The morphological aspect of the social organism
It has already been stated the thought that the mind is nothing else but a basic material the intellect naturally comes from. It is absolutely necessary to especially underline, that simultaneous existence of all updatings of the mind transforms all of them into a uniform substance which is in eternal interaction with itself.
The person or subjectivity according to which superorganic is individual, thus as Hegel writes (Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences), develops into an objective organism, into an image as in some body devided into the parts which differ from each other [56, 398]. It is the absolute organisation or social organism. They can only be united as withdrawn, being different. So, the social organism is the higher potentiality of a category of interaction which is thought in the general form, this category conducts to concept of the second nature or the general organisation in relation to which all individual formations are “accidentals” or accidents.For the explanation of the mechanism formation the social world is rather perspective to apply, in our opinion, a principle of a field, which has entered into A. Gurvich’s biology and which is defended nowadays by B. Kuznin, - they have extended it to the relation between individuals [47, 148-164]. “The principal value of a principle of a field consists in the fact, that he explains the co-ordinated behaviour of numerous components of an organism which develops or structures, and also the co-ordinated actions of separate parts of functioning body or of all organism” [47, 148]. It is explained on the basis of hierarchy of fields in which basis the cell field lays.
The significant contribution into the application of idea of the field organisation to an explanation of the social world brings at the end of the XXth century of M. Setrov, who has developed bases of the functional theory of the organisation and has successfully applied it to an explanation of social processes [154; 158].
Thus, consider expedient to extend a field principle to the social form of a life as last is process, moving of parts and activity of the organic whole: the individual, collective, mankind as kind, together with others taxonomic groups, that is a course of phylogenesis. In all these cases there are structures, the form is created. On its realisation and preservation the directed developments and regulation which proceed according to laws morphogenic (dynamic), morphophylactic (stable) and phylogenetic fields [Stars.: 47, 156].
It is thus important to notice, that the philosophical idea “a social organism” is comprehension of unity of the form and the content of the social world, “because the form in its most precise meaning is mind as the cognition comprehending in concepts, and the content is the mind as a substantional matter of moral and natural reality” [54, 55].
But the social life as such, is dynamic aspect of the phenomenon which is studied, as an essence social in general as it has been shown above, there is a dialectic interaction of human intelligence among themselves. In other words, studying a social life which proceeds in organismic form, we deal with a field which constantly varies - er- gregor that it is necessary to understand as an intelligible substance.
The uniting force here is the substance of the Semantic Universe or the meaning content of the Reason as the general attributive property, spiritual in general and reformative individual and collective consciousness, in particular. The self-realisation of the sense, hidden in the products - the messages of collective and individual consciousness just is also shown as an external pressure on the separate subject (individual). It logically follows the explanation of how and why the ideas, as A. Comte mentioned, or the emotions, - the product of our perception of the outer world, as H. Spenser wrote, prevail in the society.
To the products of social origin which are capable to pressurize on the person, the senses and objective process of collective thinking, as being in a condition of change the form noumenal lives of a basic substance should be reffered.
Supporting our research position, we again will refer to the well-grounded in E. Durkheim’s work The Rules of Sociological Method specific property of the social facts - to make an external pressure on the person. He writes that the category of the facts, which differ by rather specific properties, turns out to be as follows; it consists of mentality (ways of thinking), activity and perseption, which are exterior to the individual and endowed with coercive force owing to which theyare imposed to it [72, 413].Though, under the duplicity of the motives, there are two types of the pressure on the participants of the process of integration, they are: psychological - at the stage of initiating of the social world and intellectual - at the stage of functioning. They are shown in opposite planes. And means of pressure here are different. If psychological means is connected, first of all, with archetypes, symbols, i.e. with the irrational, intellectual means is connected with products of mind - knowledge. Their presence in social process requires further explanation, as they are, obviously, two versions of communications between the person and the society, based on the sense as the inner world content.
About the psychological aspect of the given problem it is possible to get much useful information from the classical inheritance of the psychological science, for example, in C. Jung’s works. Of the modern writers we can specify here a peculiar work of O. Donchenko Societal mentality [See: 70].
Much more complicated problem seems, when concerning the explanation of intellectual type of pressure of the collective on the individual. Its mechanism is still poorly developed in social philosophy. Thus individual and collective consciousness in practice, as a rule, concern one to one as contrasts which it is impossible to discharge, but development of one of them another necessarily connected with restriction.
One of the most authentic versions of an explanation as the mechanism of an intellectual pressure works, we find in V.
Nalimov’s and V. Bichenkov’s works. So, for example, V. Bichenkov in this occasion writes: “Having overstepped the bounds of consciousness, becoming financially fixed text, the spiritual product gets independence even in relation to the creator. In such kind it will appear capable to carry out a role of the intermediary in relations and communications between people. The text is actually estranged form of social action, that is the action, estranged from its subject and consequently is capable to cause changes in consciousness and in behaviour of another subject with a certain time lag” [33, 757].The society, producing the pressure on the person, forces it to come into contact with it. In this case the circulation of the intelligible substance appears in local borders. So the original loop of a inversion is formed at the stage of functioning of the social world. It is a local inversion, which belongs to the social motion of universum. The turnaround, that we have just discovered, has confused many researchers as to the question: which primary, the person or a society? Now the answer about functions of the person and a society in a social organism becomes, in our opinion, more clear.
So, in present research we recognise that the person and a society are two opposites of the same contradiction which we name a social organism.
Definition of a social organism as dialectic contradiction is a naturally determined step and hardly capable today to cause in somebody serious objections, especially after above mentioned facts. In the given dialectic contradiction the person is negative contrast of revolutionary character, for he wishes to destroy it. The society, on the contrary, is positive contrast of conservative character, for it wishes it to retain it.
Thus, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact, that the social organism as the object and the process has some parametrical characteristics. There are no contradictions between them, for the logic categories pass one into another.
It was vividly shown by K.Marx, who defined the public relation as forms of activity of people in the production process. These material relations are the just necessary forms, in which their material and individual activity is realized [See: 133, 403]. At the same time it is known, that he considered activity as the process of implementation of the essence forces of the person in subject forms.In this connection a social organism as the original content of the second nature (the social world), has some forms of expression, they are: essential - in the form of interaction of people among themselves; functional - in the form of human activity; ontological - in the form of the public relation; logical - in the form of knowledge; substantive - in the form of intelligible substance; noumenal - in the form of phenotype information; subjectivized - in the form of natural or essence forces of the person; objectivized - in the form of society; physical - in the form of weak electromagnetic radiation. It is natural, that in the course of the system analysis it is advisable to use all its modifications, at the same time in the course of specific analysis it is required to keep to that form, in which a social phenomenon exists at the moment.
There is one more force measure to which it is necessary to pay special attention in the course of consideration a social organism. Its essence consists in the fact, that as live integrity it should be made from the system of morphological units - bodies. From the literature it clearly follows, that the bodies, which provide to it the characteristics of the rational live beings, different kinds of social institutes act. Social institutes, in particular, provide a variety of functions in the social system. Due to them, the person in a society repeatedly comes into interaction with other people in formal and informal way.
It is worth to mention, that the social institutes E. Durkheim (The Division of Labor in Society), for example, understood as all beliefs, all ways of behaviour established by the group [See: 72, 405], and T.
Veblen (The Theoty of Leisure Class) considered that the institute is the established way of mentality, fixed in customs or an order, following to which people live [See: 35, 201-202].In the modern literature of our country the social institutes are understood as set of different forms of the organisation and regulation of the public relation, special establishments, system of norms, social roles which provide realisation of the functions necessary for existence and development of social relation or a society as a whole. The state, political parties, army, court is social institutes, for example, a family, the right, morals, etc. The appearance of social institutes is caused by objective requirement of a society for special production processes and the regulation of social relations or fields of activity.
In other words, in the morphogenes of a social body there is a moment when it obtains its own means of self-development. We relate the social institutes to them. Otherwise they can be related with every reason to the formations of the infraorganismal origin. Their function is to create the tissue of a social organism. The person cannot avoid contacts with the social institutes. They accompany him all his life.
So, social institutes as functional bodies of society we name primary according to their time of origin, infraorganismal according to their vital functions, tissual according to their purpose, and the most elementary according to their application.
Morphogenesis of the social world at the last stage of maturing of a public organism finishes with the formation of a social body. Thus substantivity of a social organism lies in the concept, that it is such level of self-movement of the universum, which is based on the universal material-spiritual interaction of the people, organised in social communities. It is promoted by the presence of two different systems of tools of work, which are used in two kinds of fundamental interactions of people among themselves. One of them proceeds in a horizontal plane, and the other, as the subject is placed at different levels, in a vertical plane.
As far as it is possible to present a social organism as the separate individual who has a morphological body, for bringing the consideration of the morphogenic aspect to the end, it is necessary to consider its topology.
3.3.