Liliyenfeld, Vorms, Izule, Novykov, and partially Khref’s view of society as organism that develops has already been encoun­tered in its embryo in Comte who employs such comparison with com­plete understanding that analogy and tautology are different things, and, thus, withholding from such adjusting of particular institutions and social functions to different parts of human body, which in so many ways has contributed in distortion of true in its essence thought, true as much as it rejects purely mechanic, that is to say, artificial converging of different elements of community” [94, 205]. In addi­tion, he leaves us with facts that this concept can be traced even in much earlier historical period. No need to remind that the very first springs of theory, according to which different social classes and cor­respondent to them establishments should be recognized as compo­nents of one organic totality, takes its origin from Plato. Many cen­turies later on Plutarch in his Moralia enhances the same idea. Plu­tarch’s Moralia was very popular in Byzantium and mid centuries’ societies. It managed to preserve for future generations Plato’s the­ory about organic nature of the state even in times when the ideas of the most renowned Greek philosopher were known to the world only by way of fragments. In the XII century Ioann Salisberiyskyi, fol­lowing Plato, again made a statement about state as organism. It was even before the issue of Summa Theologia by Foma Aquinata that Ioann Salisberiyskyi in his Polycraticus had summarized all social and political knowledge of middle ages. That book was constantly re­ferred to, and repeatedly slavishly copied. Due to it the organic theo­ry of state had penetrated into works of the first representatives of scholastic philosophy, particularly, into the Specula of Vincent from Bovey” [94, 205].

Then M. Kovalevsky goes on rightly concluding that “this theory connected traditionally with Hobbe’s name, thus, had been known for many centuries before him. Hobbes in his Leviathan, however, was able to enrich it with originality and excellent form. H. Spen­cer’s theory, however, is simply novel expression of the doctrine which had already been existed, as we have seen, for more than 2000 years” [94, 207-208].

Then its vulgarization is connected with Sheffle, Lilienfeld, Rene Worms’ works, who present it as their own thing going into rather considerable exaggerations in its development. In the course of search of analogues between the state and living organism they have gone as far as identification of human heart with stock-exchange.

Thus Plato already gives to a state a name of a huge human being. But Aristotle turns this Plato’s metaphor from poetical fiction into a real analogy. A state became an organism, namely, huge human being, recognized, in its turn, as a social being. Consequently Aristo­tle should be considered as a real father of the theory of social macro­cosmos. Nevertheless, for Aristotle that comparison was nothing more than simply comparison; Spenser, however, considers it already as a parallelism. Exoderm, endoderm, mezoderm are recognized as existing in both structure of organism and structure of society. In fact, it is only correspondences, encounters, and parallelisms that can be spoken about. Liliyenfeld brings the findings of such under­taken search to a close by saying that “society not only looks like a living organism but it, by itself, is this very living organism” [94, 262].

The concept of social organism has been tending towards gaining a philosophical form for a long period of time. It became widely used as a cognitive tool for analysis of social life. At that stage it has gained a universal character and began to be applied practically to all as­pects of human life. As practice proves, this concept, even not hav­ing clearly determined content, has been operating successfully with­in the theory of knowledge for centuries. V. Vernadsky accounted for its viability in a rightly way, “A new peculiar methodology of pen­etrating into unknown, that is justified by success but which we can­not imagine graphically (as a model), is being developed. It seems to be a new notion expressed by way of “symbol” corresponding to real­ity, created by intuition, that is to say, by unconscious for research­er coverage of countless number of facts. These symbols are still be­yond our logical understanding; however, what we still can do is to add to them mathematical analysis, and whereby to discover new phe­nomena or add to them theoretical generalization, that are verified in all logical deductions by facts, firmly accounting them by measure and number” [36, 77].

It is quite natural that the concept of social organism originally was employed in study of a domain of political relations. And since politics is rather complicated phenomenon, in scientific literature then the following types of social organism can be distinguished: state, administrative, and strictly political. Ideal state, as Plato (347 B.C.) suggests should be all in all fair. Characterizing his project of ideal state Plato writes, that we found this state not intending to make people of particular class happy, but on the contrary, to make happy the state all in all.

In 1762 J.J. Rousseau in his work The Social Contract or Princi­ples of Political Right, following Beyl in his critic toward Montes­quieu and Hobbes, came to deistic concept of essentiality of God, God who punished and rewarded ensuring viability of state organism and immutability of social morality” [188, 432].

Hegel’s definition of content of notion “state organism” is of spe­cial value. He (Philosophy of Law) points out, that a particular state as a whole is disjoined into some particular circles [54, 347]. In his work dedicated to issues of aesthetics the following characteristics of social organism can be found. Hegel describes this organism as a whole in a real state is well organized inwardly, coherent and self - completed [58, 107]. In addition to this, as he assertsd in his letter to Shelling back in January, 1795, orthodoxy will remain unshakable as long as its sermon is connected with earthly benefits and is inter­woven in coherent state organism [52, 218].

In modern political publications the notion “social organism” is often used concerning various social institutions: political parties, also other social organizations and movements.

Due to works of K. Marx, F. Engels, V.Lenin and even in broader sense - to materialistic direction in the theory of knowledge, today productive organism is the most described one [See: 123, 79]. Accord­ing to K. Marx’s standpoint, under capitalism, “within the system of machines big industry possesses rather objective productive organ­ism which has been found by a worker as already ready material con­dition of production” [130, 397].

V. Lenin in his work The Economic Content of Narodism writes, that each such system of productive relations is a specific social or­ganism, attributed with particular laws of its inception, function, and transition to a higher form, convertion into different social or­ganism [See: 109, 429].

Analysis of management “as essential attribute of organism” was offered by the renowned Bolgarian scientist Marko Markov [See: 118, 38]. In connection with elaboration of problem of management the notion of social organism was expanded to region, city. Giving char­acteristic to social nature of cities K. Marx points out that in this case a whole doesn’t equal the sum of its constituents. It is a peculiar autonomous organism [See: 136, 470]. V. Lenin didn’t accidently, as it is known, demand excellent job management in every particular area, since he considered a region to be also a coherent self-develop­ing system.

No one doubts the fact that the notion of social organism was ap­plied to economical domain in a concrete sense. It was Marx who orig­inally employed it to above-named domain of our reality; he pointed out that along with elimination of capitalistic basis and as soon as the immediate character of living labor is transcended, i.e. its char­acter as merely individual, or as only internally or only externally general, with the positing of the activity of individuals as immedi­ately general or social activity, this form of alienation is stripped from the reified moments of production. Then they are posited as [social] property, as the organic social body in which the individuals repro­duce themselves as individuals, but as social individuals [136, 347]. Than K. Marx employs the notion of social organism for analysis of a problem of cooperation [See: 130, 343]. The same notions and con­cepts of social organism he applies to analysis of regularities of func­tioning of branches of national economy [See: 125, 712, 720].

In the recent publications the concept of social organism is corre­lated with all traditional and modern structures of economic sphere: associations of different types, joint-stock companies, markets, banks etc. There is endless number of facts in confirmation of this. Suffice it to examine the content of planning of development of economic and social domains which have stimulated the spread of the concept of social organism. The plan of social development envelops all as­pects of vital activity of social organism with regard to enterprise, branch, or region.

Nowadays when in all places the former Soviet Union countries initiate a process of privatization and corporatization of former state enterprises, the process of bringing into use the notion of social or­ganism is intensified. M. Moiseyev accounting for the reason of this rightly asserted that “gaining independence any enterprise immedi­ately turns into organism: its private goals and along with them par­ticular possibilities to achieve them emerge. These new goals should not completely match the goal of complete economic organism; they always are different - not alternative but different” [141, 323].

A. Ahabehian, for example, while examining the reasons of fail­ure of economic reform of 1965 came to conclusion that roots of fail­ure were hidden in coherent organism of enterprise, that functioned as an organic system according to its own and unitary for all its con­stituents law. It is it that torn away an alien body had been imposed from outside. Universal for all living things law of conservation of system was activated.

The findings from available publications show that above-named concept is very effective in social domain for examining the prob­lems linked with single individuals, collectives, and other social com­munities. Thus, for instance, K. Marx employs the concept of social organism to both a single individual [See: 136, 213-214] and to a col­lective of laborers [See: 130, 345].

The concept of organism employed to a collective also surpasses domain of material production. It received the citizenship in such domain as education. Thus, for example, the renowned educator A. Makarenko wrote about a collective as a social and living organ­ism, that it was an organism because it had organs sharing duties and responsibilities; all its members - balanced and interconnected; without all that it was nothing but simply a crowd.

Today researchers proceeded even farther and employed even the larger-scale analogues. M. Moiseyev, for instance, following this ten­dency in his work Man and Noosphere expands the concept of social organism to a planetary society [143, 318-319].

Almost the same picture of multifunctional employment of the con­cept of a social organism can be found also in a spiritual domain. By this we mean organism of science, arts, religion etc. But this domain of social life possesses some essential distinct characteristics in com­parison to other mentioned earlier domains, because “the soul with its inner life doesn’t shine through the entire reality of bodily form”. As Hegel underlines in Aesthetics, in a higher way still, the same defi­ciency makes itself evident likewise in the spiritual world and its or­ganisms that are considered in its immediate life. The greater and the richer these spiritual world’s productions are the more does the one aim, which animate this whole and constitutes its inner soul, require co-operative means. Now in immediate reality these means of course manifest themselves as purposeful organs, and what happens and is produced comes into being only by means of the will; every point of such organism (a state or a family) that is to say every single individu­al, wills; and he manifests himself indeed in connection with the other members of organism but the one inner soul of this association (the freedom and reason of the one aim) does not come forward into reality as this one free and total inner animation [58, 155].

Especially actively the notion “organism” is used in Russian philo­sophic thought in discussion of essence of such phenomenon as “sobornist’” (conciliarism). Suffice it to refer to M.Berdyayev, O. Khomyakova’s work, and works of other thinkers. Thus, for instance, according to M.Berdyayev “the only possible way to experience the true consciousness of Being is by placing ourselves under authority of a collective mind (conciliarism), by integrating with congregational “we”, by denying individual “Self”...” [16, 20-21].

Category “organism” is also employed in the theory of knowledge to study hidden components of social reality. Thus, for instance, au­thors of the work Structures in Non-Linear Environments write the following: “Physical energy of the word does not differ from any other kind of physical energy. a word in this sense is interpreted as a light and invisible airy organism (italicized by V.B.) has been endowed with a magic power to signify something particular and to penetrate into especial depths and produce invisibly great developments” [106, 20].

It is known that the concept “organism” is expanded by some in­vestigators to domain of Cosmos. Thus, for example, Berdiayev in his works paid a particular attention to a place of man in a cosmic organism.

It surprises that regardless of possessing such powerful heuris­tic potential, this philosophical concept has not found its reflection in modern native social philosophy. Only some brief survey of it can be found in the course of lectures on Contemporary Social Philoso­phy published in 1993, edited by V. Andrushchenko and M. Mykhal- chenko [See: 7, 217].

However, in the collective work Social Laws and Their Action, published by Institute of Philosophy, NAS of Ukraine in 1995, this term is used more often though without decoding of the content, that is to say, as a methodological tool [See: 30].

As a methodological tool this term is also employed in the work of V. Kremen, D. Tabachnik, V. Tkachenko who emphasize that “modern sociology” considers that developing of any social organism (civiliza­tion is not an exception) is inevitably connected with the deepening of its differentiation. Such disintegration causes simplification of social organism which goes as far as to the level of bipolarity, gets standard­ized providing strong evidence of civilization break” [100, 52].

The process of attaining of a scientific form by this concept is rather slow. However, it is in this part of theory of knowledge that a separate trend has been formed known to us as organitsism. Within it social reality is likened to a living organism. A. Kovalev defines it as “a methodological orientation of concepts of society towards anal­ogies with understanding of organism as indivisible whole, contrary to the mechanistic models of society with understanding of organism as a set of functional components where each component can be stud­ied separately from each other” [93, 248]. He distinguishes three types of organitsism:

First of all, philosophical organicism which is given in the writ­ings of F. Scheling, H. Hegel, romantists, A. Whitehead and others; it is derived from the pristine concept of spiritual macrocosmic or­der, universal unity, and is contrary to minimalism and mechanit- sism of French enlighteners, social physicist, English economists, utilitarians etc.

Secondly, bioorganical theories of a society, based on the ideas of the evolutionary biology and according to the similar prosses in the living organism, consider it as a superior organism, (sociologism).

Thirdly, social-psychological organitsism, which considers that totality of society consists in collective mind, consciousness, will as independent reality not reduced to the consciousness of single indi­viduals constituting “socium”.

The findings of such brief historical excursus of employing the notion “social organism” proved that the concept under consideration exists only by virtue of conventionality. It is used, indeed, as the ef­fective methodological research tool for investigation of variability of social reality.

With its aid researchers of all nations and times embrace and an­alyze organic totality of the world surrounding us. From recently natural scientists have expanded the organism concept even to do­main of engineering. That was pioneered by V. Vernadsky who wrote that “the course of evolution of thought of machine creation was com­pletely analogical to course of organisms’ propagation” [36, 32]. This distinguished Vernadsky’s idea was deepened and developed further by B. Kudrin [164, 236-237].

From everything stated above the following conclusions can be deduced:

First of all, the point of origin of the concept of social organism is hidden not in the depth of centuries but rather of millenniums of human history; it is necessary we should carry out more strict historical analysis of appointed problem to describe the roots of its origin.

Secondly, evolution of the concept of social organism which has been purpose fully evolving over mythological form through theo­logical and philosophical towards scientific one is well elucidated in existing publications; however, this concept has received neither the­oretical filling nor scientific embodiment in theory of “neosociogen­esis”.

Thirdly, the notion under the consideration embraces practically all diversity of social reality and is employed by researchers of social processes regarding to man identification as well as to community, society and its particular realms, such as to national economy, to com­monwealth and, after all, to domain of Cosmos.

Fourthly, the notion of social organism is being expanded to sub­jective and objective forms of a social world; this on the ground of substantial unity of the world demands their conformation to organ­ic unity by means of philosophy.

Fifthly, researchers fail to solve determined complicated episte­mological problem not as much as because of shortage of plenitude of general philosophic, political- economical, sociological, political sci­ence, psychological and other definitions, but rather because of in­valid outlook approach and deficiency of methodological apparatus, obscurity of general characteristics of essence and place of phenome­non under our consideration, interrelations of its constituents and, especially, inter transitions.

Thus, as we can see, mankind has gone a long way to be able to create, after all, the integral concept of its own development. To elab­orate it is one of the most urgent tasks of modern social philosophy. There are all necessary and sufficient premises to furnish the con­cept of social organism with the outlook perspective, ideological at­tractiveness, precise methodological form, and inherent theoretical purity.

The factological base (date-base) of the book is furnished by high- ly-intellectual heritage of previous generations of researchers - con­cepts of the collective development of planetary humanity in which empirical data about the social life of people has found its reflection. It implies that in the process of investigation the principle ideas of self-evolving of social life should be thoroughly reinterpreted from philosophical standpoint.

It means that in the process of investigation the principle ideas of self-evolvement of social life should undergo detail philosophical reconceptualization. Those ideas are laid in social doctrine of Marxism,

M. Weber’s theory of social integration, K. Manheim’s “mass society”, D. Bell’s “postindustrial society”, U. Rostow and J. Schumpeter’s “stages of economic growth”, “democratic elitism”, Z. Bzhezinski’s “technotronic era”, R. Aron’s “unitary industrial society”, “deide- logization”, M. Oakeshott’s “political utopia”, Ch. Birr’s “collec­tive democracy”, K. Popper’s “mild designing of social institutions”,

N. Rottenshtraykh’s “social institutions as forms of objectivizing of human will”, A. Toffler’s “superindustrial and society of the third wave”, A. Etzioni’s “active society”, Y. Galtung’s “post-revolutio­nary society”, J. Deytor’s “ transformational society”, J. Platt’s “cybernetic society’, K. Boldyinh’s post-civilization society”, A. Gartman and F. Rysman’s “society of consumers”, M. McLuhan’s “society of world village”, L. Broun’s “society without boundaries”, L. Mem­ford’s “society of balance”, S. Huntington’s “models of societal and political system”, V.Wilson’s “models of administrative productivity”, H. Khurshfeld, Zh. Roben, R. Cocks’ “planetary society”, Harrington’s “new forms of a wide democratic control”, R. Collingwood’s New Leviathan, “labor society”, “information society” and many other concepts of social eastern and western researchers. That is why nowadays all the efforts should be focused on constructive synthesis of all existing ideas into a coherent doctrine of self-evolvement of social life of planetary humanity.

In addition to this, we truly believe that each of existing concepts of similar type is a unique achievement of human mind, is a peak of intellectual mastery of their creators; each of them reflects one or several aspects of the problem under consideration, and thus, is price­less for humanity. In other words, if they had not been developed they should have been developed on purpose.

Thus, nowadays theoretical and practical comprehension of so­cial organism is likely to be the most complicated and urgent problem of social philosophy. All existing intellectual and other resources should be mobilized for its solution.

At the same time the research problen symbolizes the beginning of era of quantum philosophy. Besides the only two classes recognized by Aristotle logics - “true” or “false”, now such classes as “true”, “false”, “indefinite” (unverified yet), and “ridiculous” (in principle unverified) can be distinguished. More simply saying Aristotelian Universe, emerging as a collection of “things” possessing intrinsic “essence” or “properties”, is transformed into quantum (or existen­tial) Universe which is considered as a net of structural interrelations. The world of things has melted giving a place for the world of processes.

Social philosophy is being enriched by number of approaches to develop the theory of noosociogenesis that not only discovers a source of generation of social phenomenon, integrates it with the system of universum, unveils the essence, content, and organismic form of so­cial world, and moreover multiplies our knowledge about mechanism of ontogenesis and phylogenesis of a family of social organisms. It comes up closely to development of social technology of projecting and construction of social organism.

Modern social science will find itself rather close to the scientific adoption of social and logical forms of motion of the universum. The further comprehension of the world is not possible unless this prob­lem is solved. With the discovery of elementary particles that per­form as the bearers of social and logical forms of motion, natural sci­ence, and, of course, first of all, quantum physics can supply the in­vestigation of the universum.

Overall, the system of management, under appropriate program and mathematic assistance, gains greater perspective and freedom to accomplish the following: to imitate the systemic development of economic, social, political, and ideological processes within the frame­work of not only separate countries but regions as well; to lead effec­tive searching and regulatory forecasting of social progress of com­monwealth and its particular elements; to specify with the aid of model of social organism of a state a system of laws, construct mod­els of different subsystems of such organism; to conduct the opera­tions of projection and construction of social processes; to specify the objects of social science and lead the preparation of personnel for XXI-st century based on different from current one ideological and methodological foundation, etc.