Methodological approach to comprehension of the social organism

For productive study of the phenomenon of our special interest such means of epistemological analysis should be obtained which would allow us to study noosociogenesis as a peak of evolution of the universum within the framework of our Universe.

The thing is that depression in the world philosophical thought caused the stagnation of conceptual apparatus of philosophy and sci­ence. It is confirmed by the fact that the categorical apparatus of a particular native or foreign philosophy doesn’t reflect coherently pro­cesses taking place within the framework of our Universe. This ac­counts for researchers’ incapability to embrace and analyze coherent­ly social phenomenon as inalienable constituent of noocosmogenesis.

The synthesis as we believe and as it was recognized earlier is sup­posed to take place on the base of integration of Hegel’s Science of Logic that reflects laws of cognitive activities of the subject of com­prehension and Marxist teaching about social processes. Logically that the science of logics likewise the materialistic teaching comes to realization due to theory of reflection, fixes its object in the episte­mological processes and categories.

We are lacking the possibility to dwell in depth on evaluation of the condition of the most significant means of comprehension that are found in arsenal of both sides and all the more to have a compara­tive analysis of their heuristic possibilities. We will speculate only over a key moment. The thing is that in selection of the apparatus of philosophic analysis, we base ourselves on the general in the social domain, that is to say, on well recognized laws of dialectics, howev­er, principles of the letter are considered as the mechanism of the practical application of the former to the social reality.

A very common truth is that of thinking that any axiomatical means does proceed from a notion. It is important to bear in mind that under notion we mean the thought, which reflects in general­ized form the objects and phenomenon of reality, as well as relations between them by fixing the general and specific attributes - proper­ties of objects and phenomenon and relations between them.

However, notions turned to play a different role in the process of investigation. To be able to discern them it is necessary to reveal the mechanism of heuristic triggering of notions. It operates, as it is known, through the juxtaposition of noumenonal unities - senses, fixed in notions. Since the mechanism of operation of notions is based on the contrasting the senses fixed within them, then outwardly it performs as language. Due to the language spiritual world finds its self-manifestation in the objective reality. The language materializ­ing generates text. That is why learning about the social organism can be started from any notion. The main thing is to sense their hier­archy.

As we have mentioned in our case the notion “language” is a com­plex one, since we are talking about language used for conceptualiza­tion of both irrational and rational realities. Simultaneously they, irrational and rational languages, are supposed to supplement each other, to make comparison of results of investigation of mocrolevel with results of macrolevel investigation possible. It is the motion of the notions in philosophic investigation that constitutes the essence of the letter one, since logics underlying such new systemof notions is going to reflect the logics of self- evolving of the social world.

Some inconveniences in accounting for the methodological foun­dations of philosophical research are inescapable here. It comes from the fact that we are forced to employ some notions, such as, for in­stance, “social life” or “social organism”, before legitimate nature of their existence is proved.

Some notions turn to be the notions to comprehend, other turn to be the instruments for comprehension. Function, which a particular notion is endowed with in the process of comprehension of a phenom­enon at any level of philosophical analysis, is, to our mind, a criteri­on of their discernment.

In a course of investigation of the social phenomenon three levels can be defined: general philosophical theoretical level, special theo­retical level (social philosophy), and special scientific or “empirical” level (social and natural sciences).

At the theoretical level, for instance, the essence, structure, dy­namics of the social organism are studied and defined in the most general form. Mastering the most general issues of the social phe­nomenon philosophers elaborate theoretical, methodological, world view, ethical, value and ideological aspects. The problem of the so­cial organism is not represented as the independent one. Social or­ganism still is a constituent of some general scientific picture of the world.

Obviously it is at the second level, that is to say, at social philos­ophy, that the notion “social organism” is given a particular em­phasis, because it is here, where the structural and dynamic aspects of the social organism in different domains of its manifestation are determined and the knowledge of special sciences is systemically generalized. Within the same framework, interdisciplinary inves­tigation of the social form of the motion of the universum is being conducted. Undoubtedly there is an inner link between the evidenc­es about social organism received by different sciences. But it doesn’t mean that the general theoretical comprehension of the cat­egory “social organism” is simply a sum of its particular aspects.

The above-established thesis about the social organism as a sub­ject of social philosophy not sociology can cause some critics from some part of sociologists, who have been elaborating this problem for rather a long period of time. But our assertion is based, first of all, on the statement that social organism and society are different things. Secondly, it is not an accident that even by this time sociology cannot identify its subject of investigation. According to A.Comte’s concept, it supposes to study society, according to M.Weber, it supposes to focus its efforts at the study of human problems.

Precise and profound logic study of the concept of social organ­ism is the foundation and essence of the philosophic aspect of the prob­lem. It is the force, the analysis of notion, that makes the most pro­found impact on science, including social studies. G. Hegel (Lectures on the History of Philosophy) confirms this idea; he answering the question “What is the notion of philosophy?” says, that for in this science the peculiar characteristic is that its Notion forms the begin­ning in appearance merely, and it is only the whole treatment of the science that is the proof, and indeed we may say the finding of its Notion; and this is really a result of that treatment [53, 8].

There is a different standpoint in practice, that the theoretical elaboration of the notion “social organism” is possible only at a spe­cial theoretical level of its investigation. It is explained by the fact that any trials to elaborate this notion at the first theoretical philo­sophic level doomed to fail, because this level as the most general is dragging away attention from the concrete and scientific concretiza- tion of the notion “social organism”.

At the special-scientific level empirical investigations of differ­ent concrete - scientific aspects of social phenomenon takes place. By this we mean sociological, politeconomical, politological, accio- logical, ecological, pedagogical, psychological, and other aspects of social organism which, in their turn, are being dismembered and con­cretized.

The fact that theoretical knowledge, gained in the process of the development of social and natural sciences, for example, sociology and physiology of biological organisms presents the “empiric level”, is the distinctive characteristic of the present study. This peculiari­ty had already been highlighted when the analysis of the factological base source of the investigation was done. That is why the term “em­pirical base” is not used within the framework of the present investi­gation. It can be even replaced with the expression “factological base”. But, nevertheless, the factological aspect and the empirical aspects of the work are not separated, and they to the certain degree of analysis can be treated as synonyms.

Many researchers point out the difference in the above-named levels. But relation between the possibilities of philosophic compre­hension of the concept of social organism and sociologic approach, within the framework of which the social being is studied by methods inherent to sociologic methodology, should not be confused. E. Durkheim in his work The Rules of Sociological Methods writes, that as long as sociologist stay under influence of philosophy he will study social phenomena only from the most general side, from the one they re­semble other phenomena of the Universe the most of all. Though in such condition sociology is capable of illustrating of philosophic pre­mises by interesting facts, it cannot enrich them with new views, since is not discovering anything new in the object under the consideration. But in reality, if basic facts of other branches are also discovered in sphere of social phenomena, they are of some specific form that makes their nature more comprehensible, because they are the highest level of its expression.

Unfortunately, we still are lacking the material accumulated by natural sciences and needed for the elaboration of the concept of the social organism. It is connected with the fact that natural sciences cannot begin the study of the phenomenon of social organism, be­cause a scientist - naturalist cannot begin elaboration of this phe­nomenon unless he discovers its elementary particle- substance per­forming as a bearer constituting social body. Though, it should be noted, that its search continues unceasingly and since recently has been considerably intensified.

For scientist - naturalist the phenomenon of the social organism should arise as the natural body existing in the “space-time” contin­uum. Otherwise, contrary to philosopher or sociologist, scientist - naturalists simply cannot continue his work, cannot remain within a scientific paradigm. To achieve his specific goals he will be forced to construct a different image of social organism.

Thus, to select the means of research we take into consideration experience of employing of the categories of natural sciences, accu­mulated by morphology and physiology and other special sciences about the living organisms. For instance, in a process of the study of the social organism the following levels of its being should be distin­guished: potential, even cytoplasmic, molecular, cellular, tissue, or­ganic, and after all, organismic and others. To make sure that the social organism possesses a structure analogical to structure of a liv­ing organism, suffice it to glance over native sociology text book, published in 1996 for the students of the higher educational institu­tions [175, 135].

Thus, within the framework of the present investigation, the cate­gories of social philosophy play the role of the material, which is being studied, and require a particular attitude, namely, the social facts are supposed to be studied as the things. Let’s dwell upon this fact in depth taking into consideration its crucial importance for the construction of the research procedures and comprehension of the following deduc­tion of the results of investigation. In this context term “thing” should be considered as the social fact that due to its attributive features is able to impose its enforced pressure over the man.

In another words, social phenomenon is supposed to be studied not differently from any other object of conceptualization, which by itself is impenetrable for human mind; by this we mean everything relatively to which we cannot formulate adequate notion with the aid of the common procedures of the intellectual analysis; everything that the mind can embrace only under the condition of surpassing its own limits by way of intellectual speculation, consistently moving from more prevailing and more specific towards less specific and deeper.

That is exactly what, for instance, K. Marx and F. Engels do giv­ing to economy as a social phenomenon some sociological substantia­tion: “political economy has deal not with the things but with the re­lations between people, and after all, between the classes, but these relations are always connected to things and are manifested as things are” [126, 498].

In his turn also E. Durkheim stated that the prime and principle rule consists in the fact, that social facts should be studied as things in addition as things of the same rank, the material things rank, though, with some peculiarity.

The given E. Durkheim’s statement has deep methodological sense: it doesn’t assert that social facts are the things but proves that they should be studied as things. He writes in above mentioned work that in fact, the thing manifests itself through the property, which cannot be changed by simple act of will. It doesn’t mean that it is unchangeable. But what it does mean is that the change can not be obtained by the bare desire, some intensive efforts should be added to overc the resistance of the thing, which, moreover, not always can be overcome. Indeed, we have seen that such property is in a charac­ter of social facts. They are not the outcome of our will, even more, they determine it externally.

They seem being the patterns according to which we are supposed to shape our actions. Often this necessity is so urgent that we cannot escape it. But even if we are able to overcome it, the pressure we face testifies that we are in the presence of something out of our control. So, considering social phenomenon as things, we just get coordinat­ed with their nature. E. Durkheim leveled social facts with such facts as biological, psychological facts of human activities referring to, as it is known, norms, customs, beliefs, types of behavior and thinking, that is to say, facts of collective psychology and consciousness. So­cial facts are objective, they are found outside of individual, have own, independent from man existence and compulsory for a man char­acter; by his/her unsubmission individual exposes himself/herself to sanctions on the part of society. It is their mandatory character that distinguishes social facts from social phenomena other then so­cial facts.

Within the framework of the current investigation, general the­oretical philosophical categories jointly with the categories of social science and terms of natural science play the role of the means of com­prehension of categories of social philosophy. Jointly they constitute special cognitive-instrumental complex. Such name of the complex as “cognitive-instrumental” one suggests that its structure suppose to include two different types of means of philosophical investiga­tion, namely: the epistemological and ontological means of prepara­tion of social body.

From philosophic aspect, to achieve the main aim of investigation - elucidating the nature, essence, and contents of “social organism” - a complex of specific methodological means is required, since philoso­phy doesn’t have any rights to overstep boundaries of the notion-word. The development and narroving the philosophic aspect of social phe­nomenon consist in more elaborated and deep analysis which discovers new staff in an old thing. Philosophic theoretical knowledge by itself has some particular levels, differentiating by form and content. Ac­cording to form there are levels of abstraction, and according to con­tent there are levels of organization of social organism.

Such complex of methodological means is a subsidiary product of investigation. It is necessary to reduce obvious in the phenomenon, in which the motion of social world is revealed, to real internal mo­tion of the quantum vacuum worldgenerating substance.

The categories of the general theoretical level play the role of structurebuilding elements in the present complex; it is due to them that social reality can undergo epistemological and ontological anal­ysis. The categories of social and natural sciences play the role of in­termediate, subsidiary working elements, due to which such types of scientific analysis of social phenomenon are conducted. Here we can decide which means should be selected and in which combinations they can be employed in the process of investigation. It is a common knowl­edge, that philosophy, science, theology, art, and literature use the same words, and nevertheless, by organizing them differently they achieve such different outcome.

After all, we can speak about the structure of the named com­plex. It comprises two relatively independent and at the same time closely interconnected elements, namely: the apparatus for genetic analysis and syntheses; the apparatus for ontological analysis and syntheses.

By ontological analysis in this context we mean employing the notions of logics to study the moment of being of social organism as objective reality. It is not possible to make such analysis qualitative­ly without the apparatus for analysis both internal and external rela­tions, also for evaluating morphological (structural) aspect, function­al aspect of organism of the lower level and dialectical removal of its organism of a higher level.

Named complex of heuristic means should possess a number of attributes. Let’s list the most important of them. First of all, it sup­posed to represent the special form of development of conception about social phenomenon which is formulized by theoretical notions. It is theoretical notion that fixes empirical and theoretical knowl­edge about social organism.

As it is known, the specificity and role of theoretical knowledge consists in reflection of the essence of the subject under consider­ation, in our case, the social life. Since essential relation is interac­tion of contraries, essence is represented by either as contradiction or as a system of contradictions. The comprehension of the essence of the subject is possible not by means of elimination of contradictions, but rather by means of the dialectical solution. The analysis of all chain of real mediated links between opposite moments, aspects of reality is the principle means of finding a solution for contradiction. This principle is compulsory for any science; it is true for domain of philosophic knowledge as well. In this connection the study of the problem of social organism is not an exception.

The factological level constitutes a set of scientific facts and de­scriptions which serve as a base for developing the subject of research. This level is being formed at empiric knowledge. Empirical compre­hension of social life reflects particular aspects and relations of uni­tary and individual, taken separately as independent phenomenon.

To sum up, factological (empirical) knowledge in domains of eco­nomic, sociologic, politological, ideological, axiological, historical and other generalizations fixes the variety of things and phenome­non which as if lacking the inner ties. That is exactly what we de fac­to face today. Each of phenomena is represented as an isolated, clear­ly separated from all the rest, because with the aid of notion of this level on the external aspects and relations of social objects are fixed. The complex of the means for investigation should be capable of re­vealing the internal relations; otherwise, it is impossible to account for the mechanism of self-evolving of social life.

Secondly, complex of heuristic means is supposed to give possi­bility to make complete and parametrical description of the social organism. Completeness, as G. Hegel asserts, is understood in phi­losophy as the complete amount of identities belonging to a particu­lar sphere”. For I. Kant to describe the conception completely means the necessity to give prime and complete exposition of notion of a thing within its boundaries That is, as he writes in his work Critique of Pure Reason it must be precise, and enumerate no more signs than belong to theconception; and on primary grounds, that is to say, the limitations of the bounds of the conception must not be deduced from other conceptions, as in this case a proof would be necessary, and the so-called definition would be incapable of taking its place at the bead of all the judgements we have to form regarding an object [88, 430].

Thirdly, above named apparatus supposed to provide an access to account for the nature and mechanism of vital activity of organism as a coherent system.

The shortage of theoretical researches on the problems of the social organism is not some insurmountable obstacle. This circum­stance dictates the necessity to begin elaboration of such theory deductively. The methodological means of investigation seems to constitute the spiritual forms into which social reality should be poured off. Otherwise, it is not acceptable for theoretical think­ing of a person.

So, instrumental means able to accomplish in succession four types of operations upon social body, namely, genetic, morphologi­cal, functional and dialectical analysis), also corresponding synthe­sizing operations should be included in the cognitive-instrumental complex of the current research. It is according to this order that comes from the very general comprehension of the essence of the so­cial process, that we are going to study them.

To be able to select the means of the genetic analysis, it is im­portant we should proceed from several significant methodological speculations. First of them proceeds from the fact that widely known philosophic categories - essence, content, form of social world - fulfill fixed in philosophic investigation functions, that is why there is no point to dwell on them. Nothing can be accounted for without them.

The second speculation of the same kind comes out from selected by the author, and underlying the foundation of the present investi­gation, outlook paradigm.

Two in one unity of the substantial foundation of the Universe requires from outlook credo of a researcher some coherent approach to selection of the means of the social reality genetic analysis. It means that to make the analysis of such type appropriately, means for its accomplishment should be selected from the arsenal of both the ma­terialistic and idealistic trends of the world philosophic thought, and then they should be integrated in the organic system.

Suggested operation is not a new one. The researchers who be­long to mentioned contrary trends, have been actively implementing the same means of the genetic analysis. The only thing they differ in is directive concerning the subject and course of investigation, and also in secondary, in regard to taken ideological standpoint, means of interpretation of its outcome. In our conception syntheses should take place on the basis of integration of Hegel’s Science of Logic which elicits the laws of mental activity of a subject of conceptualization, and Marxist’s teaching about the materialistic foundation of the so­cial processes. It is principally permissible, because science of logics leads to practice as well as the materialistic teaching which also (but only due to the materialistic theory of reflection) fixes its ob­ject in epistemological structures and categories.

The third methodological speculation consists in the fact that quality and quantity of the epistemological means of investigation are defined by the necessity to have rather representative by size and profundity of the outcome for the comprehension of the ontological and evolutional aspects of the problem under consideration, since they are the keys to the following morphological, functional and dialecti­cal analysis.

The theory of origin and evolution of a social organism should have the statute of philosophic reflexion. It means that it supposed to account for social reality, regardless of where the latter emerges, and regardless of its possible functions which it may obtain in the process of unfolding of the Universe, broader of the universum at any point of the Galaxy.

That is why we can set out the theoretical investigation of the social organism beginning from the philosophical idea, which is a re­alized identity of the material and spiritual reality or comprehended consolidation of their form and content known under the name of social phenomenon. The confirmation of this thesis we find in Hegel (Aesthetics) who emphasizes that reality which the Idea gains as nat­ural life is on this account a reality that appears.Appearance, that is to say, means simply that there is some reality which, instead of hav­ing its being immediately in itself, is posited negatively in its exist­ence. However, negation of immediate externally existing members like the activity of idealization comprises more than mere negative relation; on the contrary, affirmative being for self is present in this negation at the same time [58, 131].

So, goal of philosophy is to elicit a social organism ”in external existence”, and not merely elicit but to exhibit its “activity” in this world, that is to say, to trace transformation of actual being existing in a specific form and mutating under the influence of process of spon­taneous self - evolving of the fundamental substance of the Universe.

Therefore, the social organism which can be accounted for only under the condition that visible merely in phenomenon motion, com­ing forward in the phenomenon, will be reduced to an actual inner motion of the fundamental substance, that is to say, to the univer­sum. Such “internal motion”, as it is known, is nothing but the “mod­ification” of its nature. In this connection, the pivot of genetic analy­sis of the problem under consideration consists in clarification of the way of transformation of the initial substance or so-called prime na­ture into the second one and after that,the logical transformation of the latter into the third nature.

Moreover, the nature of social phenomenon should: first of all, logically proceed from the prime one; secondly, be unitary with it; and thirdly, possess its own face. It means the following: if nowadays the world science has proved to everyone that phenomenon in refer­ence to prime nature, for instance, physical or chemical links, have the quantum-wave foundation, than the nature of social relations is supposed to have the same attributive characteristic.

The peculiarity of the epistemological analysis consists in the fol­lowing: it is supposed to be fulfilled with the aid of the irrational means, since the generation of social world is a process hidden from researchers’ eyes - it is not possible to model it, find analogues in the macro world or give other examples. The analysis of a named type should be conducted in such way, that to disclose what is accounted for in science with the help of the latent functions, and then to con- truct upon it the process of explanation of phenomenon at the macro level. In this case, only owing to intuition and trained sense of inves­tigator’s “unreasonable logic” some positive result can be achieved.

“Self-organization as the notion” carries a main load in a course of the epistemological analysis of social phenomenon. The category of “self-organization” concerning the processes taking place in the second nature is a novel one for the native school of social philoso­phy. The lack of appropriate elaboration of the problem is manifest­ed by inadequate interpretation and definitions which are encoun­tered in the last Materialistic dialectics five volume set. Thus, ac­counting for the cybernetic concept “self - organization” authors assert that the “internal ties and contradictions in material systems “are the source of self- motion and that the external ties are only “the condition of the self- motion realization” [See: 139, 160-163].

The same authors underline the role of immanent factors in orga­nization of the system,”The concept of self-organization proceeds

From the philosophical principle about the inner resources of de­velopment of substance, that allows to display dominating role of in­ner contradictions, which are found in a particular congruity with some external regularities. In another words, such interpretation of self - organization reveals the inner mechanism and inner reasons of self -motion of the material objects which belong to self - organizing systems” [See: 139,160-163].

In Philosophical Encyclopedical Dictionary (1989) such defini­tion can be found, “Self-organization is the process in a course of which organization of complex dynamic system is being formed, re­produced or improved. Processes of self-organization may take place only in systems which are notable for high degree of complexity and big number of elements, ties between which have not rigid but prob­abilistic character. The peculiar feature of the processes of self - or­ganization consists in their purpose-driven, and along with it natu­ral, spontaneous character: these processes, taking place under the condition of interaction with environment, are to some degree au­tonomous relatively independent from environment [188, 566].

The analysis of key words of above given definition proves that the process of self - organization of the social organism is complicat­ed, and to both the one and the other degree conscious, even if one can always speak about the presence of strictly clear realization within it, one should always speak about its inevitable though in the super- weak forms of its manifestation presence, which can be defined as the quasi-consciousness, probabilistic or precarious which can be ex­pressed in mathematical expressions, according A. Kolmahorov, as maximal complexity; spontaneous, that is to say, that is character­ized by unpredictable change of their parameters. In another words, the social world self-organization is the process of free game of intel­lectual forces resisting submission to a rigid determination on the part of both the substantial foundation and environment.

Self-organization, the most important philosophical character­istic of social phenomenon, is the domain of comprehension in which needs and achievements of practice are left far behind their theoret­ical conceptualization. The problems of self - organization have not received elaboration yet, if not to take in consideration works of L. Petrushenko published back in 70-s, who wrote: “Philosophical problem of substance self - motion is poorly elaborated, though it is one of the pivotal problems of dialectical materialistic philosophy. Without its elucidation proper investigation of the problem of the self - motion and understanding of objective connection of the latter one with systematicity and orderliness is not possible” [152, 146]. However, postulated by L. Petrushenko ideas didn’t found their re­flection in the conceptual apparatus of philosophy of 80-90s of the XXth century.

In the light of “uninvestigation” of dialectics law the rest of phi­losophy categories have not been developed properly. This fact doesn’t give an opportunity to investigate social realities today. Among the insufficiently developed categories, in the first instance such cate­gories as “a part” and “a whole”, “simple” and “complex”, “lower” and “higher” and some others should be mentioned. Substituted by prevalent intuitive conceptions these categories have been kept ap­parently in the background of late years and have not been attracting attention to them from logic and methodology of science.

To connect together theoretically the first and the second nature becomes possible only with the help of the mediation process, but for this purpose a special mediator is necessary, which is able to realize the mentioned procedure with the help of theoretical means. Thus, to prove theoretically the unity and singularities of the first and the second nature it is necessary to find particular universal means within our realities or even a complex of specific intellectual implements of such mediation. Provided such theoretical means is found, it will be possible to increase the efficiency of social phenomenon genetic analysis. Hegel, for instance, says in Science of Logic that the mean term - mediation - makes up the nerve of the argument, that is why there is only something, in which this connection reveals itself and where it becomes external [50, 275]. In the other place he defined mediation “as parity to itself being in motion”.

Taking into account the large scale of the first and the second nature, we may admit it acceptable to be a searched moment of medi­ation only such process as life, and admit the category “life” as the means of theoretical mediation. But in such case the life also should be defined by means of the unity of material and spiritual as the prin­ciple reason of the Universe rise. As mentioned above, the social re­alities are the product of the people’s vital activity. This fact makes it possible to consider the life to be the mediation process of transfor­mation of the first nature into the second one, and the human organ­ism as the implement of mediation. But this doesn’t denote that the means of mediation may be such simple process as psychogenesis!

For all that the temporary character of the existence of media­tion means should be mentioned there and then. For mediation as the means should be used for the purpose of the Universe self-develop­ment, and it is its direct mission to be consumed, used unreversibly for this particular purpose mentioned above. It is known, that any means should be thrown away after gaining the ultimate aim. From this we may explain the finiteness or lethality of the human organ­ism, for any means of mediation have temporary character.

The content of the mediation process lies in the subjectification of the first nature into the structure of the human organism, and after this in the objectification of just subjectificated content into the second nature. In practice it denotes, that the first nature may be considered to be the objective base of the social organism. The re­verse movement is also possible, i.e. from objectificated second na­ture to subjectification it into the first nature, i.e. into the human organism. We explain this by the universality of attributive features of the human as an agent of the mediation process.

That is why before the beginning of further study of the process of transformation of the first nature into the social realities, we have to define more accurately such notions as “subjectificated” and “objectificated” to comprehend the central category of the thesis and to show their connection with such notions as “objective” and “subjective”.

In the process of investigation we understand “objective” as ev­erything, existing beyond individual consciousness and independent­ly of it, and “subjective” as everything, coming through the conscious­ness and existing in it in the form of subjectificated content of the objective. Though, if the notions “the objective” and “the subjec­tive” are the most general levels of human nature, then the catego­ries “the objectificated” and “the subjectificated” describe the pro­cess of interpenetration of these levels.

Both, the subjectificated and the objectificated have a general objective content, the basic substance of the social world, the first nature. In the mediation processes under consideration the first na­ture, subjectificated by the man is transformed into the objectificat- ed form and exists furter in the form of the smallest indivisible parts (the morphs) of the social body. Further on the morph has its inde­pendent destiny, which is described by the regularities of morpho­genesis. But if the subjectificated content is transformed into the objectificated form, then the reverse transformation will be possible and even necessary, as far as this is the formation of species of one and the same universum. In these particular interconversions the seamless unity of not only ontological but also of functional aspects of the first and the second nature is formed.

In order to reproduce the process of creation of the subjectificat­ed and the objectificated material theoretically, it is necessary to have a special means - the procedure of formation of the social process. It is known that in the instrumental complex of investigation this pro­cedure of formation was widely used by Hegel as an effective meth­odological means in order to explain the begetting of the first nature phenomena.

For the effective explanation of the origin and the character of the social phenomena you should apply to the synergetics law. The philosophers of our country have made a long way in this field. The entire layers of problems have been left untouched. These problems are of much interest at this time both in scientific and in practical aspects, viz: self-organization of the substance and the society; the mechanism of progress acceleration;

the leaps dialectics and the development processes microdynam­ics; nonlinear nature of real processes, which is a general rule et al. even more effect this stagnancy produced on the development of the methodological means of investigations in the field of philosophy and general scientific field. It was for this stagnancy, that the entire the­oretical opinion was doomed to depression. The philosophy turned from the form of discussion into the means of attending to the class interests and even received a new denomination - Marxist-Leninist. This process started in the middle XXth, especially after expelling from the country of the group of the famous philosophers, such as I. Ilyin, M. Berdyaiev, S. Frank, S. Bulgakov and others.

The main difficulty in the explanation of the regulations of the social development lies in the fact, that changing to the market par­adigm of development; we come to the qualitatively different situa­tion. Here synergetic, but not linear laws remain valid. That is why special methodological means and devices of their application are necessary today in order to explain, for example, the character of the change phase of the social organism from lower level to superior one. For without them the mechanism of interstructural upheaval, that stays us from the course and results into appearing more complicat­ed social formation, can’t be understood.

But today, at last, we have come to the understanding of the world not only as a project, that can be ‘estimated’ according to elementary laws of linear perspective and forsee everything up to the end (Plato- Hegel-Marx tradition), to the ultimate ‘radiant’ aim (for example, Hegel Prussian state, Marx’s communism), but as the global system, which generates itself and exists exclusively according to the nonlin­ear laws. Such approach to the investigation of the social world along with the system approach and the principle of historism approved it­self in physics, chemistry, biology, technology, showing on numerous examples, that one of its most essential features is its nonlinearity.

If the synergetic rules are applied to the processes of social life, here you can investigate the peculiar states of the complex systems, being in unsteady equilibrium, to be more precise - the dynamics of their self-organization next to the bifurcation point, when even slight effect may result in unexpected, swift (“snowballing”) development of the process.

But one should see essential peculiarities in the character of the self-generating processes or of the formcreation in the first and in the second nature. The essence of such peculiarity lies in the fact, that “the order comes from the order” in the second nature, as far as the human activity, being based on his thinking, is a unique nongene­tropic process.

In characterizing of self-generating process of the social organ­ism the notion of chaos, which often is regarded as both: as the initial and as the ultimate point of the universum eternal self-motion, gains an important value. For example, by the end of the biological cycle an organism ages, ruins and dies, i.e. obtains the maximal value of en­tropy, chaos. In fact, such chaos alarms. It is absolutely destructive and it can’t be considered as a creative source, and a new organiza­tion cannot develop from it.

For example, in the condition of unstable stability of the social environment the activity of every individual may influence the mac­rosocial process. This reason explains a particular role of the leader personality in the history. Hence, it appears the necessity of every­one’s awareness of the enormous load of responsibility for the fate of the whole social system, the whole community. A human being is a source of activity. His behaviour depends on both: conscious and sub­conscious instructions. The potential of an outstanding individual may reveal in the open society, especially in the condition of its un­stable stability. The openness of the system is a necessary but not sufficient condition for its serf-organization. Everything depends on the relationship of the individual and the environment, on the char­acter of the interaction and sometimes on absurd accidents or on the awareness level of the opposed social forces. The administrative com­mand system as an extremely close, strictly determined social insti­tution of people-cogs in the wheel, demonstrated by all its history, what is a blind alley of the social evolution. It extinguished the ini­tiative, acts of activity (fluctuations), eradicated entrepreneurial activities, disabled itself to choose best of the best. When the initia­tive is punishable, any slight indignation falls to the same institu­tion, to the same structure. And nothing changes. Therefore, the experts in synergetics say, that without the unsettleness there is no progress. Thereby the progress realizes through unbalance, through bifurcation, through randomness [1, 200].

Finally, the criterion of the effectiveness of the second nature generation process should certainly be referred to the means of ge­netic analysis. Thus, one should start the theoretical development of the social organism from the reference to the source of producing of the social material by means of reproduction of the transformation process of the first nature into the second one by means of theoreti­cal analysis. The natural stares of the given analysis are the more precise definitions of the origin, the essence, the content and the form of the social phenomenon.

The final step in the creation of the methodological foundation of the noosociogenesis philosophical conception is the choice of the key method of the investigation.

On the grounds of the facts stated above, we develop the method of investigation, which is the direction of our advance through the object of cognition - the social reality. Meanwhile we suppose that the ultimate aim of another investigation may be achieved only due to the method of the ascent from the abstract to the concrete, which will make it possible to reproduce theoretically the self-dynamics of the initial substance from the unity of its opposites up to their difference in real life. It will make it possible to understand that the social organism is not only a specific form of the general basis of the Universe, but also a naturally reproduced result of its own development. In this case the substance as an origin (basis), relat­ing to itself as its own consequence (result), makes up a universal ratio.

Therein we are to understand what substance is as a general in its reality, and investigate the relationships of the opposite forms of its existence in the social organism. These forms are: singleness and multiplicity, existing along with the pair material and spiritual.

The method of the investigation remits the contradiction between the theoretical and practical, historical and logical. That is why the ascent from the abstract to the concrete is the means of investigation of the developing integral objects and its application becomes possi­ble in the field of philosophy and science, which attained consider­able theoretical maturity.

The method of the ascent from the abstract to the concrete be­comes a fundamental tool of the theoretical investigation of the sec­ond nature in its dialectical unity with the Universe, because it is a developed logical structure, which synthesizes other tools and prin­ciples of cognition.

The principles of investigation are the form of the practical ap­plication of the theoretical knowledge about the social form of the Universe motion, expressed through the dialectics laws. The princi­ple of orderliness, revealing the organic unity of the social organ­ism, in its turn, may be explained through two main principles: the system, revealing the morphology of the whole; and the self-motion, revealing its vital functions in ontogenesis and its behaviour in phy­logenesis. Hereinafter we shall examine their place and role in the complex of the methodological means of investigation. It is beyond all doubt that the given method gives the possibility to effectively investigate the social organism in all its beauty and complicacy:

- First, as the dialectical contradiction, consisting of the opposites (the dialectical principle).

- Second, as the unity of the substratum (structure) and the at­tribute (function), i.e. as the living substance (the substance prin­cipal).

- Third, considering all their main relations and mediations (the principle of the universal relationship).

- Fourth, in the process of their development from the simplest forms of organization to the more complicated and the higher ones (the development principle).

- Fifth, on the assumption of the inherent contradiction of the sub­jective and objective, which is contained in the given notion (the contradiction principle).

- Sixth, the source contradiction is considered to be the one, which is extracted as the result of the theoretical and practical activity of people (the principle of the theory and practice unity).

- Seventh, thereby the social organism appears in the mind as “uni­formity in diversity” (the integrity principle).

- Eighth, as an organic unity of the material and spiritual (the du­alism principle).

- Ninth, as the unity and multiplicity (the synergy principle).

Thus, gnosiological principles, which gain their integral expres­sion in the method of the ascent from the abstract to the concrete, are the methodological grounds of the investigation of the social or­ganism regarded as the result of the Universum evolution. With their help we can open the source, the nature, the essence and the content of the social organism. At this very point we may stop our selection of the tools of the gnosiological analysis, and just this conditions a leap to the analysis of the social organism ontology. The latter pro­vided with the tools of morphological, functional and dialectical anal­ysis of the social phenomenon.

The availability of such complex of methodological tools means, that the problem of the understanding of the social organism results in the level of the cognitive task and we may, at last, set to its solving with the help of the logical analysis.

The efficiency criterion of the method of the chosen tools ap­plication and the techniques of the realization of the given inves­tigation general aim will be precisely the quality of the philosophy concept of the social organism, which is to transform into the quan­tum theory of the social relations or into the noosociogenesis in the future.

Now we may proceed to the choice of the means of the social or­ganism interior and exterior relations ontological analysis, which requires even more nontraditional means for the philosophy analysis of the social phenomenon.

The argumentation of the social organism as the central notion of the investigation presupposes the availability of the methodologi­cal means in the complex of tools, which are for the development of the ontogenesis theory or for the explanation of the fundamental principles of the existence of the social individual. It means, that the social organism is to be considered as the original form of the global life as far as the organism level is the level of the living substance evolution.

Hereby in the process of investigation of the ontological aspect of the problem of the social organism the development of the ideas is possible from two directions: from the inside (to choose initial no­tions in order to describe the morphology of the social organism) and from the outside (to analyze the quality of the life activity of this morphological structure as a self-regulating functioning entity).

Consequently the system study of the inner relations results in the understanding of the ontogenesis of the social organism, which is considered to be the process of the development of the social life individual form, in contrast to phylogenesis as a process of the sys­tem group formation. Hence, the term “social organism” contains all possible diversity of the social organisms, which is difficult to deal with, by using the deductive method of investigation of the object, as far as it encompasses the wealth of the forms of the social.

Following from this, the change from the generic notion “organ­ism” to the notion “social organism” indicates directly to the fact, that among the methodological set of tools of the investigation one should keep such categories as: genus, species, subspecies, type, existence, so­cial being, phenomenon, objective reality, substance, actuality and some others, which would have made it possible to assure orderliness in the multiple social organisms, which is observed in practice. In other words, quantum (sense) is a “social organism”, that particular unity of multi­ple social organisms, which is, speaking the language of dialectics, can­celed by it. Specific peculiarities, which are certainly between the dif­ferent species of social organisms, are to be necessarily examined indi­vidually, each time with the explanation of the reason for the emer­gence of these peculiarities between the intraspecific, subspecific and other forms of their existence, if any are identified. And this is possi­ble, as far as “the more profound analysis reveals that the social or­ganisms differ from each other to the same extent as the organisms of the animals and the plants” [109, 167].

To solve this problem we intent to compose three groups of ana­lytical notions:

- the first group is for the ascertainment of the morphological as­pect of the social organism;

- the second group is for the analysis of the functioning process of the social body as a specific unit;

- the third group is for the elucidation of the self-regulation pro­cess of the integral system.

The tools of the morphological analysis. The system of philoso­phy categories of the given type should be a distinctive “material” from which the form for reproduction of the body of the social organ­ism is to be created. It means that due to the implementation of the category “morphology”, it becomes possible not only to substantiate the specificity of the material, of which the social organism consists, but also to see successively, because of the heuristic abilities of the morphogenesis concept, the parameters description of its organs and, at last, to reproduce the self-organization process of the social body structure.

It is natural, that in the process of study of the social organism morphology we should base on the general regularities of the mor­phogenesis, established in the thousand-year course of its study. The major contribution, as is known, was made to it by Aristotle, P. Bilyi, W. Garwey, H. Wolf, I. Hoete, Ye. Zhofroua, Sent-Iler, K. Ber, V. Gofmeister, Ye. Gekkel, I. Gorozhankin, A. Severtsov et al.

But first we should decide in essence on the possibility itself of the morphology concept application to the given field. The doubts on this account vanish as soon as the more detailed analysis of the at­tempts of a range of the scholars of the past and present times to de­scribe the structure of the definite parts of the social organism with the help of the morphogenesis regularities has been done. To prove the reasonableness of the application of the given concept to the so­cial phenomenon we will make reference to three sources.

The first source is the works of E.Durkheim, who logically per­sisted in the organismic concept of the social life order. He says in his work The Division of Labour in Society that in reality we know that the societies consist of the parts, fitting each other. As far as the nature of any resulting certainly depends on the nature, the com­ponents and means of their combination, it is clear that these fea­tures should be taken as a basis. And we really see further on that the general facts of social life depend on them. On the other hand, since these features are of morphological order, then the part of sociology whose mission is structuring and classifying social types can be called social morphology [71, 475].

The second source is the works of our contemporaries. Abroad, for example, Margaret Archer is developing a coherent “theory of morphogenesis”. Her work Culture and Activity, which was published in 1988 in Cambridge, is devoted to this issue. The author notes that the main positive trait of morphogenetic perspective is the realiza­tion of the fact that the unique feature that distinguishes social sys­tems from organic or mechanical systems is their ability to be sub­jected to the radical restructuring, which is for they eventually are obliged to the human. P. Shtompka (Sociology of Social Change) wide­ly uses this idea as a methodological tool for describing the morpho­genesis of the social body. This well-known Polish researcher distin­guishes between spontaneous morphogenetic processes and the mor­phogenetic process introduced, in his opinion, by the law [See: 209, 252-253 and 360-361].

Finally, the third source is the works of Ukrainian researchers. In our national sociological thought there already exist works, point­ing to the legality of the application of the ideas of morphogenesis to the social phenomenon. A collective monograph by Kyiv authors de­voted to the methodological challenges of studying the processes of social structure self-organization from the position of synergy and the catastrophe theory is meant here [See: 153].

So, there is no doubt, that when studying the self-organization of social organism we may use the apparatus of morphogenesis covered in the theory of knowledge by the shaping procedure. The last one has already been discussed in detail above; its exuberance for the present study should be emphasized.

The crucial point in the study of the morphology of social organ­ism is determining the substance of its body. Well-known is the hy­pothesis that “organs - are separate activities” (G. Hreyef) or the nourishment system, which consists of industrial clusters: the dis­tribution system, which consists of trade operations, the regulatory system, which consists of political and religious activities “(H. Spen­cer) and others. But if one strictly adheres to the conceptual frame­work, the morphology of the social organism should be explained based in the quantum wave nature of the social phenomenon.

This means that the analysis of internal social relations of an or­ganism can not do without the theory of the field, proposed by Gur- vich, as the substance of the Universe has a quantum-wave nature [See: 66]. Using this theory enabled L. Gumilyov to develop the orig­inal concept of ethno genesis [65]. Here the rich heuristic potential of the functional theory, proposed by M. Setrov should be applied. [154, 162].

The first of those components that needs to be considered here is, of course, the term “element”. The term “element” in this study re­fers to such minimum objective or subjective part of social reality, a set which directly or indirectly forms the organic system or organ­ism. Since the element appears as a kind of parting margin of the social object, its own structure is usually not taken into account when characterizing the social organism.

The combination of the homogeneous elements of the subjective and objective origin shaping a certain independent formation, able to ensure the realization of a specific function in the higher totality, is recognized as a component. In the study, on the contrary to a well- known idea, an element is not the identity of a component.

A set of homogeneous elements of the same species, here there are only two, namely, the objective and the subjective, are the ingre­dients. Being slightly ahead, let us emphasize that an ingredient of the subjective origin in a phenomenon appears as a set of attribute qualities of a human organism, while the objective appears as a set of

properties of social entities, the biggest of them being the society. Society, in our opinion, does not reduce to society.

The greatest basic term in the analysis of the social organism, of course, is the determining of the organ as it is the integration whole in its structure, which even conducts a relatively independent life, called organ scenosis.

Since a social organism is not a morphologically clearly separat­ed from the environment entity, its component units (elements, com­ponents, ingredients) have the original nature; they are the func­tional formations. It is therefore important to include to the arse­nal of methodological tools the concept of “functional organ” that emphasizes “the vague nature” of all with no exception of the above mentioned morphological units. It turns out to be an important in­dication of A. Uhtomskiy, who wrote that any temporary combina­tion of forces able to achieve something can be an organ. Though, when introducing the concept of a movable organ, he opposed the customs of linking this notion to the acuity of morphologically equipped permanent formation [See: 184, 149]. These functional organs, according to O. Leontyev, “act just as regular morphologi­cal permanent organs, however, they differ from the last mentioned ones in the fact that they are tumors emerging in the course of indi­vidual (ontogenetic) development [113, 412]. The peculiarity of these tumors is that, once formed, they function as an integrated whole both firmly and stably.

The fundamental difference between an element, a component, an ingredient and an organ within the social whole is defined based on the function concept. The function is understood as what should one or another social formation do in order for the system to main­tain its integrity and viability. It appears that the basic attributive property of an element is its ability to integrate with its opposite in a system and form a synthetic function of a complex formation or a component. In turn, function of a component as an organ of the so­cial organism is to be multifunctional within the totality.

The importance of the category “function” in the research of this problem is proved by the following theoretical position of E. Durkheim (The Division of Labour in Society). According to it, diversity of func­tions is useful and necessary; but since the unity, which is not less necessary, does not emerge spontaneously from it, then care for its occurrence and preservation should be a specific function within the social organism, represented by a certain organ.

The idea of possible interoperability between the above mentioned elements emerges due to their “function”, and is specified through the concept of “connection.” Connection is the mutual cause of exist­ence of phenomena separated in space or in time. The concept of “con­nection “is one of the most important scientific concepts, i.e. com­prehension of social organism begins with the detection of required persistent connections. Variety of modern ideas about the relation­ship finds reflection in variety of their classifications. This study uses the classification of ties suggested by E. Yudin [See: 211, 188­192]. Therefore, the original constraints in this study are the follow­ing: the structuring, the interaction, the conflict, the generation, the conversion, the operation, the development, management and correction. Along with them, we naturally distinguish internal spe­cies social relationships: economic, industrial, social, political, axio­logical, ideological, and others.

But this is not enough. We believe that the explanation of the formation and functioning of the social organism as a self-develop­ing integrity, has become possible today only due to the functional theory of organization [See: 162], according to which within the so­cial organism relationships should be considered as factors of its self­development, i.e. as a force capable of changing even the morphology of the object. Since the emergence of the necessity of an organism to perform one or another previously unknown function, not only the new organs, but even the system of organs can be formed.

Here are important for our research divisions within the mean­ing of the term “connection”. In the sense of social aspect, we agree with the famous definition of the term “social relationship” by K. Marx [120, 346]. He wrote, emphasizing the social character, that “it is a passive connection that makes a person feel the need is most prominent wealth, which is the other person” [134, 125].

In the physical sense we understand the connection as important the actually performed interaction of media of physical or material or physical and intellectual energy. In the cosmological sense it is the linking unity of the variety of social organisms. Here we are dealing with the non-local connections. The non-local correlations transcend causal-consequential relationships, but also nullify our traditional idea of “space” and “time”. We believe that if two “particles” or two “events”, or two of something else have nonlocal correlations, it means that the connection between them will be preserved even with the absence of signals between them, the fields of mechanical force, energy or any other “reasons,” thus impairing the position of the idea of hidden variables, and increasing the support of the concept of non­local hidden variables in social development.

Rationalizing based on genetic output actually available unity in its multiplicity of its general essential foundations [See: 68, 93]. We cannot do without an explanation of the term “connection” in the sense of cybernetics. The importance of inclusion of such kinds of connec­tions as “direct link” and “indirect link” into the complex of meth­odological tools should be particularly emphasized. Here we directly point out the achievements of modern biology, cybernetics, synergy and philosophical analysis of the management mechanism, which ev­idence the historical dependence, patterns and unity of origin of all living organisms, that within the whole complex picture of nature dialectical logic, the exact organization, repeated from the simplest to the higher organisms, is observed.

Therefore, in noosphere the management mechanism with its func­tional links and connections underlies the structures of technical sys­tems and social institutions, and thus a family of social organisms.

The discovery of the principle of feedback has been an outstand­ing discovery not only for the development of technology, but also it has had extremely important consequences for the understanding of the nature of the processes of adaptation and self-organization. Feed­backs are the major factor in formation of system properties and the thesaurus of focused behavior systems. The principle of feedback N. Wiener called “the rod of the blind” and “the secret of life” and the French biologist P. Latyl “the secret of general order (organiza­tion).” Any functional system under the effective use of negative feed­back becomes self-improving, develops evolutionary and requires no adjustment [See: 1, 76].

When there exist morphological units with already developed or developing functions and connections, within the social phenomenon there occurs the process of self-organization of social structures, whose nature and properties are virtually impossible to explain with­out the inclusion into the arsenal of research tools of the above men­tioned notion of “self-organization.”

The natural product of the self-organization process is a quali­tatively new state of a social object, which is characterized by the no­tion of “organization”. In the relation to that G. Yuhay in the General Theory of Life says: “The word “organization” originated from the ancient Greek word “organon”, which means that part of the organism that performs certain functions of the whole, or from the Latin word “organum”, which means an instrument or tool for achieving certain goals or results. In both cases, the “organization” refers to the inter­action of a part with the whole” [210, 95]. This is hard to disagree with.

However the category “organization” appears heterogeneous in our study. We have to use it, in one case as an internal arrangement, coordination of interaction of more or less differentiated and auton­omous parts of the whole, due to its construction. In the other case, we use it as a set of processes or actions, leading to the establishment and improvement of linkages between different components of the social organism. But there are some nuances. One of them is that the notions of a part and the whole in our case are extremely difficult to understand. In general, it is known that antinomy of a part and the whole is a paradox of the unity. Particular difficulty for understand­ing here represents the realization of the fact that a part can be more complicated than the whole, namely a person really is much more com­plex than any social body. And this will be expressed by means of methodological research.

At the same time we will avoid the use of the concept of “organi­zation” in the sense of bringing people together, for mutual realiza­tion of some program or purpose and acting on the basis of certain procedures. The principal difference between an organism and orga­nization is that the organism is born from the natural space life and gives birth to the others the same way. The feature of the birth is the feature of the organism. Organization is neither born, nor gives birth [See: 18, 150].

Each of above mentioned categories is in some way associated with the notion of “structure” which reflects the form of layout of ele­ments and nature of interaction between the parties and their prop­erties within the system. In the variety of definitions of this catego­ry there is a significant difference. In the opinion of many research­ers, the structure includes not only the scheme of relations itself, ordering of system elements, but also the elements themselves.

In literature, the separation of various aspects of understanding the structure is marked by four specific terms: “the structure as a whole”, “the structure in general”, “and the whole structure ”,“ the structure as such”.

But often in science the notion “structure” is used by itself, with­out specifying what is meant. Therefore, we share the position of those authors who consider unpromising such attempts of terminological differentiation of various aspects, of different interpretations of the structure to the detriment of its only meaning, reflecting the speci­ficity of the content of this category.

All the above mentioned in regards of the notion of structure has been taken from the scientific and philosophical literature, and in actually well-known. And we would not have cited such a detailed justification of the term “structure”, if it was not necessary to in­clude it into the categorical apparatus of the study the term “seman­tic structure of an object”. This is due to the fact that the element of this structure will be referred to as the above mentioned functional formations that have little in similarity with the common view of material structures.

Therefore, the above mentioned initial concepts for working on the problem of social organism allow us to approach to determining of the final term of system, the one that develops itself. Here we intend to rely on the contribution to the understanding of the sys­tem, included into the methodology of systemic research by the fol­lowing scientists: A. Averyanov, V. Afanasiev, I. Bleiberg, D. High, I. Kant, V. Kartashev, A. Kravets, V. Kuzmin, I. Novik, E. Semeniuk, V. Tyukhtin, I. Frolov, E. Yudin and others.

The universal definition of a system that, in our opinion, can serve as a basis, the starting point of contemporary interpretation of this concept: the system “is a set of elements, being in relations and con­nections with one another, which creates a certain integrity, unity”. Here the two basic elements characterizing the system are recorded: firstly, it is not an isolated object, but a plurality, and secondly, it is not any plurality, but certainly the related one, in particular, it has an internal integrity due to this connection [See: 23, 29]. A. Kravets adds to it another significant thing that isolation of a system from its environment, identifying the system as an isolated from the envi­ronment integral multiplicity of elements, linked with each other by the set of internal connections and relations” [99, 44-45].

Among the variety of existing definitions of a system, W. Sad­owski and E. Yudin created an invariant of meaning of this notion: “1) a system is a holistic set of interrelated elements, 2) it creates a special unity with the environment 3) generally, any system stud­ied, is an element of a system of a higher order, 4) elements of any system that is studied, in turn, usually act as systems of a lower order” [83, 12].

However, the social organism should be viewed not just as the system in the form that has already been discussed, but as a living organic formation or the “social body” It should be borne in mind that the Greek “organon “meant a tool, an artificially created instru­ment, and organ, i.e. the “natural instrument.” In connection with this investigation, we will proceed with the definition of a living sys­tem proposed by V. Kartashev in his work the System of systems. In his opinion, the social body as “a system is a functional set of physi­cal entities (functional organs. - V.B.), in some way drawn into the relations of assistance in creating of a certain lasting effect, which determines the actual possibility of obtaining useful for a subject ac­tion of results, corresponding to the initial (real) need” [90, 145].

A body that possesses an organ, or an organic body is called so because, unlike inorganic, it is not a conglomerate of parts, deprived of certain functions, but an aggregate, each part of which performs the function allocated to it, which is the essence of it, i.e. like a func­tion performed by each organ, which forms one or another element of living of an organism as a whole, refers to the very organ that is a part of the organism [See: 200, 105 and 438].

Finally, it is the last point. It concerns the need to build heuristic model of social organism. When talking about the system, natural­ly, it comes to philosophical construction of a nomenological world. Here we employ the ideas of Kant, Fichte and Scheling. Scheling, for example, says, that the property of the so-called dynamic categories that catch the eye is that they are correlative [205, 385]. I.Kant, as you know, has already talked about the conceptual design.

To construct notions, according to I.Kant, means to create their appropriate visual representations. Here we shall proceed from the definition given by I. Kant in Critique of Pure Reason. According to it, under the system, he understand the unity of all sorts of knowl­edge united by one idea. The idea is the concept of mind about a form of a certain whole, as it is it that defines a priori the amount of the versatile and the location of parts relatively to each other. Thus, the scientific concept of mind includes the purpose and proper form of the whole [See: 88, 486].

To build a model of social organism, which can be done at the heuristic level, means to create a certain chord structure, closed at a particular general function, from the concepts, describing the social world. This is fundamentally possible, because, to F. Sche- ling’s point of view, every concept has its place in the system, which is predetermined and which determines its value and limits of usee [205, 20].

To build the social organism one should be able to apply a system approach. In the description of the system approach there is no con­ceptual clarity in philosophical literature. For example, functional and - structural approaches the authors of a 5-volume materialist dialectics considered within the range of “other approaches with re­spect to the system, while R. Abdyeyev considers them an integral part of a systematic approach. Further, the same authors interpret some systematic and historical approach, while there is a well-known dialectical principle of historicism, which is again only a part of a systematic approach. In other philosophical writings “system - ac­tion”, “system - component” and other approaches can be found, all are mentioned without the explanation of their merits (and differ­ences), only for the use of the fashionable word “system” [1, 20].

The paradox is that though the systems approach, as an expres­sion of universal connection and mutual cause of phenomena, is the methodology of materialist dialectics, the main thesis of the dialecti­cal approach is formulated in violation of a system approach. Gener­ally in philosophy there is a certain difference in research, there is a differentiation of problems in the “circles of interest” of individual schools, authors that adversely affects the outcomes. As a result the very structure of philosophical science was to some extent “not sys­tematic”. Yes, there is a distribution and even contrasting of dialec­tical laws and categories that is reflected in the structure of some textbooks [See: 18, 47].

Tools for functional analysis. As you know, singling out of an object that is studied as a whole is related to the essence of function­alism as a principle of analyzing the phenomena of social life. “The original challenge of functionalism, as stated in the Philosophical Encyclopedical Dictionary, is the singling out of the whole “[188, 718]. Tool of singling out of the whole is caused by explicit or hidden prerequisites of theoretical thinking. In this case, the division of the social organism into parts, identification of functional dependencies not only among the aspects themselves, but also between the elements and the whole. In our native tradition the principle of functionalism is implemented through the orientation of a researcher to clarify the functions of certain social phenomena in relation to the other within the certain whole. Therefore, functionalism appears in the study as a methodological principle of effective regulation of social material. In its sense functionalism focuses us on the analysis of living of so­cial units, i.e., on the detection of mechanisms and means of their reproduction, repetitiveness, regeneration without changing the ba­sic parameters. He considers the possibility of temporary distraction from the dynamics of the process.

At the same time, it directs us to studying of the dependence, observed between the various sides of a single social process, i.e. to the need to quantitatively measuring the extent to which the chang­es in one part of the system are derived from changes in another part. An important role is played here by the concept of function, which thus has two meanings: a service role (predetermined) of one element, a component or an ingredient of the social system in relation to an­other or to the system as a whole (for example, functions of the state, law, economics, science, education, training, etc..) dependence with­in the framework of the system, where changes in one part are deriv­atives (function) of changes in another part of it. Without a thor­ough understanding of the interdependence of functions, we simply can not justify the structure of the social organism. And in this sense of functional dependence it may be considered as a kind of determin­ism. This thought is clearly underestimated by researchers.

Determination of specificity of functions of certain elements, com­ponents, ingredients is one of the prerequisites for creating of heuris­tic models of social organisms of different levels. Living of social or­ganism, reproduced by means of using heuristic models, based on the functional connections requires, in turn, explaining the moment of self-regulation. Inclusion into the complex of cognitive - instrumen­tal methods of the notion of self-regulation is extremely important for certain reasons. Firstly, the analysis of social organism cannot be brought to its logical end, i.e. the social organism as any organism is a system is self-developing and thus self-regulating. Second because the introduction to the arsenal of methodological tools of this research of such concepts as “information”, “management”, “regulation”, “guidance”, “feedback” and some others, we greatly extend our abil­ities in studying of this problem. Thirdly, it will bring the study of morphogenesis to its logical end, as in its course at the stage of func­tioning in the structure of the social organism occurs a special organ to implement self-regulatory functions.

Whatever ironic it sounds, but arguing for decades the idea of constructing of a single scientifically controlled society our national social philosophy has not allowed and still does not cybernetics be implemented. Even the notions of management mechanism, to say nothing of the feedback, are strange to our social philosophy. The process of self-regulation of the social organism is impossible to ex­plain without these notions. Self-regulation as any vital function of an organism, creates its morphological organ of control. The inde­pendence of the controlling organ of the social organism is indicated by its own life that is created according to special laws of informa­tion communication. The mechanism of support of dynamic perma­nency of functioning of controlling system of a social organism with­in a given framework forms a special controlling structure within the controlling organ, which has received a name in scientific litera­ture, homeostat. Homeostat is a basic functional concept of the mech­anism of information processing. It is realized in various physical media. Homeostat is a structure of management of material objects, which includes direct, inverse and cross-links that in its work pro­vides for the maintenance of homeostat, i.e. the dynamic permanen­cy of vital functions and parameters of the system. The reason for the appearance of such structure is the stratification of information in decision-making and executive, which eventually leads to a split of social systems into the one that manages and one that is managed. Therefore, a homeostatic system is a system that consists of parts, which is managed and which manages, when the latter is the homeo- stat. Homeostat model and its properties are developed by Y. Gor­skiy and described in books, numerous publications of school meet­ings of the seminar of homeostatics, at conferences, international symposia and congresses. Homeostat in living systems, unlike the unit of life, the cell, acts as the information unit of life, i.e. the cir­culation of neoliving is provided for only with its existence [See: 60, 172]. When analyzing the process of self-regulation of a social or­ganism, we need to use the epistemological apparatus of the young science homeostatics that systematically studies not only the organ of self-regulation, but also homeostat and its functions.

Here we can only regret that cybernetics and synergy, which made the greatest conceptual contribution to the contemporary understand­ing of the world, are not yet properly interwoven in the fabric of ma­terialist dialectics. In social philosophy, especially in textbooks, the essence of the most important philosophical and social categories of management, organization and information, not to mention the so­cial entropy, is not disclosed. Information is not yet recognized as a philosophical category, namely the information and entropy today became the fundamental concepts of the theory of self-organization and the theory of development.

Our analysis shows that information as an instrumental tool of ontological analysis is used by us as if in the intuitive shell, since it has not yet received the status of a philosophical category. Ironically, the question of its nature could not been answered even by K. Shannon who is the “father” of contemporary informational theory. Consider­ing this concept a purely mathematical one, he restricted himself only to the formula of calculation of the amount of information. The “father” of cybernetics Wiener, did not know the answer either, its determination he brought to the phrase: “Information - is informa­tion, it is neither matter, nor energy. Subsequently, the informational theory has actively developed. There appeared many areas: statistical, semantic, qualitative, algorithmic and others, but none of them will give an adequate answer to the question what is information and how to properly measure and interpret it. The problem remains unresolved up to this day.

Quantum - vacuum picture of the world straightforwardly points at the direct and the same with the matter role of information in the formation of social organism. A special role is played by nonlocal in­formation. We know that within the materialist philosophy there has been occurring a weak, extinguishing at times, controversy about two different approaches to information, which is continued for over four decades. The attributive and functional concepts of information are opposing one another. “Attributivists” qualify information as a prop­erty inherent to all material objects as the attribute of matter. “Func­tionalists”, by contrast, associate information with operation of self­organizing systems, believing that information appeared only with the emergence of life. Definite controversy in one of the fundamen­tal generally scientific concepts, which is still not resolved, signifi­cantly hinders the process of comprehension of social reality. Since we can not continue working on the problem in such an uncertain approach to the information, we proceed from he fact that during the presentation of noumenal world information is as complete express­er of its properties as the matter to the view of the phenomenal world. This our solution directly follows from the picture of the world ex­plained above. It shows how substance and information interact with each other. Based on the interpenetration of the material and the spir­itual into one another, “pure” materialists always will mention evi­dence of the fact that information is an attribute of matter, and researchers of the opposite direction can in good conscience claim the opposite, namely that the matter, on the contrary, is the attribute of information.

Thus, the latter ones, as known, view the proof of their rightness in fact that the signal is the expression of materiality, while seman­tics expresses spirituality. In this research we will use the term “in­formation” as the expression of intelligible matter, i.e. it performs the same function as the one performed by the substance for the world of sensible matter. It means that we are interested primarily in the axi­omatic aspect of information, capable of forming a system of norms of social reactions (trans-actions) in a human. Due to it, he/she can effectively comprehend the world of spiritual values. For us infor­mation is a kind of a functional organ, which itself does not exist until the emergence of the cause that induces the Universe to move in the vertical plane. In the course of the present study we are based on the concept of information, recently proposed by the mathemati­cian and philosopher M. Buhrin. His theory is based on two systems of principles. The first system answers the question, what informa­tion is and what are the laws of its function, and the second one con­siders the means of measuring of information.

For us it is crucial that M. Buhrin based on the first concept, came to a very important conclusion, which rejects the traditional views: information in its pure form does not exist. However, this “nothing” can be expressed and will act like “something” in action. It is just like a ray of light, it is invisible, it shines, makes the bodies, which ap­peared under its exposure. This means that information is the result of a specific process of second nature, as it is the functional thing. We have to find a process or processes that, which due to this view of the nature of information can appeary in a completely new look. It is es­pecially valuable that, based on another hypothesis, he proves the difference between knowledge and information. They are completely different things. The conclusion that at the first sight seems unusu­al is entirely new to science and is convincingly argued by M. Buhrin. Not going into the details of the author’s argument, the essence of his main idea can be formulated as follows: knowledge is similar to matter, and information is similar to energy. Such a correlation of the concepts of matter and information is quite suitable for justifi­cation of the morph of the social organism and explanation of the process of procreation of other organisms by the one. Moreover, in our opinion, the author of the above mentioned concept proves that in some cases there can be reducing of the amount of information, and in the other cases its amount remains unchanged, and in others there can even occur the increase in the amount of information.

Finally, the last point why do we use M. Buhrin’s information theory is to achieve the general goal of our research. It concerns those information processes, in which the information appears as a value. This means that movement of the Universe in the vertical plane (let us repeat that it can be the spiritual development of a human, groups, ethnicity, nation or people) is based primarily on the changing of the quantity and quality of information. The latter one means that the spiritual life occurs within the coordinate system “values - sense.” A living organism, as derived from the material nature, acts within the dichotomy “need-activity”. Let us mention that in the material forms of life that corresponds to the coordinates of the “space - time.” Then, of course, arises the question in which is of the coordinate systems unfolds the social life? What is the role of the space, time, value, sense, need and activity in ensuring of the self-motion of the social life? Here more questions arise.

The truth as always is in the middle of the fringes of misleads. Recognition of the ontological independence of information is not something unexpected, because the ontological foundation of our world, according to the previously justified our working hypothesis is twofold ideal materially single substance, the quantum vacuum. So we view the concept of information as a complete philosophical cate­gory. We will continue operating with the notion of information fur­ther on, distinguishing between the potential or structural (geno­typic) and kinetic or operational (phenotypic) information. Classifi­cation of information according to the mentioned peculiarities has almost become universally recognized in science.

Our ability to understand the phenomenon of self-regulation of the social organism was negatively affected by the long-term aban­doning by the official “Marxist-Leninist” philosophy proceeding from purely ideological reasons, of cybernetics as a science, which can re­veal the origin of management mechanism as a specific form of mate­rial process (the movement of matter), closed by information feed­back connections, which ensure not only the preservation of system stability, but also its self-development [See: 1, 293]. As a result of this neglecting, in the philosophical and economic literature there still exist inadequate definitions of management as asymmetric one- direction impact of the subject on the object.

Many authors continue to ignore or simply do not understand the determining role of feedback in the management processes. Accord­ing to O. Krushanov, for example, feedback is not “the most impor­tant feature of management” [103, 247]. Moreover, even Philosophi­cal Dictionary (1991) interprets management without the involve­ment of the notions of feedback, adaptation and self-organization. This understanding of the management phenomenon by the philoso­phers is not in the scientific, but as it has previously been, in the ideo­logical, confrontational plane, as allegations are still considered sub­stantial, according to which “in practice there are two types of con­trol: the spontaneous and deliberate (planned).” It is clear that ad­hering to such an ideological methodological guideline it is impossi­ble to come to understanding of the significance of the phenomenon of self-regulation for the processes of self-development of the social organism.

Morphological body can exist in various states: from extremely uncertain chaos to complete structural ordering. The first condition is defined in terms of thermodynamics and information theory as the entropy and the second as non-entropy. Let us mention that the en­tropy in the theory of information is interpreted as a measure of un­certainty of the condition of an object or as a measure of lack of in­formation, if it is about the social organism as a whole system. En­tropy is a function of probability. Its rate tends to zero if the proba­bility is close to one, and becomes infinite if the probability is zero [See: 97, 690].

Social science borrowed the idea of social entropy introduced by

I. Prigogin in 1945, the so-called fourth basics of thermodynamics, who was the first to formulate the laws of entropy processes in open systems. Wiener’ cybernetics and the general theory of systems by L. von Bertalanfi are mostly justified by the mentioned formula. So­ciology also takes advantage of the concept of entropy: the works of

J. Miller (1953), Rothstein (1958), Buckley (1967) analyze the orga­nization of society in terms of entropy and non-entropy. The verbal entropy models for theoretical analysis of society were successfully used by Klapp (1975 ) Halting (1975).

But most fundamentally to the problems of social entropy ap­proached Professor K. Bailey from the University of California, who in 1990 released the book Theory of Social Entropy, and the follow­ing year developed this idea in the” New System Theories in Sociolo­gy” [See: 13]. As it was correctly noted by M. Kuzmin, evaluating the place and role of C. in the development of problems of social entropy, it is Bailey’s priority in applying this idea to the sociology and ecolo­gy [See: 104, 249].

Regardless for the authority the idea of equilibrium which was dominant, as is well known, in the public consciousness from 1850 to 1950, and the authority of which was supported by the efforts of Spen­cer, Hobbes, Paretto, La Chatelier and Samuelson, Cannon and Par­sons, Homans, Stingcombe and Miller and well-known scholars, as Podolynsky, Lotka, Bogdanov, Kondratiev and others, who vigorous­ly defended the idea of dynamic balance of the living and other self­organized systems. Today in our national social science there have finally emerged the first works, in which the issues of social entropy are discussed.

Among the authors are Ahiyezer A. G. Holts, Y. Kanygin, V. Mazur, A. Nazaretyan, E. Sedov, Y. Surmin and others [See: 146].

Verbal analysis of the dynamic state of society with generators of entropy (noise, flatness, disinformation, etc.) made by Klapp is an example of the productive use of entropy-non-entropy model for the correct analysis of human communities at the organism, psychologi­cal and sociological levels. Halting used the concept of entropy to analyze conflicts in society and among nations. Bertalanfi used this term as a synonym for the category of “order.” In contrast to these authors, Bailey uses the concept of entropy to determine the status of system of public relations. As the equivalent of entropy here he uses the degree of presence of life in a certain society. For measuring of the level of entropy of the society K. Bailey formed a chain of in­terrelated variables: global (people, information, standard of living, technology, organization) constant micro variables (gender, race, age) and changeable micro variables (income, education, location, habits, work, etc.).

Unlike foreign authors, local researchers, for example, Kanygin and Kalitych, interpret entropy as a measure of distance of a human community from its optimal level of functioning. Chernenko and Chernyshenko, for example, correlate the notion of social entropy with the measure of economic and social freedom.

All of the above mentioned directly indicates that the era of equi­librium has ended and the era of entropy has arrived, bringing a ne­cessity and even inevitability of recognition of evolutionary changes of the system of social connections as a sequence of bifurcation tran­sitions.

The notion of non-entropy as a measure of organization, ordering of social objects, is complementary in regards of the concept of social entropy. Non-entropy and information are considered analogous, i.e. information is inextricably connected with the notions of process and management system.

When studying the connections between the social integer, the most complicated and the most effective epistemological and heuris­tical methods are implemented when examining the process of onto­genesis, when evaluating the development of a certain organism dur­ing its individual period of life. The most complicated here is the choice of the methods for evaluating, at the least of four aspects of the above mentioned process. The first of them is the defining of cat­egories, such as functioning from development. Due to that fact the types of connections, which are impossible to analyze the social or­ganism without, have already been enlisted, we can now reveal the specificity of each phase, which means, differentiate them. This de­prives us of the necessity to overload the thesaurus of our research with the semantic units.

Let us express some more crucial to our mind considerations. At present, the typical feature of the development of dialectic view’s vision of the world is the synthesis of of knowledge and transition from the local ideas to the transparent integrating idea of develop­ment, formulated based on the concepts of reflection and informa­tion which envelops all the stages of development of the objective world. Meanwhile, in the native philosophical literature when dis­cussing the issues of contents and place of the category of develop­ment in in the system of materialistic dialectics versatile opinions are expressed, beginning with one-sided narrow-local interpretations of development, considering it a local process, local form of move­ment peculiar to only certain forms of reality. For the most part, only three significantly different interpretations of development are dis­puted on: 1) as a world circulation of matter, 2) as the unreturnable qualitative alterations, 3) as perpetual transition from the lowest level to the highest one.

We will return to the correlation of processes of functioning and development within the ontogenesis and phylogeny of a social organ­ism. Here we will confine to the record of what differs the processes of functioning and development. The development of a social organ­ism differs from the process of functioning due to the fact that the first process is significantly detached from the simple change of con­ditions. Here the moment of development is not only its self-reveal­ing of the social, actualization of its potential, but a change of condi­tions based on the impossibility of preservation the current form of functioning due to certain reasons. Functioning for the most leads to a certain ability of revealing of the inner organization of elements and potential of a social organism, while the development leads it to the evolution and transition from one type or kind to the principally different one. That is why the laws of development, for the most part, function for the evolution, while the laws of functioning work for the organization.

The second aspect is connected with the necessity for us to use such a category as process when researching the ontogenesis of a so­cial organism in order to enable the differentiating the stages of its self-revealing.

It is clear that the moment of conception or the stage of origin of a social organism will be the hardest to comment on, i.e. there needs to be a verge drawn between the social life and non-life. In other words, the conditions leading to the origination of that specific clot of the social material need to be defined, from which, due to the certain fac­tors of social development, will originate some kind of a formation, which will be possible to define as a “social organism”. As it is known, in biology, this embryonic formation, which later transforms into a living organism, is a zygote. We will also need to provide evidence to the necessity and importance of the stage of a zygote in the history of origination of the social organism, i.e. during the conception namely every organism inherits what other organism, begetting it, contain.

The central concept of our study, the “social organism”, requires from a researcher the implementation of such research methods, the utterly specific terms, such as homeostasis, homeorysis, and ho- meoklasis. At this point there is a necessary to explain in detail, i.e. these are completely new to our native social philosophy, concepts.

Since the object of research is a living system, which, naturally, contains such a peculiarity as patterns of self-development of a liv­ing matter, then in the ontogenesis after the stage of emergence the stage of gomeorhesis takes -place. In the course of this stage the for­mation of the social organism occurs. It needs to be distinguished from the stage of homeostasis. G. Yugay in his work The General Theory of Life distinguishes the above mentioned notions as follows “If homeostasis means the constancy of a moving equilibrium, then homeorhesis means the sustainability of development of a living system with the changes in it, including the transition from one type of equilibrium state to another, which means that gomeorhesis encompasses homeostasis as well” [ 210,137]. Further on he continues Homeorhesis can be distinguished from homeostasis by many vestiges. Firstly, gomeoresis is more dynamic and functional in its nature, when gomeoresis is a preservation of an equilibrium state by means of auto regulation. Homeorhesis - is an autonomized process of new formation and self-organization, meaning that the change of state, even the homeostasis state, leads not only to achieving of new forma­tions, but also the stabilizing of forms (I. Schmalhausen). Second, if homeostasis persists within certain variables, then homeorhesis changes all the variables of a system by means of their dynamic change (new formation). Unlike homeostasis, which does not cause the emer­gence of new formations, homeorhesis leads to their appearance. Thirdly, homeorhesis assumes the changes throughout the whole pro­cess of system development, leading to achieving of the final result ” [210, 137-138].

It is important to emphasize here that the notion homeorhesis of a social organism does not characterize a self-regulation, but a high­er level of accommodation of a living system - the automization, which of a paramount significance for the advancement if Space and which is a synergetic self-organization.

The of concept of homeorhesis is very close in meaning to the concept of system genesis by P. Anokhin and stabilizing selection by I. Schmalhausen. G. Yuhay correctly, to our mind, stresses the difference between homeorhesis system genesis, seeing it in the fact that system genesis rather focuses on the final stage, when home- orhesis concentrates on the whole development process.

Social organism, as evidenced by history, ages with time and even­tually dies. In terms of catastrophe theory, the aging of a social or­ganism is a gradual quantitative accumulation of systemic contra­dictions, and death (necrogenesis) is a qualitative skip towards the “new entity”.

Systemic contradictions, connected with the aging of an organ­ism can not be resolved within the organization, enabling its vital functions. Death - it is not a qualitative skip from one organization to another, but from an organization to chaos. V. Voitenko says that “the systems, which are not able to resolve the emerging contradic­tions, may be called the final organizationally, and the process of their increasing destabilization may be named homeoklasis” [41, 37-38]. The vanished civilizations, the collapse of the Soviet Union, Yugo­slavia, and other social organisms, today demonstrate that the term homeoklasis is right to exist within the social science. It should be an effective means of studying the social organism.

Development of the concept of system aging, relying primarily on the study of its organizational prerequisites, rather than phenom­enological consequences, can be traced from antiquity till present. The most accurate formulation of it belongs to A. Bogdanov (1927) who observed the aging within the framework of his “common orga­nizational science” (tektology). A. Bogdanov’s view of a living or­ganism as a “system of organized energy” can be extended towards the social organism as well. His main thesis is that the system’s dif­ferentiations cause the system’s contradictions, meaning that the end development means the end of formation of a system with all its attribute advantages and disadvantages; and aging is a natural change of a mature system, the direction and pace of which depend on the balance of its qualities.

It seems surprising that scientific communism, which proclaimed the demise of such social institution as the state, has not been able to study this process form the theoretical point of view for many years of its existence.

Otherwise, now we would have an effective epistemological means of analysis of social phenomena. However, in our research we have to borrow a methodological tool we need from the evolutionary biology. This tool is the concept of homeoclasis, which we will use to identify the process of system destabilization of a social organism, which fi­nally causes its death. At this point, homeoclasis is viewed as a logi­cal model of aging of a social organism, and social age is a quantita­tive model of homeoclasis [See: 42, 124].

The third aspect is related to fact that in an instrumental study the differentiation between categories as “organism” and “mecha­nism” needs to be made. It is caused by a significant increase in the theoretical level of modern scientific thinking. It is required of the contemporary social science not only to observe a social phenomenon from the dialectical point of view, which means to observe it not as an immutable, complete process, but to analyze it as a process.

Beginning with Hegel’s times it gradually became standard, while the process of social phenomenon itself is to be viewed as a dynamic factor in its self-development. Therefore, the contemporary approach to the studying of the social world assumes separation of it into elements, conducting of a theoretical reconstruction of its structure and subsystems. It also requires the explanation of principles of their interaction, i.e. requires proof to the mechanism of self-motion.

The complexity of achieving such a level of philosophical reflec­tion is that there exists a certain discrepancy between the set of cat­egories used in philosophy to describe the phenomena of second na­ture and scientific ideas of the structure of the Universe. Moreover, similar “gaps” exist within the social sciences, especially between the categorical tools used for the analysis of the second nature and noosphere. If we can not conceptually explain self-development of a social organism by philosophical means, whatever efforts was put into it, will be undermined in terms of the needs of contemporary social theory and practice.

The notion of “mechanism”is the key concept for evaluation of the dynamic aspect of a social organism. With the introduction of this term into the methodological tools of a research, the philosoph­ical analysis of the problem is brought to its potential (in terms of theory of comprehension) limit, since after the explanation of inter­action of elements within the mechanism of self-development of a social organism, nothing more can be added on the merits.

As it is known, the term “mechanism” came to the field of study of social phenomena from the fields of engineering and mechanics, where it originated, and from biology, where it has been reliably work­ing for quite a long period of time (e.g. a mechanism of selection, succession, etc). Within a social organism it penetrates all of its or­gans and systems: economic (market mechanism, pricing), social (mechanism of reproduction, social security), political (state regula­tion) and spiritual (spiritual renewal mechanism) and others. Though, if a new organism could be opened within the social organism, the philosophical side of it would mean recognition of causality in the social world [See: 88, 23].

The mechanism is not equivalent to the organism. Many research­ers have emphasized this point, Scheling for example, who once wrote that “the world is the organization, and the general organism itself is a prerequisite (and thus positive)of a mechanism. Certain sequences of causes and actions (which create the visibility of a mechanism), viewed from this point of view, disappear as infinitely small lines in the general circulation of an organism that lies in the basis of the move­ment of the world” [205, 91]. O. Spengler in his work Decline of the West also outlines the distinction of these two concepts [See: 208, 481].

Organization is not a mechanism. According to Vernadsky, “or­ganization is dramatically different from the mechanism due to the fact that it is continually in formation, moving all of its smallest par­ticles of material and energy” [39, 15].

In this issue we rather just stand on the merits of the case defini­tion given by N. Moiseyev in Man and the Noosphere. He writes: “When saying the word” mechanism “we mean some set of logical re­lations, procedure of changes, crucial for the emergence in any evolv­ing (e.g., developing) system” [141, 43]. The main features of the social organism are the goal, the means of achievement, interconnect­edness, memory, information and others.

So we dwell on the fact that the term “mechanism” when it is used correctly and its content is covered completely, will let us reveal the dynamic aspect of the process of ontogeny firstlyy, and secondly, the process of phylogeny of a social organism.

Finally, the fourth aspect is related to the fact that integral functioning and development of the social organism as a self-reg­ulated object appears from the outside as its self-motion nature, which we understand as the quality and direction of self-revela­tion of the internal content of a certain phenomenon into the ex­ternal environment. Therefore, the notion of “nature of self-mo­tion” is also a methodological tool of our research. Partial change in the nature of self-motion of a social organism is the moment of its transformation within the framework of an established mor­phological structure, i.e., without changing of the basic parame­ters. Systematization of characters(types) of self-motion would be necessary to offer within this research. However, we do not have methodological tools for doing so yet. It seems, they will have to be created in the process of logical analysis when theoretical con­tours of the social organism are outlined more clearly. Çàðàç æå ïðî öå ãîâîðèòè çàâ÷àñíî. At this point they are too early to be discussed.

After the explaining of the mechanism of self-motion of a certain social organism, and establishing of variations of its character, the formulating of the Basic Law, which livelihoods of family of social organisms conform to, will remain our primary goal.

At this point, we can finish selection of tools for analysis of in­ternal connections of a social body, i.e. above mentioned philosophi­cal categories enable intact description of ontogenesis of a social or­ganism of any kind and level. Now there is a necessity to progress to the formulating of methodological tools for the analysis of external connections of a social organism.

This means that another significant step towards methodologi­cal provision of the logical analysis of the issue should be taken - to choose the tools for the analysis of external connections of a social organism, which are implemented, as it is known, in phylogeny. In this regard, it becomes clear that the category of “phylogenesis” is the primary means of comprehending of the problem of a social or­ganism at the final stage of research.

The concept of understanding of phylogenesis as a sequence of ontogenys has been formed in science. Phylogenesis, as it is the most widely understood, is the historical development of organisms. Fur­thermore, according to F. Engels, the history of human society dif­fers from the history of nature “only as the process of development of self-conscientious organisms” [129, 551]. At this point, historical science can and should speak. Moreover, there is no need to mention different points of view on the correlation of ontogeny and phyloge­ny, i.e. there has been much debate on the issue in biology and a sin­gle conclusion was reached, that any being, and thus social being in­cluding, in the course of ontogenesis goes through all of the stages of phylogenetic development, and phylogenesis, in return, is based on the organic integration of certain ontogeny.

As it is known, the process of phylogenesis is studied by a special science - phylogeny. In this regard, its categorical tools should be included in the complex of tools of the research. Phylogeny as the science of historical development (phylogenesis) of the world of or­ganisms, their types (sections), classes and groups (orders), families, genera, species and individual organs, should show the evolution of family to a certain extent as well [See: 31, 408].

Interpretation of the phylogeny as the changes in phenotype of social organisms, which are involved in natural selection, enables detection of the process of development of any systematic group with­in the family of social organisms that we will call phyla. All the com­plexity of perception of this thesis is that phyla can be visualized by only some, and sometimes even by only one social individual. Howev­er, this verity does not affect the quality of development of a social organism in the phylogenetic perspective. Clearly understanding this fact, in the conclusion of the 2nd edition of Capital, K. Marx cited the remarks of the Russian book reviewer. To his mind, the true mean­ing of the book was “clarifying those private laws, which emergence, existence, development and death of a social organism and replace­ment of it by another organism, the higher one, are conformed to” [See: 186, 21].

The inclusion of the category of “phylogenesis” to the analysis of a problem of a social organism automatically brings us to deepening of understanding of dissipative nature of a social organism that its most important attributive feature. Structures of this type may emerge randomly only at maintaining of a constant exchange of mat­ter, energy and information between the system that is being self­organized, and the environment, which is organizing. “The concept of “dissipative structure”, - according to I. Dobronravova, - means a structural duration of the whole, which became open towards the environment, which it had been generated by, and reproducing itself in a constant exchange of energy and substance with the environment” [68, 86]. If it is proved that living organisms are special dissipative structures, the social organism too, due to substantive unity between them, should be viewed as a stable integrity that is in constant inter­action with information, energy and material flows, circulating in Space.

Recognition of this organism as a dissipative structure means that the formation of this kind exists as a continuously operating self­renovate system: it does not simply exist, but it always subsists at a state of continuous advancement. In support of this facts, recognized by science foe another species, physical organism, can be given.

For example, L. von Bertalanfi back in 30-40 years of the XXth century, constantly stressed that any living organism is an open sys­tem, the very existence of which is determined by constant flow of energy and matter though it. I. Schmalhausen who researched fun­damental dependences in physical organism, adheres to this same position as well. K. Timiryazyeva evidenced the same: “the main fea­ture characterizing organisms, which distinguishes them from non­organisms lies in the constant exchange between their substance and the substance from the environment. An organism constantly cap­tures the substance, converts it to a similar one, digests it, assimi­lates, changes and excretes“ [See: 8, 431].

This process is present in the social organism as well with the prin­cipal difference being that here the exchange occurs mostly not with substance, but with information. Mastering of information means transferring it to the state of knowledge. And we will have to deter­mine in the course of subsequent logical analysis, what are the social organism’s exchanges with the environment and how they occur. It probably has a specific form of product-exchange with the environ­ment that gave birth to it, as well as with other types of organisms.

“The connection of internal and external for dissipative struc­tures, as for open stationary integrities, remains very close, and the margin between them is relative. Actually, all the elements in this field become” internal for a “dissipative structure, performing cer­tain functions being one of its parts” [68, 111]. However, elements are not yet assigned to these parts and can perform various functions, dynamically moving from one part to another. National movements, for example, in one case, act as destroyers, while others act as cre­ators.

Social organism, as a dissipative system should be corresponded to by cosmological understanding of the environment. We are going to define it as a single space beginning that performs as a bearer of the future organization of a social body as an unlimited field of am­biguous ways to develop a family or a set of social organisms.

External relations should reflect the value of specific roles of external complimentarity principle and principle of diversity in the self-development of a social organism. Previously, scientists believed they were domain of cybernetics and therefore, did not include them to the apparatus of social philosophy, and, without them, it appears impossible to explain the process of interaction of a social organism and environment.

This will enable to finally overcome one-sidedness when analyz­ing the sources of self-development of a social organism, i.e. here, the ideological attitude of materialism to find the source of only with­in a social phenomenon is creatively overcome. So far, it has been distracting attention of researchers from consequential analysis of its interconnectedness and interaction with the environment. Here comes the theoretical and ideological justification of the necessity and possibility of existence of the Iron Curtain and the Berlin Wall between East and West. In practice, as it is known, it failed. There­fore, the case of new countries emerged in the former Soviet Union territory, clearly shows that they can not achieve a breakthrough and sharply reduce the gap formed in the rate and level of their social development, without the help of more developed partners.

Studying of international relations is necessary for more com­plete understanding of mechanism of self-motion of social world. To do this consistent applying of the following key categories of analy­sis of social phenomena as “evolution, development, progress, regres­sion, transformation and others, should be done. Further this will be briefly explained.

None of the researchers doubts the correctness of the applying of the category “evolution” to the study of the noosocial genesis phe­nomenon, which we understand as consistent complication of parts and integration of social elements simultaneously with the expan­sion of the overall structure, which they are part to.

Thus, evolution is an increasing sequence of “entires”, from the simplest organizational forms to the more developed and advanced. The evolutionary process has its own specific arrangements. There­fore, in this study we can not do without the application of Darwin’s famous triad: variability, heredity and selection. It is important to establish their specific distinction from the mechanisms operating in the first nature. It is clear that the selection process in the social organism, for example, occurs differently from the organic world. Social development is conditioned and determined by the influence of ideas that become more and more clear more powerful, and they influence technical and practical experience that reaches increasing perfection.

Our social science, wholesale abandoning the idea of studying so­cial life as an organism form of existence of a logical living matter, in practice only confirms its ideological commitment to Marxism-Le­ninism; and thus, loses the scientific development tremendously when explaining the laws and regularities of social development. Social Philosophy and Sociology today can not mitigate the pain of birth of a new Ukraine. And the reason is that they do not recognize the pos­sibility of application of three well-known principles of Darwin’s the­ory of reproduction of living organisms, namely: variation, selection and succession, to explain the patterns of noosocial genesis.

For this reason, there is no need to discuss the social technology of social design of community institutions and systematic, or at least their multi - criteria optimization. Even the idea of directional de­velopment as a compromise between processes of self-regulation is not cultivated in native philosophical and sociological literature.

At the same time, foreign sociology has seriously turned to Dar­win heritage in recent times. Researchers, studying problems of evo­lution of social life, have come to a conclusion that inspiration can be drawn from biological evolutionism, they have, therefore, started developing the “evolutionary” (not “evolutionist) theory of social and cultural changes, theory of social and cultural changes, increasingly using some results of modern biology [See: 209, 137].

To replace the earlier theories, known as the “theory of develop­ment” or “ontogenetic theory” and “stages theory” or “organic theo­ry of differentiation”, some researchers of social processes have sug­gested the “ theory of natural selection” and the theory of “social and cultural change” and “selective preservation”. Their authors believe that Darwin’s model of the evolution of species “reveals the analyti­cal similarities between biological and social-cultural evolution”.

By this means evolutionary thinking progressed from the periph­ery of social theory to its center. In the view of researchers were the problems of the evolution of systems of rules of human behavior dur­ing the transformation of social systems, the effectiveness of the mechanism of selection, i.e. selective production of models of behav­ior and consciousness within a given society, and finally, the causes and nature of mutation in a family of social organisms.

For example, Berne and Dietz distinguish “p-selection, deliber­ately undertaken by the powers, reformers, leaders, setting rules for others, ‘s - the selection “, inadvertently created through coercion or due to the opportunities arising in the structures, which are being established, ‘m-selection (‘m-selection) that “works” through the natural, objective limitations of physical environment. For example, people can not establish regulations, violating the laws of physics or biology. They offer and the means of social selection. One of the lat­est their suggestions is a thesis on “the struggle for activity, i.e. for the liberation from negative coercion and expansion of positive free­dom of transformation of their own society.

Despite the fact that the proponents of neoevolutionist theory of social-cultural selection claim, it is still “at an early stage of develop­ment within the system of social sciences”, it still has certain advan­tages, the most important being: abandoning the hard determinism finalism, fatalism, linearism, gradualism and concentration of at­tention on the accident, probability, multi-ways, limitations, open­ness (or dissipativeness) towards qualitative factors and the critical role of human activity.

In addition, the category of evolution when imposed on phylo­genesis of a family of social organisms enables observation of the live­lihood of an individual specimen within a certain family as a process of expedient coordination of integration, which includes cooperation, integration and disintegration. P. Kropotkin observed mutual help among living creatures, rather than fight for survival as the prima­ry driving force of evolution [See: 102]. He was the first to initiate the cooperative model of human society.

In this regard, not only those factors, binding the individual shap­ing of the body (which is marked by progressive differentiation) in a holistic process, should be explored deeper, but also the factors, de­termining coordination of parts in the phylogenetic transformations of the body (and we know that both these changes are marked by the progressive dismemberment) should be studied as well. Finally, the most important matter is the question how this binding mechanism historically originated and what is its role in the further evolution. This is a chain of not yet developed matters, which are of a great the­oretical and practical importance. However, they all will vanish when the issue of selection in the family of social organisms is resolved. “The concept of selection, which, as A. Bogdanov emphasized, paved its way before all in biology, is, however... universal: organizational science should apply it to all complexes, their systems, connections, boundaries” [25, 178].

So, when choosing categorical apparatus for the study of foreign relations of a social organism, we find the necessity to include such tools as the notions of social progress and regress in the research. “Progress and regress are local and more complex cases of variabili­ty, common to all organisms and inorganic bodies. Transformations within a social organism are expressed even sharper than in organic nature, including human being.

It naturally follows from the laws of variation”, - wrote G. Hreyef [63, 207]. This aspect of the problem is not new. Literature shows that the idea of social progress amounts to, according to certain re­searches, only about 200-300 years, when other consider it has been around for over 2000-3000.

Here we are facing the problem of selection of a criterion for eval­uating the effectiveness of self-development of social progress. The search for this reason of classification is one of the most difficult moments in the study. Without going into the issue, we will under­line only that today in existing philosophical and historical litera­ture, different points of view on this issue can be found. We will spec­ify some of the most typical.

As it is known, A. Comte observes the progress as the develop­ment of order, i.e. the organization. Later, the same idea was devel­oped by Stuart Mill in “representative government”, and prominent historians Buckle and Grotto added method and theory of the teach­er to the study of old and new centuries [See: 63, 155].

Except for this organistic view of the social organism, which had been outlined by Aristotle, and was further developed by German Metaphysics, the doctrine by Auguste Comte on a continuous and log­ical progress is adjacent to the views of Condorcet who also saw the measure of social progress in the progress of human knowledge. Like I.Kant, Auguste Comte believes that the present state of society is caused by the state, with which it is connected, as result is connected with reason; and the law of social continuity he adds the social dy­namics. Steps of human progress are also of a great interest within the system of Comte. This theory is subjective, drawn, as well as his sociological doctrine, from a false theory of human abilities. Howev­er, these steps are generally correct, although they still present very imperfect classification of social progress in the material, physical, mental and moral fields [See: 63, 156].

As we know, G. Hegel (Philosophy of Law) belies that the state of society should be recognized sophisticated to that extent, to which the individual has to do less for him/her self, according to his/her own opinion, compared to activities, generally performed [54, 270].

This statement, if translated into modern language, it should be understood as the criterion of social progress is the level of social division of labor.

Russian writer and thinker P. Tkachev, for example, writes on this issue as follows: “Putting in probably complete equality of per­sonalities... and bringing the needs of everyone in perfect harmony with the means of their satisfaction, so the ultimate, the only possi­ble goal of human society, the utmost criterion of historical social process. All that brings the society closer to this goal, is progressive, all that leads away is regressive. Any person who does theoretical or practical work for this purpose is progressive; the one who works in the opposite sense or pursues any other goal is the enemy of progress” [180, 508].

Classics of historical materialism saw the criterion in combina­tion of means of a worker with the means of production. They even introduced a special term, “formation” into circulation of social sci­ence. This is a proverbial point of view in our philosophy that is why it does not require extensive comment.

In the general theory of life based on the thesis that the main in­tegrative function of life as the integrity within the biosphere is its adaptation to space environment, the point of view is being justified that the most important point is the economization of energy. G. Yuhay writes: “Biochemical adaptation as the essence and, therefore, the main criterion for determining of the type that finds its clear expres­sion in energy savings, mainly in substance exchange” [210, 151].

Modern philosophers hold a unique position on this issue. Yes, they have recently formulated “objective criteria of progress,” which claims that the most essential in the functioning of autonomic sys­tems is their activity towards the environment. “Proceeding from it, the degree of activity of autonomic systems: if the activity increas­es, then there is progress, if it is reduced-regression, can be used as an objective criterion of progress of governing forms” [138, 226]. Cited formulation, in our opinion, represents the unsystematic style of thinking, and we agree with R. Abdyeyev that it is not completely proper. “Activity towards the external environment” as a criterion of progress even sounds wrong, because it assumes aggression to the environment. Indeed, according to such a crite­rion, predatory destruction of nature and the evils of fascism can be considered the progress. A famous dictum sounds in the same sense: “We can not expect mercy from nature, our task is to take them”. All this is nothing then the activity to the environment. R. Avdeev writes about this as follows: “Modern science identi­fies the development of systems with the level of reflexive ability, connected with comprehending not only of the environment, its parameters and possibilities, but also of subject itself, his/her self­knowledge, including the assessment of interaction of subject with the environment” [1, 237]. Here, as seen, the progress of forms of governing is indirectly suggested as a criterion of development of systems or social progress.

This is not an exhaustive list of the available literature on ap­proaches to this issue. So we expect no easy task, either to prefer one of them, or to define such a ground, which would dominate by heu­ristic features all of the above, as a criterion. Logical analysis will help to research this issue. The concept of “progress” and “regres­sion” are equally necessary for studying of the problems of social or­ganism. Here, we need to stick with laws, discovered in the relation­ship between these categories, regarding the world of natural organ­isms. The last known were thoroughly examined by A. Syevyertsov. It is obvious that without the concept of regression it is to impossible to explain mutation not only in ontogenesis, which means mutation in relation to a certain social individual, but also in a family of social organisms.

Moreover, the latest fact directly indicates the need of implemen­tation of such category as death of a social organism to this study, because one can only wonder which sequence and internal law of col­lapsing of a social body of old and new time adheres to. Here, the sense of regression we see as the fact that the function vanishes before the social body or total social whole. Here we will restrict ourselves to consideration of this aspect by stating of a new working hypotheses, which we hope to prove in the course oflogical analysis. It means that regression phenomenon in a social organism can be seen only when there is a discrepancy in rates of development of specific functions. For example, the principle of residual allocation to culture (read-de­velopment rights) under the Soviet Union conditions led to the dis­ruption of the whole system. As if to warn us, O. Bogdanov wrote on this matter: “The power of the body is in strict coordination of its parts, in strict congruity of divided and interrelated functions. This line is kept at the growth of technological differences, which runs constantly but not infinite: there finally comes a moment when it can not completely desist and begins to decline” [27, 24]. Regression comes from the most fractional and higher to the elementary and low­er, social formations. No coincidence that in the Soviet Union the Communist Party first collapsed as the ruling party, and then the disintegration of state and economic systems began. Under normal conditions, if one can call self-disintegration of a country a normal condition, the higher bodies are destroyed faster than lower ones. In any case, bodies live longer than their functions, but then they are only “imaginary bodies” [See: 63, 254]. Defeat of a social organism begins with the self-regulatory system. Not coincidently, that polit­ical forms disappear first in the course of public calamities. Histori­cal analogies come to mind at this point themselves.

The fact that in noosocial genesis disappear whole civilization, dissolve the countries and die once powerful states, is well known from history. However, the same process continues even today, as the destruction of the primary social organisms in the economic sphere is happens continuously. And not only in Ukraine, where pro­duction organisms come out to the world already stillborn. Here’s how Kadzuma Tateyisi, the founder and head of the famous Japa­nese corporation “Omron”, in the book Eternal spirit of entrepreneur­ship dwells on this issue:” In Japan, for example, the endless variety of businesses that could not adapt to changes, disappeared like bub­bles. Strangely enough, this process no one paid attention. Unlike human, enterprise, which ceased its activities, leaves behind no mem­ory” [85, 59].

However, regression of a separate organ of a whole society does not assume the general return movement of social evolution at all, because under these circumstances, regression of one organ is linked to the progress of the other organ, which functionally substitutes it. As a result, none of the gains of the previous era finally dies. Old public organs regress and disappear, but in return, the new ones emerge and develop, and under favorable circumstances can reach higher, compared with the old ones development. It would be useful to monitor how the mutation of functions of components of a social organism occurs in the course of the special historical research, so that a coherent picture of regression of a social body can be seen. But this movement takes place in the plane of historical space and time. Nevertheless, a social organism at the same time is in space or geo­logical movement.

In order to reveal the movement of a social organism within an­other plane, namely in the plane of the space movement, the known spiral of development should be applied. It is only unclear, which one: the one that expands, suggested by the classics of historical materi­alism, or the one that narrows, proposed by Abdyeyev [See: 1, 102­114]. Therefore, in the present study it necessary to explain their purpose and limits of survival.

Further on in this study, it is necessary to consider the ecological niche, within which runs the family life of social organisms. This number of organisms mastered as it is shown below, a specific area that does not only have the original nature and properties, but also its own limits. It is believed that the tool of taxonomy was first used in the study of social objects by a group of researchers led by T. Zag- lavskaya [See: 173, 520]. It is also used by V. Nalimov. It is very im­portant for us to establish its parameters and basic attribute proper­ties. Niche breaks into taxons which life of certain types or even in­dividuals of social organisms passes in. Here the nature of interac­tion of social organisms found in the same taxon, and also between those who are in various niches of noosphere, should be explained.

Social organisms, due to a mechanism of transformation, i.e. the change of some settings without changing the appearance, syste­matically either rise to more favorable taxa, or descend to adverse conditions. Our task here is to find the key to the formation of taxa and explain their fundamental difference. Here we do not have a meth­odological tool yet. We will have to create it later on, when the limit separating one type of social organisms from the others is found.

Finally, we should establish a dominant trend of self-development of the planetary social organism, which contains all the knowledge available to our comprehension of the social world. It is clearly, that the unity of mankind as a species of Homo sapiens from the very be­ginning of human history is of no doubt. But humanity as a single planetary social organism started to form only beginning with the era of global capitalist market, and even now this process is far from being completed. This is exactly what Karl Marx meant when writ­ing: “The world history has not always existed; history as world his­tory is a result” [135, 47].

History is gradually becoming a world-wide, the unity “of the world of people” is being formed. At the end of the XXth century it became clear that no country in the world was a self-sufficient or­ganism. Therefore, the basic laws and regularities, which vital activ­ity of an individual social organism conforms to, can only be revealed in phylogeny. Ontological analysis tools include the trends shown by the social world in the course of its self-development.

Finally, the last element we intend to discuss in this study as an element of cognitive tools of the research, are the laws of phylogeny. They need to be found and justified for the explanation of the behav­ior of a family of social organisms, not only within our planetary sys­tem, but the Universe in general. It is natural that in the course of the study of the process of development of attribute characteristics of a social organism, we will actively apply the basic laws and princi­ples of dialectics. However, not all of these laws have the same heu­ristic potential in this case. Stating this, one needs to see that the law of negation of the negation in the processes of self-organization of complex information structures id revealed more actively than the other two well-known laws of dialectics. This is due to the fact that the number of conversions here can be more than three, and the phe­nomenon itself in the course of its dialectical negation does not be­come its opposite right away, but in the interim, but higher level of organization, a new qualitative state. This position will be explained in detail in the course of logical analysis.

Development in nature is a chain of dialectical objections, when not everything can be equally negated. Any objection, rejecting the previous level while preserving everything positive they contain, car­ries out non-entropic selection, creates the ultimate order, increas­ingly concentrating the most pressing (valuable, living) elements and the most apt living structures in the higher branches. Negation of the negation as dialectical law in the processes of self-organization of noosphere considers the aspect of aim setting and conducts non­entropy selection that underlies the viability and harmony of a living nature, technology, society and thinking [See: 1, 281].

Therefore, in the above mentioned view of this law (negation of the negation) expresses (and reflects) dialectical conception of devel­opment to the most full extent. However, the basic laws of dialectics are only the means of understanding of laws of phylogeny, and we must bear it in mind. The law of phylogeny is a special law. It will be the law synthesizing the regularities of self-development of the sec­ond nature. There can be one law or more. Thinking of nothing in advance, we can now only put forward the hypothesis that they will be similar in functions to the first and second laws of thermodynam­ics, which explain the life of the material world.

In addition, there exist a lot of other issues that can be explained, only by realizing the way of behavior of a social organism in phylog­eny. The most pressing of these include: how to combine the integra­tion processes within the framework, let us say, of Europe that is building the European House, with the differentiation of social ma­terial that was destroyed by the Soviet Union as a giant within the coordinates of the Eurasian space.

Only with the help of laws of dialectics it can be shown how a qual­itatively new information civilization steps forward on the arena. Its pace is truly flood. Originated in the 20ies of the XXth century in the bowels of an industrial society, it gave its first germ in the 40ies years, and in the 50-ies there has been much talk about the approach of in­formation economy and transformation of information in the most important merchandise. In the 60ies he there were prophecies about the transformation of the industrial society into the information one. In the early 80ies the most developed countries have already stepped on its first step.

During the 80-90s of the XXth century the main principles of information civilization were formulated: information, manage­ment, self-organization (Toffler, Melvil, Ursul, Abdyeyev). Infor­mation phase of development required not only wide-ranging and har­monious, but also universally developed human. Its main asset is the

emergence of a more universal moral unifying connection between people, much wider than previously existing connections between them, represented by the papacy or pure profit, the gold cells. But they have to answer the most important question: what is the way or path of the planetary social organism? Knowing the answer to this question, it becomes possible to make beforehand corrections in the functioning and development of contemporary social organisms in order not to expose ourselves to unnecessary risk of being grinded in a geological disaster.

At this point we can stop the analysis of philosophical and meth­odological part of research and progress to the epistemological anal­ysis of social phenomena.